Given a System.Timers.Timer, is there a way from the main thread to tell if the worker thread running the elapsed event code is still running?
In other words, how can one make sure the code running in the worker thread is not currently running before stopping the timer or the main app/service thread the timer is running in?
Is this a matter of ditching Timer for threading timer using state, or is it just time to use threads directly?
Look up ManualResetEvent, as it is made to do specifically what you're asking for.
Your threads create a new reset event, and add it to an accessible queue that your main thread can use to see if any threads are still running.
// main thread owns this
private List<ManualResetEvent> _resetEvents;
...
// main thread does this to wait for executing threads to finish
WaitHandle.WaitAll(_resetEvents.ToArray(), 2000, false)
...
// worker threads do this to signal the thread is done
myResetEvent.Set();
I can give you more sample code if you want, but I basically just copied it from the couple articles I read when I had to do this a year ago or so.
Forgot to mention, you can't add this functionality to the default threads you'll get when your timer fires. So you should make your timer handler be very lean and do nothing more than prepare and start a new worker thread.
...
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(MyWorkerDelegate),
myCustomObjectThatContainsAResetEvent);
For the out of the box solution, there is no way. The main reason is the thread running the TimerCallback function is in all likelihood still alive even if the code running the callback has completed. The TimerCallback is executed by a Thread out of the ThreadPool. When the task is completed the thread does not die, but instead goes back into the queue for the next thread pool task.
In order to get this to work your going to have to use a manner of thread safe signalling to detect the operation has completed.
Timer Documentation
Related
I was studying about multi-threading and came across join().
As I understand right, using join() on the thread makes process wait until 'joined' thread terminates. For example, calling t1.join() in main will make main wait until the job in thread t1 is finished and t1 terminates.
I'm just curious that how the function join() make this possible - how does it make current thread 'blocked' inside the function? Does join() force execution of joined thread first so any other thread should wait until that thread terminates? Or, is there some way to communicate between two threads(the thread who called join() and the thread who is joined)?
I will be waiting for the answer. Thanks a lot!
To be able to join you need to be able to wait on some event. Then join looks like this:
function join(t : Thread)
// do this atomically
if already done
return
wait on termination event of t
end
Waiting can be done in one of two ways:
Looping and periodically checking if the event has happened (busy wait)
Letting the system reclaim the resources of the thread and be woken up on a system event, in that case waking the thread is managed by the scheduler of the OS
It's rather language specific.
Once you create a thread, it starts running.
A join operation is when your main process stops and waits for the thread to exit and capture a return code. It will block until your thread completes - that's rather the point, as it allows for a synchronization to occur - everything in your program is at a 'known state'.
Related is the detach operation, which is effectively saying 'I don't care any more'.
I have a TListView in the main Form (Thread) and many other threads that add/delete item from the list using Synchronize method. But the main thread has also a method that modify the list items and I want that method not to be interrupted by other threads that wants to execute code in the main thread. Is this possible ?
Do you have evidence that what you are worried about is happening? You shouldn't, because it can't happen. That is what Synchronize is for. Methods executing in the main thread must complete before the main thread can service the message queue to process work items dispatched via Synchronize from worker threads so you have nothing to worry about.
When a worker thread uses Synchronize it essentially just posts a message to the main thread telling it that it has work for it to do. If the main thread is busy executing another method then the worker thread will simply block until the main thread is finished, subsequently processes the message queue, picks up the work item, executes it, and then posts back to the worker thread that the work is complete (leaving the worker thread free to then continue).
This, of course, assuming that the method in your main thread is not calling Application.ProcessMessages() or CheckSynchronize() (or you are using a tricky component that does this, or something similar, without you knowing it -> see : Delphi 7, Windows 7, event handler, re-entrent code)
If an user provides information that is recorded in an excel file then I choose Excel COM to read the data.
However, as the user can repeat the process to N files and the process can take a while, I decided to move this routines to a separated thread.
Therefore, I need your advice to define how can I do this.
The worker thread cannot be destroyed until there is no more remaining files.
Inside the thread the data is loaded to a ClientDataSet and at the end is applied to database.
I need somehow notify the user when task is done, so he can decide if he will load another file and execute the thread again or finish the job.
How to properly destroy the thread and notify the user?
Should I create and destroy the thread to each file?
You can, but that is not a very efficient design. Put the files into a thread-safe queue, then start the thread if it is not already running, and then have the thread loop through the queue util it is empty. At that time, the thread can then be destroyed, or just put to sleep in case more files will be queued later on.
This design also allows you to process multiple files in parallel if you implement a thread pool. When you put a file into the queue, start a new thread if there is not already an idle thread waiting to be used. When a thread starts, pull the next available file from the queue. When that thread finishes, it can pull the next file from the queue, and if there is no file then go back into the pool for later reuse.
If so, How to properly destroy the thread and notify the user?
When you are ready to destroy a thread, call its Terminate() method (its Execute() needs to should check its Terminated property periodically and exit when set to true), then call its WaitFor() method (or equivalent, like MsgWaitForMultipleOjects(), which allows you to keep the message queue responsive while waiting for the thread to terminate), then free it from memory. The thread triggers its OnTerminate event after Execute() exits, however it is not safe to destroy the thread in the OnTerminate event handler. If you want to destroy the thread when the OnTerminate event is triggered (especially if you are not expecting the thread to terminate, such as if it threw an uncaught exception), you can post yourself an asynchronous notification, such as with PostMessage(), PostThreadMessage(), TThread.Queue(), etc, and then destroy the thread when that notification is processed at a later time.
How to set a thread to notify the user when the work is finished? By assigning the event OnTerminate?
Yes. Unless the thread is going to process multiple files before terminating, in which case the thread could manually send a notification in between each file.
It's better to create the thread to each file or create 1 thread and somehow control it's execution to every time for different files?
Creating and destroying a thread is not trivial for the OS, in terms of resources and processing, so you should re-use threads as much as possible. Make them sleep when they have nothing to do, unless they are going to be sleeping for a long time in which case you should destroy them to release their resources.
I have multi thread program. I have a design of my application as follows:
Suppose one is main thread, and other are slave threads. Main thread keep track of all slave thread ID's. During one of the scenario of application (one of the scenario is graceful shutdown of application), i want to delete slave threads from main thread.
Here slave threads may be executing i.e., either in sleep mode or doing some action which i cannot stop the action. So i want to delete the threads from main thread with thread IDs i stored internally.
Additional info:
While deleting i should not wait for thread current action to complete as it may take long time as i am reading from data base and taking some action in thread, in case of gracefull shut down i should not wait for action to complete as it may take time.
If i force delete a thread how can there will be a resource leaks?
Is above design is ok or there is any flow or any ways we can improve the design.
Thanks!
It's not okay. It's a bad practice to forcefully kill a thread from another thread because you'll very likely to have resource leaks. The best way is to use an event or signal to signal the client process to stop and wait until they exit gracefully.
The overall flow of the program would look like this:
Parent thread creates an event (say hEventParent). it then creates child threads and passes hEventParent as a parameter. The Parent thread keeps the hThread of the child thread(s).
Child threads do work but periodically waits for hEventParent.
When the program needs to exit, the parent thread sets hEventParent. It then waits for hThread (WaitForMultipleObjects also accepts hThread)
Child thread is notified then execute clean up routine and exits.
When all the threads exit, the parent can then exit.
The most common approach consists in the main thread sending a termination signal to all the threads, then waiting for the threads to end.
Typically the worker threads will have a loop, inside of which the work is done. You can add a boolean variable that indicates if the thread needs to end. For example:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
}
If you want your worker threads to go to sleep when they have no work, then it gets a bit more complicated. In this case you could make the threads wait on semaphores. Each semaphore will be signaled when there is work to do, and that will awaken the thread. You will also signal the semaphore when the request to terminate is issued. Example worker thread:
terminate = false;
while (!terminate) {
// work here
wait(semaphore); // go to sleep
}
When the main thread wants to exit it will set terminate to true for all the threads and then signal the thread semaphores to awaken the threads and give them a chance to see the termination request. After that it will join all the threads, and only after all the threads are finished it will exit.
Note that the terminate boolean may need to be declared as volatile if you are using C/C++, to indicate to the compiler that it may be changed from another thread.
If I had threads as below
void thread(){
while() {
lock.acquire();
if(condition not true)
{
Cond.wait()
}
// blah blah
Cond.Signal();
lock.release();
}
}
Well I guess my main question is that whether the signalling thread continues running for a while after cond.signal() or immediately gives up the CPU?. I would like it in some cases not to release the lock before the woken up thread finishes execution and in some other cases it may be beneficial to release the lock immediately after signalling, without waiting for the other woken thread to finish.
I understand that if there are any threads waiting on the condition then they get woken up on Cond.signal(). But what do you mean by woekn up - put on the ready queue or does the scheduler make sure that it runs immediately?.
and what about the signalling thread.. does it go to sleep on the same condtion upon signalling? .. so then some other thread has to wake it up to make it release the lock?.
This is in large part dependent on your environment (OS, library, language...) and how the synchronisation primitives are implemented. Since you haven't specified any I'll just give a general answer.
When putting a thread to sleep, most environment will choose to remove it from the scheduler's ready queue and the thread will give up its remaining CPU time. When woken up, the thread is simply placed back into the ready queue and will resume execution the next time the scheduler selects it from the queue.
It's also possible that the thread will do some active waiting (spinning) instead of being removed from the scheduler's ready queue. In this case, the thread will resume execution right away. Note that since a thread can still be run out of CPU of time while spinning, it might have to wait to be rescheduled before waking up. This is a useful strategy if your critical sections are very small and you don't want to pay for the scheduling overheads.
A hybrid approach would be to do a small amount of active waiting before removing the thread from the scheduler's ready queue.
As for the signaling thread, unless specified explicitly by your environment (I can't of any reasons but you never know), I wouldn't expect a call to signal() to block in a way that you have to wake it up. Signal() might have to synchronize itself with other threads calling signal() but those are implementation details and you shouldn't have to do anything about it.