I am using API that originally was written with native code and wrapped with .net interops. The API is work asynchronic way when each operation raises event when it finished.
All my logic is synchronic so I want to synchronizing the operations. I doing it with EventWaitHandle. here the code
Stock stock;
private System.Threading.EventWaitHandle _signal = null;
public void Sync()
{
_signal = new System.Threading.EventWaitHandle(false,
System.Threading.EventResetMode.AutoReset);
MBTradingProvider.Instance.FinnishGetStoch += new
EventHandler(Instance_FinnishGetStoch);
MBTradingProvider.Instance.GetStockAsync("IBM");
_signal.WaitOne();
}
void Instance_FinnishGetStoch(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
stock = MBTradingProvider.Instance.CurrentWorkongStock;
if (_signal != null)
_signal.Set();
}
This code stuck in the _signal.WaitOne() line, the current thread is freezes and nothing to be happened.
I worked the same pattern on some other async operation and I work fine. The only difference that I can think about is that under the hood works com objects, as I said the effect that I get is that the code not responding after the WaitOne line
Anyone have an idea what can be wrong?
One issue with this code is the assignment of the _signal variable. This variable is atomically set but it is not necessarily visible between all threads involved. You need to use a method like Interlocked.Exchange to ensure the set is visible at the same time in all threads.
System.Threading.EventWaitHandle temp = new System.Threading.EventWaitHandle(false,
System.Threading.EventResetMode.AutoReset);
Interolocked.Exchange(ref _signal, temp);
Also, why are you not using an AutoReset event directly?
Your code seems to be fine to me.
I am assuming the following:
Sync() is executed in ThreadA
Calling GetStockAsync() will create ThreadB, which will perform some task to get stock info
Upon completing to get the stock info, ThreadB, not ThreadA, will execute the event handler, Instance_FinnishGetStoch(),
My rough guess is that the assumption#3 may not be true for your async framework.
You may want to try your code asynchronously and check which thread executes GetStockAsyc() and which thread executes Instance_FinishGetStock() event handler.
If only one thread does both GetStockAsync() and Instance_FinishGetStock(), your code above will be stuck on _signal.WaitOne().
For example, in a winform, if Form.BeginInoke(MyDelegate) is called in the UI thread, MyDelegate will be executed in the same UI thread, yet still asynchronously.
Related
EDIT:
please see question history, for unchanged question in order not to invalidate comments.
I am clicking button that executes certain codes and it creates a thread (System.Threading.Thread). When I reclick button which starts process it hangs and freezes ui. What could be the reason?
public partial class ucLoader : UserControl
{
//lock object for whole instance of class ucLoader
private object lockUcLoader = new object();
//bringing info from ui
private void btnBringInfo_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (lockUcLoader)
{
btnBringInfo_PerformClick(false);
}
}
//using this method because it could be called when even button not visible
internal void btnBringInfo_PerformClick(bool calledFromBandInit)
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //HANGS HERE when called multiple times and ui freeze as well
//by the way I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_Click
{
//...
this.btnLoad_PerformClick();
}
}
//Another button perform click that could be triggered elsewhere when even button not visible
private void btnLoad_PerformClick()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //I am using (repetitive) lock, because this method also called independently from btnBringInfo_PerformClick
{
//...
Run();
}
}
//method for creating thread which System.Threading.Thread
private void Run()
{
lock (lockUcLoader) //Maybe this lock is NOT REQUIRED, as it is called by only btnLoad_PerformClick(), could you please confirm?
{
//some code that thread can be killed when available, you can ingore this two lines as they are irrelevant to subject, I think
Source = new CancellationTokenSource();
Token = Source.Token;
var shell = new WindowsShell();
Thread = new Thread((object o) =>
{
//...
var tokenInThread = (CancellationToken)o;
exitCode =TaskExtractBatchFiles(cls, shell, exitCode);
using (var logEnt = new logEntities())
{
//Do some db operation
//...
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate
{
//do some ui update operation
//...
});
}
}
Thread.Start(Token);
}
}
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
}
In order to avoid get closed question, what my question is how can I prevent
below method can be accesses with out lock from background thread and ui thread
public void Progress(string message)
{
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate //ATTENTION HERE see below picture Wait occurs here
{
if (message != null && message.Trim() != string.Empty)
{
this.txtStatus.AppendText(message + Environment.NewLine);
}
});
}
Invoke((MethodInvoker)delegate ...
Whenever you use the lock statement in your code then you always run the risk of inducing deadlock. One of the classic threading bugs. You generally need at least two locks to get there, acquiring them in the wrong order. And yes, there are two in your program. One you declared yourself. And one you cannot see because it is buried inside the plumbing that makes Control.Invoke() work. Not being able to see a lock is what makes deadlock a difficult problem to debug.
You can reason it out, the lock inside Control.Invoke is necessary to ensure that the worker thread is blocked until the UI thread executed the delegate target. Probably also helps to reason out why the program deadlocked. You started the worker thread, it acquired the lockUcLoader lock and starts doing its job, calling Control.Invoke while doing so. Now you click the button before the worker is done, it necessarily blocks. But that makes the UI thread go catatonic and no longer capable of executing the Control.Invoke code. So the worker thread hangs on the Invoke call and it won't release the lock. And the UI thread hangs forever on the lock since the worker can't complete, deadlock city.
Control.Invoke dates from .NET 1.0, a version of the framework that has several serious design mistakes in code related to threading. While meant to be helpful, they just set death-traps for programmers to blunder into. What is unique about Control.Invoke is that it is never correct to use it.
Distinguish Control.Invoke and Control.BeginInvoke. You only ever need Invoke when you need its return value. Note how you don't, using BeginInvoke instead is good enough and instantly solves the deadlock. You'd consider Invoke to obtain a value from the UI so you can use it in the worker thread. But that induces other major threading issue, a threading race bug, the worker has no idea what state the UI is in. Say, the user might be busy interacting with it, typing a new value. You can't know what value you obtain, it will easily be the stale old value. Inevitably producing a mismatch between the UI and the work being done. The only way to avoid that mishap is to prevent the user from typing a new value, easily done with Enable = false. But now it no longer makes sense to use Invoke, you might as well pass the value when you start the thread.
So using BeginInvoke is already good enough to solve the problem. But that is not where you should stop. There is no point to those locks in the Click event handlers, all they do is make the UI unresponsive, greatly confuzzling the user. What you must do instead is set the Enable properties of those buttons to false. Set them back to true when the worker is done. Now it can't go wrong anymore, you don't need the locks and the user gets good feedback.
There is another serious problem you haven't run into yet but you must address. A UserControl has no control over its lifetime, it gets disposed when the user closes the form on which it is hosted. But that is completely out of sync with the worker thread execution, it keeps calling BeginInvoke even though the control is dead as a doornail. That will make your program bomb, hopefully on an ObjectDisposedException. A threading race bug that a lock cannot solve. The form has to help, it must actively prevent the user from closing it. Some notes about this bug in this Q+A.
For completeness I should mention the third most common threading bug that code like this is likely to suffer from. It doesn't have an official name, I call it a "firehose bug". It occurs when the worker thread calls BeginInvoke too often, giving the UI thread too much work to do. Happens easily, calling it more than about thousand times per second tends to be enough. The UI thread starts burning 100% core, trying to keep up with the invoke requests and never being able to catch up. Easy to see, it stops painting itself and responding to input, duties that are performed with a lower priority. That needs to be fixed the logical way, updating UI more than 25 times per second just produces a blur that the human eye can't observe and is therefore pointless.
My application has a simple feature where it hooks up to Excel and will do drag drop operations between them. Specifically, I am just taking some text values from my application, dragging them into Excel, and dropping them.
This works 90% of the time, but strangely at certain times, my application just freezes. I attach the debugger and pause the execution and it gets stuck at DragDrop.DoDragDrop - this function never returns and my application will forever hang.
Is there a way to ensure the DoDragDrop can return? Or some sort of timeout? This happens only sometimes when I drop the data into Excel, so for what I know, the drop is being completed and the function should return within my application.
Here's the code I use:
DragDrop.DoDragDrop(sender as DependencyObject, draggable.GetDragDropString(), DragDropEffects.Copy);
GetDragDropString() is just a function that returns the string of data to drop in Excel.
sender is just the UI component that I'm dragging. Like a grid, or edit box, text box, etc. Could be any of those.
Thanks for any help!
EDIT: Since there's an issue with DragDrop.DoDragDrop returning in certain cases, perhaps someone can help with writing a proper timeout? I've tried starting a new Thread and having it timeout, which works in simple cases and when the work within the thread doesn't require UI resources. However, when I call DoDragDrop in a new thread with a timeout, it will throw an exception saying the thread cannot access the object because a different thread owns it. So I need to call this function within the same thread. So essentially I need a timeout on the UI thread when this function fails to return in a certain amount of time.
I think the following should do the job but I will break it down as I go along
public class DragDropTimer
{
private delegate void DoDragDropDelegate();
private System.Timers.Timer dragTimer;
private readonly int interval = 3000;
public DragDropTimer()
{
dragTimer = new System.Timers.Timer();
dragTimer.Interval = interval;
dragTimer.Elapsed += new ElapsedEventHandler(DragDropTimerElapsed);
dragTimer.Enabled = false;
dragTimer.AutoReset = false;
}
void DragDropTimerElapsed(object sender, ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
Initiate();
}
public void Initiate()
{
// Stops UI from freezing, call action async.
DoDragDropDelegate doDragDrop = new DoDragDropDelegate(DragDropAction);
// No async callback or object required
doDragDrop.BeginInvoke(null, null);
}
private void DragDropAction()
{
dragTimer.Enabled = false;
// Do your work here. or do work before and disable your timer upto you.
}
}
So we have a basic class DragDropTimer. We set the interval we want on constructor, you may want to change that if you wish and we call the DragDropTimerElapsed on timer elapsed.
Initiate is the function you need to start the drag, its creates a simple delegate and we ask it to execute the DragAction steps, this is where you do all your work and the timer gets disabled. You may choose to disable the timer only if you DragDrop succeeds. If the timer elapses we call Initiate again to start all over again.
Another options is to execute drop in a separate thread in the following manner
Task.Factory.StartNew( () => { ... } );
I know this has been asked before, but I don't think these solutions are flexible. The DocumentCompleted event should be used to determine when the load has completed, not as a method for performing work. If you need to perform several different tasks that each have to navigate several times, placing the logic in the DocumentCompleted event turns it into a messy switch/case router that is hard to read and maintain.
You need something that can actually wait during your method performing navigation so you can continue your task in the method you are already in. My first though is an actual Wait() method.
I would think something like this is close:
void WaitForLoad()
{
isLoading = true;
while (isLoading)
{
if (Application.Current == null) break;
Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.Invoke(DispatcherPriority.Background, (DispatcherOperationCallback)delegate(object unused) { return null; }, null);
}
}
And set Isloading to false in the DocumentCompleted event.
You should be able to just call this method after whatever action will cause a pageload. It works, it has some issues.
1) it sends the CPU usage for the app up to 35% until the page has loaded, even if nothing else is happening.
2) if the application tries to close while its running, the loop will keep running and leave the app open with no windows, hence the need for the break when the app is null.
Can this be fixed, or am I coming at this all the wrong way?
Edit: I tried implementing the ManualResetEvent solution below, but it led to several other issues that I am not sure can be resolved without creating a messier situation than the one above. Since the WebBrowser is on the UI, locking the thread stop the entire app. If the work is done on the background thread it can be locked, but then accessing the WebBrowser becomes very difficult.
In your situation, it sounds like you want a specific thread to block while waiting for the document to load. In that case, you would do something like this:
protected ManualResetEvent _resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void WaitingThread()
{
_resetEvent.WaitOne();
// Do stuff after the web browser completes.
}
public void LoadWebPage()
{
webBrowser.Navigate(new Uri(url));
webBrowser.DocumentCompleted = (s, e) => { _resetEvent.Set(); };
}
Basically, when the document completes, you signal the event and any threads waiting on the event unblock and continue executing.
I noticed that you use Dispatcher.CurrentDispatcher.Invoke this is good for calling your method that somehow updates UI from another thread. But from code provided, I don't see any code in other thread then UI. So
Run that code on another thread.
On the close event of your application you can make isLoading=false; And more, if the method invoked is kind of long running stuff insert
if(!isLoading)
return;
//or in some other app suitable way break an execution
EDIT:
Even better way to handle this in multithreading, then just simply relay on boolean variable, is using some Synchonization object
I have some code that I wrote, which does what I want. However, I am not quite sure how, exactly, it works. The part I am having the most trouble with is the last part. I had a textBox1.Text = "test" which did not work. I got a run time error about it being called from a different thread. When I put the textBox1.Invoke(etc etc), it worked as expected. Why?
As you can see, I know just enough to be dangerous and I really want to understand what's going on here instead of blindly copying and pasting from sites around the web.
I have the following in a class named SerialCommunicator:
public SerialCommunicator(SerialPort sp)
{
this.sp = sp;
sp.ReceivedBytesThreshold = packetSize;
sp.DataReceived += new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(sp_DataReceived);
sp.Open();
}
public void sp_DataReceived(object sender, SerialDataReceivedEventArgs e)
{
Thread.Sleep(50);
SerialPort s = (SerialPort)sender;
byte[] buffer = new byte[128];
s.Read(buffer, 0, s.BytesToRead);
}
Then, in my Form1.cs I have a button that when pressed does the following:
private void btnPortOK_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
string comPort = cboComPorts.SelectedItem.ToString();
SerialPort sp = new SerialPort(comPort, 9600, Parity.None, 8, StopBits.One);
sp.DataReceived += new SerialDataReceivedEventHandler(DataHasBeenReceived);
comm = new SerialCommunicator(sp);
}
public void DataHasBeenReceived(object sender, EventArgs args)
{
textBox1.Invoke(new EventHandler(delegate { textBox1.Text += "test"; }));
}
This is thread-affinity. UI controls don't like to be touched by anything except the thread that created them, but the DataReceived thread happens from a different thread. Adding a call toControl.Invoke pushes an item of work back to the UI thread, so the Text updated can succeed.
I am not an expert on this (there will likely be better answers than this). But as I understand it, the GUI thread "owns" your form. So when you try to update it from a different thread you are crossing the streams.
The Invoke is a way to ask the GUI thread to run a method. Method that it runs is your textBox1.Text += "test";
The idea is by invoking a delegate, that will ask the GUI thread to make the change, rather than just changing the value yourself. This allows allow the change to be done in a thread safe manner.
Here is a good article by Jon Skeet on this issue:
http://www.yoda.arachsys.com/csharp/threads/winforms.shtml
Events are called from the thread where they happen. (Unless specified otherwise).
Think about this way:
When you activate the event, it is actually called as a finction EventName(). So calling an event means actually going to all the methods that were registered to that event and doing them.
But, this is done in the same thread in a serial way.
So if an event happened in a thread that is not your UI thread you'll get theat error.
The issue is that the GUI components only accepts modifications from the GUI thread. So when other threads want to modify the GUI, then they must queue their modification code using measures like control.Invoke(...) which will queue the delegate to be processed as soon as possible on the GUI event queue, and thus the correct thread.
What you run in to is that one of the built-in checks are fired than controls that the calling thread indeed is the correct thread. It is a security measure that makes debugging easier (if they were not present you would have to debug subtle threading issues instead...)
textBox1.Text = "test" doesn't work because you are calling it from another thread (i.e. the DataHasBeenReceived event) then the thread who owns the textbox. That's usually the thread in which your application runs and that creates your GUI interface (and thus your textbox). Invoke works because that methods switches to the GUI thread, sets your text and then switches back to the thread of your DataHasBeenReceived event.
In Net 1.0 and 1.1 you could use GUI controls from another thread then then the one that owned them but this resulted in a lot of problems when threads started accessing the controls at the same time. So, since net 2.0 Microsoft changed that.
If you want to know if must use invoke or not (i.e. if a method can be called from the both the GUI thread or another thread), you can use the property InvokeRequired combined with an if else. A invoke call is slightly more expensive then a direct manipulation of the control.
There is a sequence for FORM(some UI) should get downloaded using service.
Currently, this download is in a BackgroundWorker Thread.
Now, since the performance is slow... We decided to categories the FORMS into 2 and start downloading parallely using another BackgroundWorker on top of the existing Thread.
Now, the scenario is the either of this BackgroundWorker should wait for other to complete.
So, how to implement it.
I tried with AutoResetEvent. but, i could not achieve this.
Any help is appreciated.
I don't think that the scenario is really that one BackgroundWorker should wait for another. What you really want is to fire some UI event after (and only after) both of them complete. It's a subtle but important difference; the second version is a lot easier to code.
public class Form1 : Form
{
private object download1Result;
private object download2Result;
private void BeginDownload()
{
// Next two lines are only necessary if this is called multiple times
download1Result = null;
download2Result = null;
bwDownload1.RunWorkerAsync();
bwDownload2.RunWorkerAsync();
}
private void bwDownload1_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
download1Result = e.Result;
if (download2Result != null)
DisplayResults();
}
private void bwDownload2_RunWorkerCompleted(object sender,
RunWorkerCompletedEventArgs e)
{
download2Result = e.Result;
if (download1Result != null)
DisplayResults();
}
private void DisplayResults()
{
// Do something with download1Result and download2Result
}
}
Note that those object references should be strongly-typed, I just used object because I don't know what you're downloading.
This is really all you need; the RunWorkerCompleted event runs in the foreground thread so you actually don't need to worry about synchronization or race conditions in there. No need for lock statements, AutoResetEvent, etc. Just use two member variables to hold the results, or two boolean flags if the result of either can actually be null.
You should be able to use two AutoResetEvent's and the WaitAll function to wait for both to complete. Call the Set function on the AutoResetEvent objects in the respective OnRunWorkerCompleted event.
Jeffrey Richter is THE guru when it comes to multi threading and he's written an amazing library called Power Threading Library which makes doing tasks like downloading n files asynchronously and continuing after they are all completed (or one or some), really simple.
Take a little time out to watch the video, learn about it and you won't regret it. Using the power threading library (which is free and has a Silverlight and Compact Framework version also) also makes your code easier to read, which is a big advantage when doing any async stuff.
Good luck,
Mark
int completedCount = 0;
void threadProc1() { //your thread1 proc
//do something
....
completedCount++;
while (completedCount < 2) Thread.Sleep(10);
//now both threads are done
}
void threadProc2() { //your thread1 proc
//do something
....
completedCount++;
while (completedCount < 2) Thread.Sleep(10);
//now both threads are done
}
Just use 2 BackgroundWorker objects, and have each one alert the UI when it completes. That way you can display a spinner, progress bar, whatever on the UI and update it as download results come back from the threads. You will also avoid any risks of thread deadlocking, etc.
By the way, just so we are all clear, you should NEVER call a blocking function such as WaitAll from the UI thread. It will cause the UI to completely lock up which will make you users wonder WTF is going on :)