How to chain tasks within each thread - c#-4.0

I have a requirement for copying several hundred tables using bulkcopy.
So far I got the following code.
// from UI main thread
private void test1()
{
LimitedTaskScheduler scheduler = new LimitedTaskScheduler(4);
TaskFactory factory = new TaskFactory(scheduler);
foreach (DataRow row in tabList.Rows) // Loop over the rows.
{
string tabName = row[tabList.Columns["TableName"]].ToString();
factory.StartNew<string>( () =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} on thread {1}", tabName, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
TableCopyer tc1 = new TableCopyer();
// pass progressbar and label into tc1 instance to update the progressbar and label
tc1.Bar1 = bar1;
tc1.L1 = l1;
tc1.EntityCopy(AppInfo.SrcDBMSPath, AppInfo.DestDBMSPath, tabName, "");
return tabName;
});
}
}
// inside TableCopier class
private void OnSqlRowsCopied(object sender, SqlRowsCopiedEventArgs e)
{
try
{
int rowCopied = int.Parse(e.RowsCopied.ToString());
double result = (double.Parse(rowCopied.ToString()) / double.Parse(TotalRows.ToString()));
int prsent = int.Parse(Math.Round((result * 100), 0).ToString());
SetProgressbar(prsent);
}
catch { throw; }
}
LimitedTaskScheduler is coming from
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ee789351.aspx
My questions are
How do I chain the tasks so that each will start only upon the finish of the prior task within each thread? I limited the max parallel thread to 4. I want to chain the tasks within the threads because the tasks being performed within a thread will reuse the same progressbar in a way one finishes and another starts.
I have 4 progress bar painted on UI, bar1, bar2, bar3, bar4. How do I associate each progressbar with a particular thread so that the user can see 4 running progress at the same time?

I think it doesn't make much sense to tie yourself into thinking about specific threads. Instead, what you want is that your tasks run concurrently at most 4 at a time and you want to use your 4 progress bars from those tasks.
What you could do is to put those progress bars into a collection, and then take a progress bar from there at the start of each task and return it back there at the end of the task.
You have to be careful about thread-safety here, so you should either use locks when working with the collection of progress bars, or use a thread-safe collection like ConcurrentQueue. Also, updating the progress bar usually has to be done from the UI thread, so you will have to take care of that too.

How do I chain the tasks so that each will start only upon the finish
of the prior task within each thread? I limited the max parallel
thread to 4. I want to chain the tasks within the threads because the
tasks being performed within a thread will reuse the same progressbar
in a way one finishes and another starts.
You want to chain your tasks together. So essentially there is no parallel processing occurring, except that you wish to process this on a thread separate to the UI. So, why then do you want to spawn a new task for each iteration of your loop if you wan't your loop processing to run sequentially? You could just wrap a normal for loop in a task:
private void test1()
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
foreach (DataRow row in tabList.Rows) // Loop over the rows.
{
string tabName = row[tabList.Columns["TableName"]].ToString();
Console.WriteLine("{0} on thread {1}", tabName, Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
TableCopyer tc1 = new TableCopyer();
// pass progressbar and label into tc1 instance to update the progressbar and label
tc1.Bar1 = bar1;
tc1.L1 = l1;
tc1.EntityCopy(AppInfo.SrcDBMSPath, AppInfo.DestDBMSPath, tabName, "");
}
});
}
I have 4 progress bar painted on UI, bar1, bar2, bar3, bar4. How do I
associate each progressbar with a particular thread so that the user
can see 4 running progress at the same time?
There are many ways to do this and it really depends on your requirements as to which is the best. You could reference the progress bars in a Queue<T>, but only if you are convinced that you will have as many progress bars as you have table rows.
private void test1()
{
Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
var progressBars = new Queue<ProgressBar>(new List<ProgressBar> { bar1, bar2, bar3, bar4 });
foreach (DataRow row in tabList.Rows) // Loop over the rows.
{
// ...
if(progressBars.Count() == 0}
throw new Exception("Not enough progress bars setup!");
tc1.Bar1 = progressBars.Dequeue();
// ...
}
});
}
If tabList.Rows is an IEnumerable, then you can ensure that the queue won't break by using Take():
foreach (DataRow row in tabList.Rows.Take(progressBars.Count()))
{ ... }

Related

UI thread slow to respond to Progress updaters on async Task method using VS2022 & Net6.0

I’ve run into a performance obstacle and I’m uncertain of the cause, all of this is running under VS2022 & Net6.0. As this is my 1st time using this combination of a modal windows form, and progress bar, with the work running on a background thread and two Progress objects updating the UI, the progress bar, and a text label, I don’t know where to attack the problem. Prior to placing the workload on a background thread, everything was snappy, searching a thousand files with about 600 lines of text in each, in about a minute. Naturally, the windows form was frozen during this, which is why the workload was placed on a background thread.
After doing so, the workload will be 25-50% complete before the UI starts displaying the values from the Progress objects, and overall, the entire process now takes 10x as long to complete. Progress objects aren’t skipping over any values sent to them, the UI thread just seems slow in getting the information. Likewise, if I try to drag the modal form to a new spot on the desktop it’s unresponsive for 20—30 seconds before it finally moves. One more thing, I can step through the code on the background thread and see it calling the Progress updaters, but the UI thread is just very slow in responding to them.
I could use some suggestions on how to uncover the problem or if clearly evident, point out where the likely problem could be. Here are the essential controls and methods used.
public class SearchProgressForm : Form
{
private System.Windows.Forms.Button btnSearch = new Button();
private System.Windows.Forms.TextBox txtTextSearch = new TextBox();
private System.Windows.Forms.Label lblSearchFile = new Label();
private System.Windows.Forms.ProgressBar SearchProgressBar = new ProgressBar();
public event LogSearchEventHandler SearchSucceededEvent;
protected void OnSearchSucceeded(LogSearchEventArguments p_eventArguments)
{
LogSearchEventHandler handler = SearchSucceededEvent;
if (handler != null)
{
handler(this, p_eventArguments);
}
}
private void InitializeComponent()
{
this.btnSearch.Name = "btnSearch";
this.btnSearch.Text = "Search";
this.btnSearch.Click += new System.EventHandler(this.btnSearch_Click);
this.lblSearchFile.Text = "Searching File: ";
this.txtTextSearch.Text = "search string";
}
public SearchProgressForm() { }
private void btnSearch_Click(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
this.SearchByText(this.txtTextSearch.Text);
}
private void SearchByText(string p_searchParameter)
{
// Setup a progress report for thr ProgressBar
var _progressBarUpdate = new Progress<int>(value =>
{
this.SearchProgressBar.Value = value;
this.SearchProgressBar.Refresh();
});
var _progressFileNameUpdate = new Progress<string>(value =>
{
this.lblSearchFile.Text = "Searching File For : " + value;
this.lblSearchFile.Refresh();
});
// Start search on a backgroud thread and report progress as it occurs
Task.Run(async () => await this.SearchByStringAsync(p_searchParameter, _progressBarUpdate, _progressFileNameUpdate));
}
private async Task SearchByStringAsync(string p_searchParameter, IProgress<int> p_progressBar, IProgress<string> p_progressFileName)
{
await Task.Delay(1);
TextFileReader textFileReader = new TextFileReader();
LogSearchEventArguments logSearchEventArguments = null;
long _sessionloopCount = 0;
long _totalTextLinesCount = this.GetTotalSearchCount(p_searchParameter, SearchType.TextString);
// Get file names from SQL table
var _logFiles = DataOperations.LogFileSortableList(null);
foreach (var log in _logFiles)
{
// Format a file name to be read from the file system
string _fileName = log.Directory + "\\" + log.FileName;
p_progressFileName.Report(log.FileName);
// If we've raised an event for this file, then stop iterating over remaning text
if (logSearchEventArguments != null)
{
logSearchEventArguments = null;
break;
}
// Read in file contents from file system
List<string> _fileContents = textFileReader.ReadAndReturnStringList(_fileName);
long _fileTotalRecordCount = _fileContents.Count;
long _fileRecordCount = 0;
foreach (var _line in _fileContents)
{
if (_line.ToUpper().Contains(p_searchParameter.ToUpper()))
{
// Raise an event so search parameter and file name can be captured in another form
logSearchEventArguments =
new LogSearchEventArguments
(
"TextSearch", p_searchParameter, SearchType.TextString, true, log,
new DateTime(
Convert.ToInt32("20" + log.FileName.Substring(14, 2)),
Convert.ToInt32(log.FileName.Substring(16, 2)),
Convert.ToInt32(log.FileName.Substring(18, 2)))
);
// We found a match, so no further searching is needed in this log file,
// and it's been flagged in the DB, so raise the event to save search parameter and file name
// then break out of this loop to get the next file to search in.
this.OnSearchSucceeded(logSearchEventArguments);
break;
}
// These calcs are based on actual searches performed
_fileRecordCount++;
_sessionloopCount++;
p_progressBar.Report(Convert.ToInt32((_sessionloopCount * 100) / _totalTextLinesCount));
}
// Because we exit a search as soon as the 1st match is made, need to resynch all counts
// and update the progress bar accordingly
if (_fileRecordCount < _fileTotalRecordCount)
{
long _countDifference = _fileTotalRecordCount - _fileRecordCount;
// Add count difference to sessionLoopCount and update progress bar
_sessionloopCount += _countDifference;
p_progressBar.Report(Convert.ToInt32((_sessionloopCount * 100) / _totalTextLinesCount));
}
}
//Search is complete set Progress to 100% and report before exiting
p_progressBar.Report(100);
// Close the modal SearchForm and exit
this.Close();
}
}
I solved this problem but I'm still not certain of what caused it. I eliminated the method "private void SearchByText(string p_searchParameter)" and moved the code there into the btnSearch_Click event handler so I could call my background worker "SearchByStringAsync" directly from the button click event handler.
I also updated the EFCore NuGet Packages, which were version Net6.0 to version 6.0.4, because of single line of code in my Async background method, "var _logFiles = DataOperations.LogFileSortableList(null)".
That call returned a Sortable BindingList, using BindingList <T>. Between the NuGet updates and a minor change on a custom comparer method in my BindingList <T> class, the windows modal form now updates the ProgressBar and Label text as expected, and the form now responds immediately to user interaction.

Non-Blocking Thread-Safe Counter for JavaFX

I am trying to implement a thread-safe solution to keep a count of successful tasks that have been completed, which will ultimately get bound to label displayed on the UI. However, when I use the AtomicInteger below it locks up my UI when the tasks start running, however, if I remove all AtomicInteger refs everything works fine. Is there a non-blocking, thread-safe way which this can be accomplished?
public void handleSomeButtonClick(){
if(!dataModel.getSomeList().isEmpty()) {
boolean unlimited = false;
int count = 0;
AtomicInteger successCount = new AtomicInteger(0);
if(countSelector.getValue().equalsIgnoreCase("Unlimited"))
unlimited = true;
else
count = Integer.parseInt(countSelector.getValue());
while(unlimited || successCount.get() < count) {
Task task = getSomeTask();
taskExecutor.submit(task);
task.setOnSucceeded(event -> {
if (task.getValue())
log.info("Successfully Completed Task | Total Count: " + successCount.incrementAndGet());
else
log.error("Failed task");
});
}
}
}
Your loop waits for a certain number of tasks to be completed. It may even be an infinite loop.
This is not a good idea:
You block the calling thread which seems to be the JavaFX application thread.
You don't have any control of how many tasks are submitted. count could be 3, but since you only schedule the tasks in the loop, 1000 or more tasks could be created&scheduled before the first one completes.
Furthermore if you use onSucceeded/onFailed, you don't need to use AtomicInteger or any similar kind of synchronisation, since those handlers all run on the JavaFX application thread.
Your code could be rewritten like this:
private int successCount;
private void scheduleTask(final boolean unlimited) {
Task task = getSomeTask();
task.setOnSucceeded(event -> {
// cannot get a Boolean from a raw task, so I assume the task is successfull iff no exception happens
successCount++;
log.info("Successfully Completed Task | Total Count: " + successCount);
if (unlimited) {
// submit new task, if the number of tasks is unlimited
scheduleTask(true);
}
});
// submit new task on failure
task.setOnFailed(evt -> scheduleTask(unlimited));
taskExecutor.submit(task);
}
public void handleSomeButtonClick() {
if(!dataModel.getSomeList().isEmpty()) {
successCount = 0;
final boolean unlimited;
final int count;
if(countSelector.getValue().equalsIgnoreCase("Unlimited")) {
unlimited = true;
count = 4; // set limit of number of tasks submitted to the executor at the same time
} else {
count = Integer.parseInt(countSelector.getValue());
unlimited = false;
}
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++) {
scheduleTask(unlimited);
}
}
}
Note: This code runs the risk of handleButtonClick being clicked multiple times before the previous tasks have been completed. You should either prevent scheduling new tasks before the old ones are completed or use some reference type containing an int instead for the count, create this object in handleSomeButtonClick and pass this object to scheduleTask.
Your UI lock up means you do the counting(successCount.get() < count) in your FX application thread. I cannot understand why you keep submit the task in the while loop,
which one do you want to do? (1) start X(e.g. 10) task and count how many task is success. or (2) just keep starting new task and see the count go up.
if(2) then run the whole while loop in a background thread, update the UI in a Platform->runlater().
if(1) use the Future / CompletableFuture, or more powerful version Future in 3rd party package like vavr.
Your problem is future.get() block and wait for result.
This will be simple if you use Vavr library.
Because it can attach a code to its future which run automatically when success or fail.
So you don't have to wait.
Here is a example which using Vavr's future.
CheckedFunction0<String> thisIsATask = () -> {
if ( /*do something*/ ){
throw new Exception("Hey");
}
return "ABC";
};
List<Future<String>> futureList = new ArrayList<>();
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++) {
futureList.add(Future.of(getExecutorService(), thisIsATask));
}
futureList.forEach((task) -> {
// This will run if success
task.onSuccess(s -> s.equals("ABC") ? Platform.runLater(()->UpdateCounter()) : wtf());
// Your get the exception if it is fail;
task.onFailure(e -> e.printStackTrace());
// task.onComplete() will run on any case when complete
});
This is not blocking, the code at onSucess onFailure or onComplete will run when the task is finish or an exception is catch.
Note: Future.of will use the executorService you pass in to run each task at new thread, the code you provide at onSuccess will continue to run at that thread once the task is done so if you calling javafx remember the Platform.runLater()
Also if you want to run something when all task is finish, then
// the code at onComplete will run when tasks all done
Future<Seq<String>> all = Future.sequence(futureList);
all.onComplete((i) -> this.btnXYZ.setDisable(false));

Winforms updates with high performance

Let me setup this question with some background information, we have a long running process which will be generating data in a Windows Form. So, obviously some form of multi-threading is going to be needed to keep the form responsive. But, we also have the requirement that the form updates as many times per second while still remaining responsive.
Here is a simple test example using background worker thread:
void bw_ProgressChanged(object sender, ProgressChangedEventArgs e)
{
int reportValue = (int)e.UserState;
label1.Text = reportValue;
//We can put this.Refresh() here to force repaint which gives us high repaints but we lose
//all other responsiveness with the control
}
void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 100000; x++)
{
//We could put Thread.Sleep here but we won't get highest performance updates
bw.ReportProgress(0, x);
}
}
Please see the comments in the code. Also, please don't question why I want this. The question is simple, how do we achieve the highest fidelity (most repaints) in updating the form while maintaining responsiveness? Forcing the repaint does give us updates but we don't process windows messages.
I have also try placing DoEvents but that produces stack overflow. What I need is some way to say, "process any windows messages if you haven't lately". I can see also that maybe a slightly different pattern is needed to achieve this.
It seems we need to handle a few issues:
Updating the Form through the non UI thread. There are quite a few solution to this problem such as invoke, synchronization context, background worker pattern.
The second problem is flooding the Form with too many updates which blocks the message processing and this is the issue around which my question really concerns. In most examples, this is handles trivially by slowing down the requests with an arbitrary wait or only updating every X%. Neither of these solutions are approriate for real-world applications nor do they meet the maximum update while responsive criteria.
Some of my initial ideas on how to handle this:
Queue the items in the background worker and then dispatch them in a UI thread. This will ensure every item is painted but will result in lag which we don't want.
Perhaps use TPL
Perhaps use a timer in the UI thread to specify a refresh value. In this way, we can grab the data at the fastest rate that we can process. It will require accessing/sharing data across threads.
Update, I've updated to use a Timer to read a shared variable with the Background worker thread updates. Now for some reason, this method produces a good form response and also allows the background worker to update about 1,000x as fast. But, interestingly it only 1 millisecond accurate.
So we should be able to change the pattern to read the current time and call the updates from the bw thread without the need for the timer.
Here is the new pattern:
//Timer setup
{
RefreshTimer.SynchronizingObject = this;
RefreshTimer.Elapsed += RefreshTimer_Elapsed;
RefreshTimer.AutoReset = true;
RefreshTimer.Start();
}
void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
for (int x = 0; x < 1000000000; x++)
{
//bw.ReportProgress(0, x);
//mUiContext.Post(UpdateLabel, x);
SharedX = x;
}
}
void RefreshTimer_Elapsed(object sender, System.Timers.ElapsedEventArgs e)
{
label1.Text = SharedX.ToString();
}
Update And here we have the new solution that doesn't require the timer and doesn't block the thread! We achieve a high performance in calculations and fidelity on the updates with this pattern. Unfortunately, ticks TickCount is only 1 MS accurate, however we can run a batch of X updates per MS to get faster then 1 MS timing.
void bw_DoWork(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
long lastTickCount = Environment.TickCount;
for (int x = 0; x < 1000000000; x++)
{
if (Environment.TickCount - lastTickCount > 1)
{
bw.ReportProgress(0, x);
lastTickCount = Environment.TickCount;
}
}
}
There is little point in trying to report progress any faster than the user can keep track of it.
If your background thread is posting messages faster than the GUI can process them, (and you have all the symtoms of this - poor GUI resonse to user input, DoEvents runaway recursion), you have to throttle the progress updates somehow.
A common approach is to update the GUI using a main-thread form timer at a rate sufficiently small that the user sees an acceptable progress readout. You may need a mutex or critical section to protect shared data, though that amy not be necessary if the progress value to be monitored is an int/uint.
An alternative is to strangle the thread by forcing it to block on an event or semaphore until the GUI is idle.
The UI thread should not be held for more than 50ms by a CPU-bound operation taking place on it ("The 50ms Rule"). Usually, the UI work items are executed upon events, triggered by user input, completion of an IO-bound operation or a CPU-bound operation offloaded to a background thread.
However, there are some rare cases when the work needs to be done on the UI thread. For example, you may need to poll a UI control for changes, because the control doesn't expose proper onchange-style event. Particularly, this applies to WebBrowser control (DOM Mutation Observers are only being introduced, and IHTMLChangeSink doesn't always work reliably, in my experience).
Here is how it can be done efficiently, without blocking the UI thread message queue. A few key things was used here to make this happen:
The UI work tasks yields (via Application.Idle) to process any pending messages
GetQueueStatus is used to decide on whether to yield or not
Task.Delay is used to throttle the loop, similar to a timer event. This step is optional, if the polling needs to be as precise as possible.
async/await provide pseudo-synchronous linear code flow.
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using System.Windows.Forms;
namespace WinForms_21643584
{
public partial class MainForm : Form
{
EventHandler ContentChanged = delegate { };
public MainForm()
{
InitializeComponent();
this.Load += MainForm_Load;
}
// Update UI Task
async Task DoUiWorkAsync(CancellationToken token)
{
try
{
var startTick = Environment.TickCount;
var editorText = this.webBrowser.Document.Body.InnerText;
while (true)
{
// observe cancellation
token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
// throttle (optional)
await Task.Delay(50);
// yield to keep the UI responsive
await ApplicationExt.IdleYield();
// poll the content for changes
var newEditorText = this.webBrowser.Document.Body.InnerText;
if (newEditorText != editorText)
{
editorText = newEditorText;
this.status.Text = "Changed on " + (Environment.TickCount - startTick) + "ms";
this.ContentChanged(this, EventArgs.Empty);
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
MessageBox.Show(ex.Message);
}
}
async void MainForm_Load(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// navigate the WebBrowser
var documentTcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
this.webBrowser.DocumentCompleted += (sIgnore, eIgnore) => documentTcs.TrySetResult(true);
this.webBrowser.DocumentText = "<div style='width: 100%; height: 100%' contentEditable='true'></div>";
await documentTcs.Task;
// cancel updates in 10 s
var cts = new CancellationTokenSource(20000);
// start the UI update
var task = DoUiWorkAsync(cts.Token);
}
}
// Yield via Application.Idle
public static class ApplicationExt
{
public static Task<bool> IdleYield()
{
var idleTcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
if (IsMessagePending())
{
// register for Application.Idle
EventHandler handler = null;
handler = (s, e) =>
{
Application.Idle -= handler;
idleTcs.SetResult(true);
};
Application.Idle += handler;
}
else
idleTcs.SetResult(false);
return idleTcs.Task;
}
public static bool IsMessagePending()
{
// The high-order word of the return value indicates the types of messages currently in the queue.
return 0 != (GetQueueStatus(QS_MASK) >> 16 & QS_MASK);
}
const uint QS_MASK = 0x1FF;
[System.Runtime.InteropServices.DllImport("user32.dll")]
static extern uint GetQueueStatus(uint flags);
}
}
This code is specific to WinForms. Here is a similar approach for WPF.

Why there is so much performance diffrence between Tasks,Thread and ThreadPool?

Here i attached my example that i used for performance test. Why there is so much diffrence between all this ? (This is sample console application)
class Program
{
internal class ThreadObj
{
public ManualResetEvent signalComplete { get; set; }
public int TaskItem { get; set; }
}
static void ThreadWork(object o)
{
ThreadObj obj = (ThreadObj)o;
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
obj.signalComplete.Set();
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
// Using new .net 4.0 Task
Stopwatch watch = new Stopwatch();
watch.Start();
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<Task> tasks = new System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<Task>();
Parallel.For(0, 60, i =>
{
Task t = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
}, TaskCreationOptions.PreferFairness);
tasks.Add(t);
});
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for task to finish");
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Complete(Tasks) : Time " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString());
// Using Thread
watch.Reset();
watch.Start();
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<ManualResetEvent> tasksThreads = new System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<ManualResetEvent>();
Parallel.For(0, 60, i =>
{
ManualResetEvent signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
tasksThreads.Add(signal);
Thread t = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(ThreadWork));
t.Start(new ThreadObj() { signalComplete = signal, TaskItem = i });
});
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for task to finish");
WaitHandle.WaitAll(tasksThreads.ToArray());
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Complete(Threads) : Time " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString());
// Using ThreadPool
watch.Reset();
watch.Start();
System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<ManualResetEvent> tasksThreadPools = new System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentBag<ManualResetEvent>();
Parallel.For(0, 60, i =>
{
ManualResetEvent signal = new ManualResetEvent(false);
tasksThreadPools.Add(signal);
ThreadObj obj = new ThreadObj() { signalComplete = signal, TaskItem = i };
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(ThreadWork), obj);
});
Console.WriteLine("Waiting for task to finish");
WaitHandle.WaitAll(tasksThreadPools.ToArray());
watch.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("Complete(ThreadPool) : Time " + watch.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString());
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Please provide your suggetion on this.
Here is sample output that i got.
Waiting for task to finish
Complete(Tasks) : Time 28050
Waiting for task to finish
Complete(Threads) : Time 5435
Waiting for task to finish
Complete(ThreadPool) : Time 15032
You're test case is far from solid to begin with. When you perform actual computation work within the threadWork method, you'll find that the results are very different. TPL uses the threadpool internally so it's a matter of Threadpool vs Threads. The reason for the TPL to be so different compared to the Threadpool is likely in the nature of the Threadpool itself (will come back on that one later).
Look at the time it took for Threads to complete. Your test method only sleeps for 5 seconds, that's it. Now where did the other .43 second go to? Right, to the creation and destruction of the Thread itself and the associated overhead including context switching. The Threadpool has a queue of Threads that can be used to execute simultaneously. It's up to the Threadpool and it's configuration to create and destroy extra threads whenever it deems needed. When you schedule 60 items in the Threadpool , the Threadpool wont likely create 60 threads to handle all items simultaneously but rather use a sub amount of that and handle multiple items per thread. Since your test method is only sleeping, this explains the big difference between the time spent with threads and the time spent with the Threadpool.
Since TPL uses the Threadpool internally and before you're ThreadPool test ran, it is logical to assume that, at that stage: less threads were available in the Threadpool, but due to the run of the TPL, more threads were created for the Threadpool so in turn, when your Threadpool test ran, there were more threads available initially which explains the difference between TPL and the Threadpool.
Practically, you want to use the Threadpool as much as possible, especially for computational operations. When you need to synchronize with an external resource like downloading something from the web, i recommend not using a thread but one of the more advanced async options available in .NET for getting that particular resource.

How do I block access to a method until animations are complete

I have a Silverlight app. that has a basic animation where a rectangle is animated to a new position. The animation consists of two DoubleAnimation() - one transforms the X, the other transforms the Y. It works OK.
I basically want to block any other calls to this animate method until the first two animations have completed. I see that the DoubleAnimation() class has a Completed event it fires but I haven't been successful in constructing any kind of code that successfully blocks until both have completed.
I attempted to use Monitor.Enter on a private member when entering the method, then releasing the lock from one of the animations Completed event, but my attempts at chaining the two events (so the lock isn't released until both have completed) haven't been successful.
Here's what the animation method looks like:
public void AnimateRectangle(Rectangle rect, double newX, double newY)
{
var xIsComplete = false;
Duration duration = new Duration(new TimeSpan(0, 0, 0, 1, 350));
var easing = new ElasticEase() { EasingMode = EasingMode.EaseOut, Oscillations = 1, Springiness = 4 };
var animateX = new DoubleAnimation();
var animateY = new DoubleAnimation();
animateX.EasingFunction = easing;
animateX.Duration = duration;
animateY.EasingFunction = easing;
animateY.Duration = duration;
var sb = new Storyboard();
sb.Duration = duration;
sb.Children.Add(animateX);
sb.Children.Add(animateY);
Storyboard.SetTarget(animateX, rect);
Storyboard.SetTargetProperty(animateX, new PropertyPath("(Canvas.Left)"));
Storyboard.SetTarget(animateY, rect);
Storyboard.SetTargetProperty(animateY, new PropertyPath("(Canvas.Top)"));
animateX.To = newX;
animateY.To = newY;
sb.Begin();
}
EDIT (added more info)
I ran into this initially because I was calling this method from another method (as it processed items it made a call to the animation). I noticed that the items didn't end up where I expected them to. The new X/Y coordinates I pass in are based on the items current location, so if it was called multiple times before it finished, it ended up in the wrong location. As a test I added a button that only ran the animation once. It worked. However, if I click on the button a bunch of times in a row I see the same behavior as before: items end up in the wrong location.
Yes, it appears Silverlight animations are run on the main UI thread. One of the tests I tried I added two properties that flagged whether both animations had completed yet. In the AnimateRectange() method I checked them inside of a while loop (calling Thread.Sleep). This loop never completed (so it's definitely on the same thread).
So I created a queue to process the animations in order:
private void ProcessAnimationQueue()
{
var items = this.m_animationQueue.GetEnumerator();
while (items.MoveNext())
{
while (this.m_isXanimationInProgress || this.m_isYanimationInProgress)
{
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(100);
}
var item = items.Current;
Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(() => this.AnimateRectangle(item.Rect.Rect, item.X, item.Y));
}
}
Then I call my initial routine (which queues up the animations) and call this method on a new thread. I see the same results.
As far as I am aware all of the animations in Silverlight are happening on the UI thread anyway. I am guessing that only the UI thread is calling this animation function anyway, so I am not sure that using locking will help. Do you really want to be blocking the entire thread or just preventing another animation from starting?
I would suggest something more like this:
private bool isAnimating = false;
public void AnimateRectangle(Rectangle rect, double newX, double newY)
{
if (isAnimating)
return;
// rest of animation code
sb.Completed += (sender, e) =>
{
isAnimating = false;
};
isAnimating = true;
sb.Begin();
}
Just keep track of whether or not you are currently animating with a flag and return early if you are. If you don't want to lose potential animations your other option is to keep some kind of a queue for animation which you could check/start when each animation has completed.
This question really peaked my interest. In fact I'm going to include it in my next blog post.
Boiling it down, just to be sure we are talking about the same thing, fundementally you don't want to block the call to AnimateRectangle you just want to "queue" the call so that once any outstanding call has completed its animation this "queued" call gets executed. By extension you may need to queue several calls if a previous call hasn't even started yet.
So we need two things:-
A means to treat what are essentially asynchronous operations (sb.Begin to Completed event) as a sequential operation, one operation only starting when the previous has completed.
A means to queue additional operations when one or more operations are yet to complete.
AsyncOperationService
Item 1 comes up in a zillion different ways in Silverlight due to the asynchronous nature of so many things. I solve this issue with a simple asynchronous operation runner blogged here. Add the AsyncOperationService code to your project.
AsyncOperationQueue
Its item 2 that really took my interest. The variation here is that whilst an existing set of operations are in progress there is demand to add another. For a general case solution we'd need a thread-safe means of including another operation.
Here is the bare-bones of a AsyncOperationQueue:-
public class AsyncOperationQueue
{
readonly Queue<AsyncOperation> myQueue = new Queue<AsyncOperation>();
AsyncOperation myCurrentOp = null;
public void Enqueue(AsyncOperation op)
{
bool start = false;
lock (myQueue)
{
if (myCurrentOp != null)
{
myQueue.Enqueue(op);
}
else
{
myCurrentOp = op;
start = true;
}
}
if (start)
DequeueOps().Run(delegate { });
}
private AsyncOperation GetNextOperation()
{
lock (myQueue)
{
myCurrentOp = (myQueue.Count > 0) ? myQueue.Dequeue() : null;
return myCurrentOp;
}
}
private IEnumerable<AsyncOperation> DequeueOps()
{
AsyncOperation nextOp = myCurrentOp;
while (nextOp != null)
{
yield return nextOp;
nextOp = GetNextOperation();
}
}
}
Putting it to use
First thing to do is convert your existing AnimateRectangle method into a GetAnimateRectangleOp that returns a AsyncOperation. Like this:-
public AsyncOperation GetAnimateRectangleOp(Rectangle rect, double newX, double newY)
{
return (completed) =>
{
// Code identical to the body of your original AnimateRectangle method.
sb.Begin();
sb.Completed += (s, args) => completed(null);
};
}
We need to hold an instance of the AsyncOperationQueue:-
private AsyncOperationQueue myAnimationQueue = new AsyncOperationQueue();
Finally we need to re-create AnimateRectangle that enqueues the operation to the queue:-
public void AnimateRectangle(Rectangle rect, double newX, double newY)
{
myAnimationQueue.Enqueue(GetAnimateRectangleOp(rect, newX, newY)
}

Resources