How can I create multiple threads and wait for all of them to complete?
It depends which version of the .NET Framework you are using. .NET 4.0 made thread management a whole lot easier using Tasks:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Task task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task task3 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => doStuff());
Task.WaitAll(task1, task2, task3);
Console.WriteLine("All threads complete");
}
static void doStuff()
{
//do stuff here
}
}
In previous versions of .NET you could use the BackgroundWorker object, use ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(), or create your threads manually and use Thread.Join() to wait for them to complete:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread t1 = new Thread(doStuff);
t1.Start();
Thread t2 = new Thread(doStuff);
t2.Start();
Thread t3 = new Thread(doStuff);
t3.Start();
t1.Join();
t2.Join();
t3.Join();
Console.WriteLine("All threads complete");
}
I think you need WaitHandler.WaitAll. Here is an example:
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
int numOfThreads = 10;
WaitHandle[] waitHandles = new WaitHandle[numOfThreads];
for (int i = 0; i < numOfThreads; i++)
{
var j = i;
// Or you can use AutoResetEvent/ManualResetEvent
var handle = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset);
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(j * 1000);
Console.WriteLine("Thread{0} exits", j);
handle.Set();
});
waitHandles[j] = handle;
thread.Start();
}
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waitHandles);
Console.WriteLine("Main thread exits");
Console.Read();
}
FCL has a few more convenient functions.
(1) Task.WaitAll, as well as its overloads, when you want to do some tasks in parallel (and with no return values).
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething1()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething2()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomething3())
};
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
(2) Task.WhenAll when you want to do some tasks with return values. It performs the operations and puts the results in an array. It's thread-safe, and you don't need to using a thread-safe container and implement the add operation yourself.
var tasks = new[]
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething1()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething2()),
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => GetSomething3())
};
var things = Task.WhenAll(tasks);
I've made a very simple extension method to wait for all threads of a collection:
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace Extensions {
public static class ThreadExtension {
public static void WaitAll (this IEnumerable<Thread> threads) {
if (threads != null) {
foreach (Thread thread in threads) {
thread.Join();
}
}
}
}
}
Then you simply call:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
// Add your threads to this collection
threads.WaitAll();
In .NET 4.0, you can use the Task Parallel Library.
In earlier versions, you can create a list of Thread objects in a loop, calling Start on each one, and then make another loop and call Join on each one.
If you don't want to use the Task class (for instance, in .NET 3.5), you can just start all your threads, and then add them to the list and join them in a foreach loop.
Example:
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
// Start threads
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
int tmp = i; // Copy value for closure
Thread t = new Thread(() => Console.WriteLine(tmp));
t.Start();
threads.Add(t);
}
// Join threads (wait threads)
foreach (Thread thread in threads) {
thread.Join();
}
I don't know if there is a better way, but the following describes how I did it with a counter and background worker thread.
private object _lock = new object();
private int _runningThreads = 0;
private int Counter{
get{
lock(_lock)
return _runningThreads;
}
set{
lock(_lock)
_runningThreads = value;
}
}
Now whenever you create a worker thread, increment the counter:
var t = new BackgroundWorker();
// Add RunWorkerCompleted handler
// Start thread
Counter++;
In work completed, decrement the counter:
private void RunWorkerCompleted(object sender, RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
Counter--;
}
Now you can check for the counter anytime to see if any thread is running:
if(Couonter>0){
// Some thread is yet to finish.
}
Most proposed answers don't take into account a time-out interval, which is very important to prevent a possible deadlock. Next is my sample code. (Note that I'm primarily a Win32 developer, and that's how I'd do it there.)
//'arrRunningThreads' = List<Thread>
//Wait for all threads
const int knmsMaxWait = 3 * 1000; //3 sec timeout
int nmsBeginTicks = Environment.TickCount;
foreach(Thread thrd in arrRunningThreads)
{
//See time left
int nmsElapsed = Environment.TickCount - nmsBeginTicks;
int nmsRemain = knmsMaxWait - nmsElapsed;
if(nmsRemain < 0)
nmsRemain = 0;
//Then wait for thread to exit
if(!thrd.Join(nmsRemain))
{
//It didn't exit in time, terminate it
thrd.Abort();
//Issue a debugger warning
Debug.Assert(false, "Terminated thread");
}
}
In my case, I could not instantiate my objects on the the thread pool with Task.Run() or Task.Factory.StartNew(). They would not synchronize my long running delegates correctly.
I needed the delegates to run asynchronously, pausing my main thread for their collective completion. The Thread.Join() would not work since I wanted to wait for collective completion in the middle of the parent thread, not at the end.
With the Task.Run() or Task.Factory.StartNew(), either all the child threads blocked each other or the parent thread would not be blocked, ... I couldn't figure out how to go with async delegates because of the re-serialization of the await syntax.
Here is my solution using Threads instead of Tasks:
using (EventWaitHandle wh = new EventWaitHandle(false, EventResetMode.ManualReset))
{
int outdex = mediaServerMinConnections - 1;
for (int i = 0; i < mediaServerMinConnections; i++)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
sshPool.Enqueue(new SshHandler());
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref outdex) < 1)
wh.Set();
}).Start();
}
wh.WaitOne();
}
Related
I want to run some method in few threads, this method take some argument.
When I try to execute this, my test not passed on it, because some thread not working to end. But, at the end of function I use Foreach { thread.join }
Here is my code: (Paths - List of some objects. Parse - method with obj from Paths.)
public void RunAsync()
{
Thread[] threadArr = new Thread[Paths.Count];
var pathsArr = Paths.ToArray();
for (int i = 0; i < PathsArr.Length; i++)
{
threadArr[i] = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(Parse));
threadArr[i].Start((PathsArr[i]));
}
foreach (var thread in threadArr)
{
thread.Join();
}
}
How can I fix it or which construction/techniques need to use in that case?
I want to do this in few thread because to do this synchronously is too much long.
Thread.Join() will block you current Thread. This means that every foreach loop will be executed after the last run.
I think you want to Start() your threads to execute them parallel.
Here an Example:
// Example-Work-Method
public static void MyAction(int waitSecs)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting MyAction " + waitSecs);
Thread.Sleep(waitSecs * 1000);
Console.WriteLine("End MyAction " + waitSecs);
}
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
// We create a bunch of actions which we want to executte parallel
Action[] actions = new Action[]
{
new Action(() => MyAction(1)),
new Action(() => MyAction(2)),
new Action(() => MyAction(3)),
new Action(() => MyAction(4)),
new Action(() => MyAction(5)),
new Action(() => MyAction(6)),
new Action(() => MyAction(7)),
new Action(() => MyAction(8)),
new Action(() => MyAction(9)),
new Action(() => MyAction(10)),
};
// create a thread for each action
Thread[] threads = actions.Select(s => new Thread(() => s.Invoke())).ToArray();
// Start all threads
foreach (Thread t in threads)
{
t.Start();
}
// This will "instantly" outputted after start. It won't if we'd use Join()
Console.WriteLine("All threads are running..");
// And now let's wait for the work to be done.
while (threads.Any(t => t.ThreadState != ThreadState.Stopped))
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.WriteLine("Done..");
}
You possibly should ask yourself if you want to call this method Async. Async-Methods in c# bring some other mechanics.
Have a look at this: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/language-reference/keywords/async
I have tasks running that call a method that reads from RabbitMQ. When there is nothing in the queue, the method simply blocks. So the tasks have a "running" status, but aren't actually doing anything. Is there any way to gracefully end these tasks?
The code that accesses the queue is as follows:
private void FindWork(CancellationToken ct)
{
if (ct.IsCancellationRequested)
return;
bool result = false;
bool process = false;
bool queueResult = false;
Work_Work work = null;
try
{
using (Queue workQueue = new Queue(_workQueue))
{
// Look for work on the work queue
workQueue.Open(Queue.Mode.Consume);
work = workQueue.ConsumeWithBlocking<Work_Work>();
// Do some work with the message ...
return;
The tasks are created as follows:
private void Run()
{
while (!_stop)
{
// Remove and stopped tasks from the pool
List<int> removeThreads = new List<int>();
lock (_tasks)
{
foreach (KeyValuePair<int, Task> task in _tasks)
{
if (task.Value.Status != TaskStatus.Running)
{
task.Value.Wait();
removeThreads.Add(task.Value.Id);
}
}
foreach (int taskID in removeThreads)
_tasks.Remove(taskID);
}
CancellationToken ct = _cts.Token;
TaskFactory factory = new TaskFactory(ct, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskContinuationOptions.LongRunning, null);
// Create new tasks if we have room in the pool
while (_tasks.Count < _runningMax)
{
Task task = factory.StartNew(() => FindWork(ct));
lock (_tasks)
_tasks.Add(task.Id, task);
}
// Take a rest so we don't run the CPU to death
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
Currently I have changed my task creation code to look like the following so that I can abort the tasks. I know this is not a good solution, but I don't know what else to do.
while (_tasks.Count < _runningMax)
{
Task task = factory.StartNew(() =>
{
try
{
using (_cts.Token.Register(Thread.CurrentThread.Abort))
{
FindWork(ct);
}
}
catch (ThreadAbortException)
{
return;
}
}, _cts.Token);
_tasks.Add(task.Id, task);
}
Could the following work in your scenario?
Instead of spawning multiple threads and having them waiting in the queue, I would have a single thread in an infinite polling loop and having that one spawn a new thread when a new piede of work comes in. You can add a semaphore to limit the number of threads you create. Check sample code below, I've used a BlockingCollection instead of the RabbitMQ .
public class QueueManager
{
public BlockingCollection<Work> blockingCollection = new BlockingCollection<Work>();
private const int _maxRunningTasks = 3;
static SemaphoreSlim _sem = new SemaphoreSlim(_maxRunningTasks);
public void Queue()
{
blockingCollection.Add(new Work());
}
public void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
Work work = blockingCollection.Take();
_sem.Wait();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(work.DoWork);
}
}
public class Work
{
public void DoWork()
{
Thread.Sleep(5000);
_sem.Release();
Console.WriteLine("Finished work");
}
}
}
and my testing class
class Test
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Consumer c = new Consumer();
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(c.Consume);
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
c.Queue();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
To make this work, you'd need to change ConsumeWithBlocking to support cancellation. I'm not familiar with RabbitMQ, but apparently it supports cancellation on the consumer channel.
So, instead of doing Thread.CurrentThread.Abort from Token.Register callback, do the right thing and cancel the operation gracefully via proper RabbitMQ API.
On a side note, the thread you're currently trying to abort is most likely not the one which is blocked by ConsumeWithBlocking.
I am trying to create a new thread each time Task.Factory.StartNew is called. The question is how to run the code bellow without throwing the exception:
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int firstThreadId = 0;
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => firstThreadId = Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
if (firstThreadId == Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)
throw new Exception("The first thread is reused.");
}
});
}
Console.Read();
}
EDIT: the new code if you comment the first for statement there is no problem. But if you have it, WOW, the message "Thread reused" is written to the console. Can you explain that because I am really confused.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ConcurrentDictionary<int, int> startedThreads = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
startedThreads.AddOrUpdate(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId,
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, (a, b) => b);
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
if (startedThreads.ContainsKey(
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId))
Console.WriteLine("Thread reused");
}
}, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning);
}
});
}
Console.Read();
}
If you specify TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning when starting the task, that provides a hint to the scheduler, which the default scheduler takes as an indicator to create a new thread for the task.
It's only a hint - I'm not sure I'd rely on it... but I haven't seen any counterexamples using the default scheduler.
Adding to Jon Skeet's answer, if you want to guarantee that a new thread is created every time, you can write your own TaskScheduler that creates a new thread.
Try this:
var taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
Thread t = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
Operation();
taskCompletionSource.TrySetResult(true);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
taskCompletionSource.TrySetException(e);
}
});
void Operation()
{
// Some work in thread
}
t.Start();
await taskCompletionSource.Task;
You also can write extension methods for Action, Func and so on.
For example:
public static Task RunInThread(
this Action action,
Action<Thread> initThreadAction = null)
{
TaskCompletionSource<bool> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
Thread thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
action();
taskCompletionSource.TrySetResult(true);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
taskCompletionSource.TrySetException(e);
}
});
initThreadAction?.Invoke(thread);
thread.Start();
return taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
or
public static Task<TResult> RunInThread<T1, T2, TResult>(
this Func<T1, T2, TResult> function,
T1 param1,
T2 param2,
Action<Thread> initThreadAction = null)
{
TaskCompletionSource<TResult> taskCompletionSource = new TaskCompletionSource<TResult>();
Thread thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
TResult result = function(param1, param2);
taskCompletionSource.TrySetResult(result);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
taskCompletionSource.TrySetException(e);
}
});
initThreadAction?.Invoke(thread);
thread.Start();
return taskCompletionSource.Task;
}
and use it like that:
var result = await some_function.RunInThread(param1, param2).ConfigureAwait(true);
Hello and thank you all for the answers. You all got +1. All suggested solution did not work for my case. The problem is that when you sleep a thread it will be reused at some point of time. The people above suggested:
using LongRunning => This will not work if you have nested/child
tasks
custom task scheduler => I tried to write my own and also tried this
ThreadPerTaskScheduler which also di not work.
using pure threads => Still failing...
you could also check this project at Multithreading.Scheduler github
My solution
I don't like it but it works. Basically I block the thread so it cannot be reused. Bellow are the extension methods and a working example. Again, thank you.
https://gist.github.com/4150635
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApplication
{
public static class ThreadExtensions
{
/// <summary>
/// Blocks the current thread for a period of time so that the thread cannot be reused by the threadpool.
/// </summary>
public static void Block(this Thread thread, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
new WakeSleepClass(millisecondsTimeout).SleepThread();
}
/// <summary>
/// Blocks the current thread so that the thread cannot be reused by the threadpool.
/// </summary>
public static void Block(this Thread thread)
{
new WakeSleepClass().SleepThread();
}
/// <summary>
/// Blocks the current thread for a period of time so that the thread cannot be reused by the threadpool.
/// </summary>
public static void Block(this Thread thread, TimeSpan timeout)
{
new WakeSleepClass(timeout).SleepThread();
}
class WakeSleepClass
{
bool locked = true;
readonly TimerDisposer timerDisposer = new TimerDisposer();
public WakeSleepClass(int sleepTime)
{
var timer = new Timer(WakeThread, timerDisposer, sleepTime, sleepTime);
timerDisposer.InternalTimer = timer;
}
public WakeSleepClass(TimeSpan sleepTime)
{
var timer = new Timer(WakeThread, timerDisposer, sleepTime, sleepTime);
timerDisposer.InternalTimer = timer;
}
public WakeSleepClass()
{
var timer = new Timer(WakeThread, timerDisposer, Timeout.Infinite, Timeout.Infinite);
timerDisposer.InternalTimer = timer;
}
public void SleepThread()
{
while (locked)
lock (timerDisposer) Monitor.Wait(timerDisposer);
locked = true;
}
public void WakeThread(object key)
{
locked = false;
lock (key) Monitor.Pulse(key);
((TimerDisposer)key).InternalTimer.Dispose();
}
class TimerDisposer
{
public Timer InternalTimer { get; set; }
}
}
}
class Program
{
private static readonly Queue<CancellationTokenSource> tokenSourceQueue = new Queue<CancellationTokenSource>();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CancellationTokenSource tokenSource = new CancellationTokenSource();
tokenSourceQueue.Enqueue(tokenSource);
ConcurrentDictionary<int, int> startedThreads = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
startedThreads.AddOrUpdate(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, (a, b) => b);
for (int j = 0; j < 50; j++)
Task.Factory.StartNew(() => startedThreads.AddOrUpdate(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, (a, b) => b));
for (int j = 0; j < 50; j++)
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!tokenSource.Token.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (startedThreads.ContainsKey(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)) Console.WriteLine("Thread reused");
Thread.CurrentThread.Block(10);
if (startedThreads.ContainsKey(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId)) Console.WriteLine("Thread reused");
}
}, tokenSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default)
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
WriteExceptions(task.Exception);
Console.WriteLine("-----------------------------");
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
Thread.CurrentThread.Block();
}, tokenSource.Token, TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning, TaskScheduler.Default)
.ContinueWith(task =>
{
WriteExceptions(task.Exception);
Console.WriteLine("-----------------------------");
}, TaskContinuationOptions.OnlyOnFaulted);
}
Console.Read();
}
private static void WriteExceptions(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
if (ex.InnerException != null)
WriteExceptions(ex.InnerException);
}
}
}
Just start threads with new Thread() and then Start() them
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ConcurrentDictionary<int, int> startedThreads = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
new Thread(() =>
{
startedThreads.AddOrUpdate(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, (a, b) => b);
}).Start();
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
{
new Thread(() =>
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
if (startedThreads.ContainsKey(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId))
Console.WriteLine("Thread reused");
}
}).Start();
}
}).Start();
}
Console.Read();
}
Tasks are supposed to be managed by the scheduler. The whole idea of Tasks is that the runtime will decide when a new thread is needed. On the other hand if you do need different threads chances are something else in the code is wrong like overdependency on Thread.Sleep() or thread local storage.
As pointed out you can create your own TaskScheduler and use tasks to create threads but then why use Tasks to begin with?
Here is a custom TaskScheduler that executes the tasks on a dedicated thread per task:
public class ThreadPerTask_TaskScheduler : TaskScheduler
{
protected override void QueueTask(Task task)
{
var thread = new Thread(() => TryExecuteTask(task));
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
protected override bool TryExecuteTaskInline(Task task, bool taskWasPreviouslyQueued)
{
return TryExecuteTask(task);
}
protected override IEnumerable<Task> GetScheduledTasks() { yield break; }
}
Usage example:
var parallelOptions = new ParallelOptions()
{
MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 3,
TaskScheduler = new ThreadPerTask_TaskScheduler()
};
Parallel.ForEach(Enumerable.Range(1, 10), parallelOptions, item =>
{
Console.WriteLine($"{DateTime.Now:HH:mm:ss.fff}" +
$" [{Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}]" +
$" Processing #{item}" +
(Thread.CurrentThread.IsBackground ? ", Background" : "") +
(Thread.CurrentThread.IsThreadPoolThread ? ", ThreadPool" : ""));
Thread.Sleep(1000); // Simulate CPU-bound work
});
Output:
20:38:56.770 [4] Processing #3, Background
20:38:56.770 [5] Processing #2, Background
20:38:56.770 [1] Processing #1
20:38:57.782 [1] Processing #4
20:38:57.783 [8] Processing #5, Background
20:38:57.783 [7] Processing #6, Background
20:38:58.783 [1] Processing #7
20:38:58.783 [10] Processing #8, Background
20:38:58.787 [9] Processing #9, Background
20:38:59.783 [1] Processing #10
Try it on Fiddle.
This custom TaskScheduler allows the current thread to participate in the computations too. This is demonstrated in the above example by the thread [1] processing the items #1, #4, #7 and #10. If you don't want this to happen, just replace the code inside the TryExecuteTaskInline with return false;.
Another example, featuring the Task.Factory.StartNew method. Starting 100 tasks on 100 different threads:
var oneThreadPerTask = new ThreadPerTask_TaskScheduler();
Task[] tasks = Enumerable.Range(1, 100).Select(_ =>
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Thread.Sleep(1000); // Simulate long-running work
}, default, TaskCreationOptions.None, oneThreadPerTask);
}).ToArray();
In this case the current thread is not participating in the work, because all tasks are started behind the scenes by invoking their Start method, and not the
RunSynchronously.
Why do I get this error message? "WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported."
Should I use [MTAThreadAttribute] attribut? Update: Dosn't work with WPF applications!
Note:
It error is at line WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
I'm using a standard WPF project.
private void Search()
{
const int CPUs = 2;
var doneEvents = new ManualResetEvent[CPUs];
// Configure and launch threads using ThreadPool:
for (int i = 0; i < CPUs; i++)
{
doneEvents[i] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
var f = new Indexer(Paths[i], doneEvents[i]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(f.WaitCallBack, i);
}
// Wait for all threads in pool
WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
Debug.WriteLine("Search completed!");
}
Update: The following solution doesn’t work for WPF applications!
It is not possible to change the main application attribute to MTAThreadAttribute. It will result in the following error:
Error: "WaitAll for multiple handles on a STA thread is not supported."
Actually I use the following to replace WaitHandle.WaitAll(doneEvents);
foreach (var e in doneEvents)
e.WaitOne();
What about using the Tasks to do your threading for you.
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.tasks.task.aspx
var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
var task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
var task3 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => DoSomeWork());
Task.WaitAll(task1, task2, task3);
Use one ManualResetEvent and wait on it. Also maintain a TaskCount variable that is set to the number of worker threads you start, use Interlocked.Decrement in the worker thread code as the very last action of the worker and signal the event if the counter reaches zero,e.g.
// other worker actions...
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref taskCount) == 0)
doneEvent.Set();
I would refactor your code to use the CountdownEvent class instead.
private void Search()
{
const int CPUs = 2;
var done = new CountdownEvent(1);
// Configure and launch threads using ThreadPool:
for (int i = 0; i < CPUs; i++)
{
done.AddCount();
var f = new Indexer(Paths[i], doneEvents[i]);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
(state) =>
{
try
{
f.WaitCallBack(state);
}
finally
{
done.Signal();
}
}, i);
}
// Wait for all threads in pool
done.Signal();
done.Wait();
Debug.WriteLine("Search completed!");
}
use something like this:
foreach (ITask Task in Tasks)
{
Task.WaitHandle = CompletedEvent;
new Thread(Task.Run).Start();
}
int TasksCount = Tasks.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < TasksCount; i++)
CompletedEvent.WaitOne();
if (AllCompleted != null)
AllCompleted(this, EventArgs.Empty);
I'm writing a program where I typically start five threads. The threads return in a non-determinate order. Each thread is calling a method which returns a List.
I'm doing this:
var masterList = List<string>();
foreach (var threadParam in threadParams)
{
var expression = threadParam ;
ThreadStart sub = () => MyMethod(expressions);
var thread = new Thread(sub)
{
Name = expression
};
listThreads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
var abort = true;
while (abort) //Wait until all threads finish
{
var count = 0;
foreach (var list in listThreads)
{
if (!list.IsAlive)
{
count++;
}
}
if (count == listThreads.Count)
{
abort = false;
}
}
So here is the problem:
Each thread when it terminates returns a list I would like to append the masterList declared earlier.
How would one go about this?
Also I KNOW there must be a better way than below to wait for all threads to finish
var abort = true;
while (abort) //Wait until all threads finish
{
var count = 0;
foreach (var list in listThreads)
{
if (!list.IsAlive)
{
count++;
}
}
if (count == listThreads.Count)
{
abort = false;
}
}
Use a WaitHandle
Here's an example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
class ThreadSleeper
{
int seconds;
AutoResetEvent napDone = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private ThreadSleeper(int seconds)
{
this.seconds = seconds;
}
public void Nap()
{
Console.WriteLine("Napping {0} seconds", seconds);
Thread.Sleep(seconds * 1000);
Console.WriteLine("{0} second nap finished", seconds);
napDone.Set();
}
public static WaitHandle DoSleep(int seconds)
{
ThreadSleeper ts = new ThreadSleeper(seconds);
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ts.Nap));
thread.Start();
return(ts.napDone);
}
}
public class OperationsThreadsWaitingwithWaitHandle
{
public static void Main()
{
WaitHandle[] waits = new WaitHandle[2];
waits[0] = ThreadSleeper.DoSleep(8);
waits[1] = ThreadSleeper.DoSleep(4);
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for threads to finish");
WaitHandle.WaitAll(waits);
Console.WriteLine("Threads finished");
}
}
Links to check out:
Threads:Waiting with WaitHandle
Jon Skeet's post
Difference between Barrier in C# 4.0 and WaitHandle in C# 3.0?
Novice C# threading: WaitHandles
WaitHandle Exceptions and Work Arounds
Multithreading with C#
WaitHandle, AutoResetEvent and ManualResetEvent Classes in VB.Net
The best way would be to make each thread it's own object. Don't have any intermingling with other objects, all you do is construct it (passing in the variables), add yourself as a listener and start it.
When it's done, it stores the values in a member variable and notifies your listener.
Your listener can retrieve the values at leisure.
The obvious shortcut, returning the values directly to the listener, works but you may find this version more flexible later (and really not much more code)
You can of course use regular delegates as well and APM.
Note that the pattern you describe is normally described as a Future, a background job that promises to return something later on (a return on investment if you may).
Here's a short example, in the form of a console program.
Output:
sequential: 3224 ms
parallel: 2074 ms
Of course, since I'm not constructing explicit threads, I leave it to the threadpool system to figure out how many threads to run in parallel.
There's also provisions to be informed of when the background threads are completed, via a callback method, as well as WaitHandle support to explicitly checking and waiting with timeout, etc.
And the source:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace SO1215227
{
public class Program
{
public static void Main()
{
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Start();
var list1 = Sequence(1, 100);
var list2 = Sequence(101, 200);
var list3 = Sequence(201, 300);
sw.Stop();
Console.Out.WriteLine("sequential: " + sw.ElapsedMilliseconds + " ms");
sw.Reset();
Func<Int32, Int32, List<Int32>> listProducer = Sequence;
sw.Start();
var list1Background = listProducer.BeginInvoke(1, 100, null, null);
var list2Background = listProducer.BeginInvoke(101, 200, null, null);
var list3Background = listProducer.BeginInvoke(201, 300, null, null);
list1 = listProducer.EndInvoke(list1Background);
list2 = listProducer.EndInvoke(list2Background);
list3 = listProducer.EndInvoke(list3Background);
sw.Stop();
Console.Out.WriteLine("parallel: " + sw.ElapsedMilliseconds + " ms");
Console.Out.Write("Press enter to exit...");
Console.In.ReadLine();
}
private static List<Int32> Sequence(Int32 from, Int32 to)
{
List<Int32> result = new List<Int32>();
for (Int32 index = from; index <= to; index++)
{
result.Add(index);
Thread.Sleep(10); // simulate I/O wait
}
return result;
}
}
}
Check out the WaitHandle class and the WaitHandle.WaitAll (I've used the ManualResetEvent class in some of my code for the WaitHandle but it's just from an example. I don't know if there is something better for your situation). Fire off all five threads, give them a reference to your master list, lock this list when adding to it, then signal completion. Use WaitHandle.WaitAll to block until all five have signaled completion.