C# Is it possible to interrupt a specific thread inside a ThreadPool?

C# Is it possible to interrupt a specific thread inside a ThreadPool? - c#

Suppose that I've queued a work item in a ThreadPool, but the work item blocks if there is no data to process (reading from a BlockingQueue). If the queue is empty and there will be no more work going into the queue, then I must call the Thread.Interrupt method if I want to interrupt the blocking task, but how does one do the same thing with a ThreadPool?
The code might look like this:
void Run()
{
try
{
while(true)
{
blockingQueue.Dequeue();
doSomething();
}
}
finally
{
countDownLatch.Signal();
}
}
I'm aware that the best thing to do in this situation is use a regular Thread, but I'm wondering if there is a ThreadPool equivalent way to interrupt a work item.

Which BlockingQueue is that? Is that a BCL class? TPL class? Or custom?
No matter; simply - I wouldn't. You could do something early in the thread's life to store the thread reference, but I simply wouldn't use the ThreadPool for this job as it sounds like it is longer running. A regular Thread would seem more appropriate.
I'm also surprised that there is no inbuilt method of telling the queue to release all the workers - I've written blocking queues before, and I tend to use the pattern (for example, from here):
public bool TryDequeue(out T value) {...}
with this:
returning true immediately if there is data
blocking and (eventually) returning true if there isn't data but some is added
blocking and (eventually) returning false if the queue is being shut down

Related

How can I make a interrupt in C#? [duplicate]

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Unfortunately there may not be a better option. It really depends on your specific scenario. The idea is to stop the thread gracefully at safe points. That is the crux of the reason why Thread.Abort is not good; because it is not guaranteed to occur at safe points. By sprinkling the code with a stopping mechanism you are effectively manually defining the safe points. This is called cooperative cancellation. There are basically 4 broad mechanisms for doing this. You can choose the one that best fits your situation.
Poll a stopping flag
You have already mentioned this method. This a pretty common one. Make periodic checks of the flag at safe points in your algorithm and bail out when it gets signalled. The standard approach is to mark the variable volatile. If that is not possible or inconvenient then you can use a lock. Remember, you cannot mark a local variable as volatile so if a lambda expression captures it through a closure, for example, then you would have to resort to a different method for creating the memory barrier that is required. There is not a whole lot else that needs to be said for this method.
Use the new cancellation mechanisms in the TPL
This is similar to polling a stopping flag except that it uses the new cancellation data structures in the TPL. It is still based on cooperative cancellation patterns. You need to get a CancellationToken and the periodically check IsCancellationRequested. To request cancellation you would call Cancel on the CancellationTokenSource that originally provided the token. There is a lot you can do with the new cancellation mechanisms. You can read more about here.
Use wait handles
This method can be useful if your worker thread requires waiting on an specific interval or for a signal during its normal operation. You can Set a ManualResetEvent, for example, to let the thread know it is time to stop. You can test the event using the WaitOne function which returns a bool indicating whether the event was signalled. The WaitOne takes a parameter that specifies how much time to wait for the call to return if the event was not signaled in that amount of time. You can use this technique in place of Thread.Sleep and get the stopping indication at the same time. It is also useful if there are other WaitHandle instances that the thread may have to wait on. You can call WaitHandle.WaitAny to wait on any event (including the stop event) all in one call. Using an event can be better than calling Thread.Interrupt since you have more control over of the flow of the program (Thread.Interrupt throws an exception so you would have to strategically place the try-catch blocks to perform any necessary cleanup).
Specialized scenarios
There are several one-off scenarios that have very specialized stopping mechanisms. It is definitely outside the scope of this answer to enumerate them all (never mind that it would be nearly impossible). A good example of what I mean here is the Socket class. If the thread is blocked on a call to Send or Receive then calling Close will interrupt the socket on whatever blocking call it was in effectively unblocking it. I am sure there are several other areas in the BCL where similiar techniques can be used to unblock a thread.
Interrupt the thread via Thread.Interrupt
The advantage here is that it is simple and you do not have to focus on sprinkling your code with anything really. The disadvantage is that you have little control over where the safe points are in your algorithm. The reason is because Thread.Interrupt works by injecting an exception inside one of the canned BCL blocking calls. These include Thread.Sleep, WaitHandle.WaitOne, Thread.Join, etc. So you have to be wise about where you place them. However, most the time the algorithm dictates where they go and that is usually fine anyway especially if your algorithm spends most of its time in one of these blocking calls. If you algorithm does not use one of the blocking calls in the BCL then this method will not work for you. The theory here is that the ThreadInterruptException is only generated from .NET waiting call so it is likely at a safe point. At the very least you know that the thread cannot be in unmanaged code or bail out of a critical section leaving a dangling lock in an acquired state. Despite this being less invasive than Thread.Abort I still discourage its use because it is not obvious which calls respond to it and many developers will be unfamiliar with its nuances.

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.

C# await on a List<T> Count

I am upgrading some legacy WinForms code and I am trying to figure out what the "right way" as of .NET 4.6.1 to refactor the following.
The current code is doing a tight while(true) loop while checking a bool property. This property puts a lock() on a generic List<T> and then returns true if it has no items (list.Count == 0).
The loop has the dreaded Application.DoEvents() in it to make sure the message pump continues processing, otherwise it would lock up the application.
Clearly, this needs to go.
My confusion is how to start a basic refactoring where it still can check the queue length, while executing on a thread and not blowing out the CPU for no reason. A delay between checks here is fine, even a "long" one like 100ms+.
I was going to go with an approach that makes the method async and lets a Task run to do the check:
await Task.Run(() => KeepCheckingTheQueue());
Of course, this keeps me in the situation of the method needing to ... loop to check the state of the queue.
Between the waiting, awaiting, and various other methods that can be used to move this stuff to the thread pool ... any suggestion on how best to handle this?

What I need is how to best "poll' a boolean member (or property) while freeing the UI, without the DoEvents().
The answer you're asking for:
private async Task WaitUntilAsync(Func<bool> func)
{
while (!func())
await Task.Delay(100);
}
await WaitUntilAsync(() => list.Count == 0);
However, polling like this is a really poor approach. If you can describe the actual problem your code is solving, then you can get better solutions.
For example, if the list represents some queue of work, and your code is wanting to asynchronously wait until it's done, then this can be better coded using an explicit signal (e.g., TaskCompletionSource<T>) or a true producer/consumer queue (e.g., TPL Dataflow).

It's generally never a good idea for client code to worry about locking a collection (or sprinkling your code with lock() blocks everywhere) before querying it. Best to encapsulate that complexity out.
Instead I recommend using one of the .NET concurrent collections such as ConcurrentBag. No need for creating a Task which is somewhat expensive.
If your collection does not change much you might want to consider one of the immutable thread-safe collections such as ImmutableList<>.
EDIT: Upon reading your comments I suggest you use a WinForms Timer; OnApplicationIdle or BackgroundWorker. The problem with async is that you still need to periodically call it. Using a timer or app idle callback offers the benefit of using the GUI thread.

Depending on the use case, you could start a background thread or a background worker. Or maybe even a timer.
Those are executed in a different thread, and are therefore not locking the execution of your other form related code. Invoke the original thread if you have to perform actions on the UI thread.
I would also recommend to prevent locking as much as possible, for example by doing a check before actually locking:
if (list.Count == 0)
{
lock (lockObject)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
{
// execute your code here
}
}
}
That way you are only locking if you really need to and you avoid unnecessary blocking of your application.

I think what you're after here is the ability to await Task.Yield().
class TheThing {
private readonly List<int> _myList = new List<int>();
public async Task WaitForItToNotBeEmpty() {
bool hadItems;
do {
await Task.Yield();
lock (_myList) // Other answers have touched upon this locking concern
hadItems = _myList.Count != 0;
} while (!hadItems);
}
// ...
}

C# - Queue Management that that always run and Dequeing

I need to build a process that listen in WCF for new tasks. (Async)
Every Task get Enqueue'ed (somehow).
What is the Best (Logical and Performance) way to loop the queue and Dequeue it.
I thought about:
while(true){
queue.Dequeue();
}
I assume that there are better ways to do that.
Thanks

Have a look at System.Collections.Concurrent namespace - there is thread-safe queue implementation viz. ConcurrentQueue - although, I suspect that your needs would be better served by BlockingCollection.
Blocking collection is essentially a thread-safe collection useful for producer-consumer scenario. In your case, WCF calls will act as producers that will add to the collection while the worker thread will act as consumer who would essentially take queued tasks from the collection. By using single consumer (and collection), you can ensure order of execution. If that's not important then you may able to use multiple consumer threads. (There are also AddAny and TakeAny static overloads that will allow you to use multiple collections (multiple queues) if that is the need.)
The advantage over while(true) approach would be avoidance of tight loop that will just consume CPU cycles. Apart from having thread-safe, this would also solve issue of synchronization between queuing and de-queuing threads.
EDIT:
Blocking Collection is really very simple to use. See below simple example - add task will invoked from say your WCF methods to queue up tasks while StartConsumer will be called during service start-up.
public class MyTask { ... }
private BlockingCollection<MyTask> _tasks = new BlockingCollection<MyTask>();
private void AddTask(MyTask task)
{
_tasks.Add(task);
}
private void StartConsumer()
{
// I have used a task API but you can very well launch a new thread instead of task
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
while (!_tasks.IsCompleted)
{
var task = _tasks.Take();
ProcessTask(task);
}
});
}
While stopping service, one need to invoke _tasks.CompleteAdding so that consumer thread will break.
Find more examples on MSDN:
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd997306.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460690.aspx
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd460684.aspx

Instead of the infinite loop, I would use events to synchronize the queue. Whenever the WCF call is made, add an element to the queue and send out a "AnElementHasBeenAddedEvent".
The Thread executing the queued tasks listens for that event and whenever it receives it, the queue will be emptied.
Make sure there is only one thread that does this job!
Advantages over the while(true) concept: You do not have a thread that constantly loops through the endless loop and thus eats resources. You only do as much work as needed.

Question about terminating a thread cleanly in .NET

I understand Thread.Abort() is evil from the multitude of articles I've read on the topic, so I'm currently in the process of ripping out all of my abort's in order to replace it for a cleaner way; and after comparing user strategies from people here on stackoverflow and then after reading "How to: Create and Terminate Threads (C# Programming Guide)" from MSDN both which state an approach very much the same -- which is to use a volatile bool approach checking strategy, which is nice, but I still have a few questions....
Immediately what stands out to me here, is what if you do not have a simple worker process which is just running a loop of crunching code? For instance for me, my process is a background file uploader process, I do in fact loop through each file, so that's something, and sure I could add my while (!_shouldStop) at the top which covers me every loop iteration, but I have many more business processes which occur before it hits it's next loop iteration, I want this cancel procedure to be snappy; don't tell me I need to sprinkle these while loops every 4-5 lines down throughout my entire worker function?!
I really hope there is a better way, could somebody please advise me on if this is in fact, the correct [and only?] approach to do this, or strategies they have used in the past to achieve what I am after.
Thanks gang.
Further reading: All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me. What if it is a linear, but timely background operation?

Well, unfortunately in multithreading you often have to compromise "snappiness" for cleanliness... you can exit a thread immediately if you Interrupt it, but it won't be very clean. So no, you don't have to sprinkle the _shouldStop checks every 4-5 lines, but if you do interrupt your thread then you should handle the exception and exit out of the loop in a clean manner.
Update
Even if it's not a looping thread (i.e. perhaps it's a thread that performs some long-running asynchronous operation or some type of block for input operation), you can Interrupt it, but you should still catch the ThreadInterruptedException and exit the thread cleanly. I think that the examples you've been reading are very appropriate.
Update 2.0
Yes I have an example... I'll just show you an example based on the link you referenced:
public class InterruptExample
{
private Thread t;
private volatile boolean alive;
public InterruptExample()
{
alive = false;
t = new Thread(()=>
{
try
{
while (alive)
{
/* Do work. */
}
}
catch (ThreadInterruptedException exception)
{
/* Clean up. */
}
});
t.IsBackground = true;
}
public void Start()
{
alive = true;
t.Start();
}
public void Kill(int timeout = 0)
{
// somebody tells you to stop the thread
t.Interrupt();
// Optionally you can block the caller
// by making them wait until the thread exits.
// If they leave the default timeout,
// then they will not wait at all
t.Join(timeout);
}
}

If cancellation is a requirement of the thing you're building, then it should be treated with as much respect as the rest of your code--it may be something you have to design for.
Lets assume that your thread is doing one of two things at all times.
Something CPU bound
Waiting for the kernel
If you're CPU bound in the thread in question, you probably have a good spot to insert the bail-out check. If you're calling into someone else's code to do some long-running CPU-bound task, then you might need to fix the external code, move it out of process (aborting threads is evil, but aborting processes is well-defined and safe), etc.
If you're waiting for the kernel, then there's probably a handle (or fd, or mach port, ...) involved in the wait. Usually if you destroy the relevant handle, the kernel will return with some failure code immediately. If you're in .net/java/etc. you'll likely end up with an exception. In C, whatever code you already have in place to handle system call failures will propagate the error up to a meaningful part of your app. Either way, you break out of the low-level place fairly cleanly and in a very timely manner without needing new code sprinkled everywhere.
A tactic I often use with this kind of code is to keep track of a list of handles that need to be closed and then have my abort function set a "cancelled" flag and then close them. When the function fails it can check the flag and report failure due to cancellation rather than due to whatever the specific exception/errno was.
You seem to be implying that an acceptable granularity for cancellation is at the level of a service call. This is probably not good thinking--you are much better off cancelling the background work synchronously and joining the old background thread from the foreground thread. It's way cleaner becasue:
It avoids a class of race conditions when old bgwork threads come back to life after unexpected delays.
It avoids potential hidden thread/memory leaks caused by hanging background processes by making it possible for the effects of a hanging background thread to hide.
There are two reasons to be scared of this approach:
You don't think you can abort your own code in a timely fashion. If cancellation is a requirement of your app, the decision you really need to make is a resource/business decision: do a hack, or fix your problem cleanly.
You don't trust some code you're calling because it's out of your control. If you really don't trust it, consider moving it out-of-process. You get much better isolation from many kinds of risks, including this one, that way.

The best answer largely depends on what you're doing in the thread.
Like you said, most answers revolve around polling a shared boolean every couple lines. Even though you may not like it, this is often the simplest scheme. If you want to make your life easier, you can write a method like ThrowIfCancelled(), which throws some kind of exception if you're done. The purists will say this is (gasp) using exceptions for control flow, but then again cacelling is exceptional imo.
If you're doing IO operations (like network stuff), you may want to consider doing everything using async operations.
If you're doing a sequence of steps, you could use the IEnumerable trick to make a state machine. Example:
<
abstract class StateMachine : IDisposable
{
public abstract IEnumerable<object> Main();
public virtual void Dispose()
{
/// ... override with free-ing code ...
}
bool wasCancelled;
public bool Cancel()
{
// ... set wasCancelled using locking scheme of choice ...
}
public Thread Run()
{
var thread = new Thread(() =>
{
try
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
foreach(var x in Main())
{
if(wasCancelled) return;
}
}
finally { Dispose(); }
});
thread.Start()
}
}
class MyStateMachine : StateMachine
{
public override IEnumerabl<object> Main()
{
DoSomething();
yield return null;
DoSomethingElse();
yield return null;
}
}
// then call new MyStateMachine().Run() to run.
>
Overengineering? It depends how many state machines you use. If you just have 1, yes. If you have 100, then maybe not. Too tricky? Well, it depends. Another bonus of this approach is that it lets you (with minor modifications) move your operation into a Timer.tick callback and void threading altogether if it makes sense.
and do everything that blucz says too.

Perhaps the a piece of the problem is that you have such a long method / while loop. Whether or not you are having threading issues, you should break it down into smaller processing steps. Let's suppose those steps are Alpha(), Bravo(), Charlie() and Delta().
You could then do something like this:
public void MyBigBackgroundTask()
{
Action[] tasks = new Action[] { Alpha, Bravo, Charlie, Delta };
int workStepSize = 0;
while (!_shouldStop)
{
tasks[workStepSize++]();
workStepSize %= tasks.Length;
};
}
So yes it loops endlessly, but checks if it is time to stop between each business step.

You don't have to sprinkle while loops everywhere. The outer while loop just checks if it's been told to stop and if so doesn't make another iteration...
If you have a straight "go do something and close out" thread (no loops in it) then you just check the _shouldStop boolean either before or after each major spot inside the thread. That way you know whether it should continue on or bail out.
for example:
public void DoWork() {
RunSomeBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
RunSomeOtherBigMethod();
if (_shouldStop){ return; }
//....
}

Instead of adding a while loop where a loop doesn't otherwise belong, add something like if (_shouldStop) CleanupAndExit(); wherever it makes sense to do so. There's no need to check after every single operation or sprinkle the code all over with them. Instead, think of each check as a chance to exit the thread at that point and add them strategically with this in mind.

All these SO responses assume the worker thread will loop. That doesn't sit comfortably with me
There are not a lot of ways to make code take a long time. Looping is a pretty essential programming construct. Making code take a long time without looping takes a huge amount of statements. Hundreds of thousands.
Or calling some other code that is doing the looping for you. Yes, hard to make that code stop on demand. That just doesn't work.

C# Improvement on a Fire-and-Forget

Greetings
I have a program that creates multiples instances of a class, runs the same long-running Update method on all instances and waits for completion. I'm following Kev's approach from this question of adding the Update to ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem.
In the main prog., I'm sleeping for a few minutes and checking a Boolean in the last child to see if done
while(!child[child.Length-1].isFinished) {
Thread.Sleep(...);
}
This solution is working the way I want, but is there a better way to do this? Both for the independent instances and checking if all work is done.
Thanks
UPDATE:
There doesn't need to be locking. The different instances each have a different web service url they request from, and do similar work on the response. They're all doing their own thing.

If you know the number of operations that will be performed, use a countdown and an event:
Activity[] activities = GetActivities();
int remaining = activities.Length;
using (ManualResetEvent finishedEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false))
{
foreach (Activity activity in activities)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s =>
{
activity.Run();
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref remaining) == 0)
finishedEvent.Set();
});
}
finishedEvent.WaitOne();
}
Don't poll for completion. The .NET Framework (and the Windows OS in general) has a number of threading primitives specifically designed to prevent the need for spinlocks, and a polling loop with Sleep is really just a slow spinlock.

You can try Semaphore.

A blocking way of waiting is a bit more elegant than polling. See the Monitor.Wait/Monitor.Pulse (Semaphore works ok too) for a simple way to block and signal. C# has some syntactic sugar around the Monitor class in the form of the lock keyword.

This doesn't look good. There is almost never a valid reason to assume that when the last thread is completed that the other ones are done as well. Unless you somehow interlock the worker threads, which you should never do. It also makes little sense to Sleep(), waiting for a thread to complete. You might as well do the work that thread is doing.
If you've got multiple threads going, give them each a ManualResetEvent. You can wait on completion with WaitHandle.WaitAll(). Counting down a thread counter with the Interlocked class can work too. Or use a CountdownLatch.

We Keep Coding

C# (C-Sharp) is a programming language developed by Microsoft that runs on the .NET Framework.