Threading inside WCF
-
While rummaging around in my brain a bit I suddenly had a case of deja vu. The problem lies here in closures, lambda expressions and their interaction with threading. I'm not sure if I found the post I read a couple of years ago, but here it goes: Lambda expressions, captured variables and threading[^]. Especially enlightening is answer 2. Thus please try to rewrite your code in this manner:
[OperationContract]
public string GetData(int value)
{
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(() => {
int j = i; // not quite sure if this is needed,
// but try leaving it out and see what happens.
simpleThread(j); // if you leave out the above statement change j to i on this line
});
t.Start();
}
return ""; // An empty string is also a string ;)
}Regards,
— Manfred
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
Thanks for your efforts, but it still didn't work Mr.Manfred This produced a debug out like:
3 : 3
3 : 3
3 : 3
4 : 4I tried Parameterized Thread start:
ParameterizedThreadStart pt = new System.Threading.ParameterizedThreadStart(simpleThread); Thread t = new System.Threading.Thread(pt); t.Start(i);It produces:
0 : 0
2 : 2
3 : 3
1 : 1It covered all the indexes, but still it's not in the right order. May be we can't expect this in the right order? as they are "Threads!"?
-
The problem is the lambda expression, it references the variable
iof the outer method at the time of the thread execution, and that is likely after all threads are created. This is not like a passed parameter that gets copied at the time of the thread creation. Try creating a thread that takes a parameter and pass theithere, this should resolve the issue. -
Thanks for your efforts, but it still didn't work Mr.Manfred This produced a debug out like:
3 : 3
3 : 3
3 : 3
4 : 4I tried Parameterized Thread start:
ParameterizedThreadStart pt = new System.Threading.ParameterizedThreadStart(simpleThread); Thread t = new System.Threading.Thread(pt); t.Start(i);It produces:
0 : 0
2 : 2
3 : 3
1 : 1It covered all the indexes, but still it's not in the right order. May be we can't expect this in the right order? as they are "Threads!"?
VKAnanth wrote:
May be we can't expect this in the right order? as they are "Threads!"?
You hit it spot on. Threads are scheduled by the system when to run and for how long. So what you are observing now is the expected behaviour, eventhough there might be circumstances where the order would be what you presumed first :). Did you also try the third alternative from the SO post I referenced in my solution attempt? Regards,
— Manfred
PS: Skip the Mr. stuff, we're all peers here on CP. ;)
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
-
There is difference between normal loop and using thread. if you are using normal loop your application will hang till your loop completed. while in thread other thread will run and your application will not hang.
Thanks -Amit Gajjar (MinterProject)
-
VKAnanth wrote:
May be we can't expect this in the right order? as they are "Threads!"?
You hit it spot on. Threads are scheduled by the system when to run and for how long. So what you are observing now is the expected behaviour, eventhough there might be circumstances where the order would be what you presumed first :). Did you also try the third alternative from the SO post I referenced in my solution attempt? Regards,
— Manfred
PS: Skip the Mr. stuff, we're all peers here on CP. ;)
"I had the right to remain silent, but I didn't have the ability!"
Ron White, Comedian
I'm just letting the monkey go off my head at the moment as the code works with the ParametereizedThread start. Packing the code and sending it to my mates. Once done, will come back to explore the method that you pointed out. cheers! Mr. Manfred :java: :)
-
Yup, but still Thread.Join wouldn't let the control go past the function scope. It makes it wait there until the threads complete their execution. In short, it "BLOCKS" too.
Yes ofcourse it will block that thread execution. but it will not block others. let me know if that works for you. As you have mention earlier you are using thread.sleep but why you need it ?
Thanks -Amit Gajjar (MinterProject)
-
Yes ofcourse it will block that thread execution. but it will not block others. let me know if that works for you. As you have mention earlier you are using thread.sleep but why you need it ?
Thanks -Amit Gajjar (MinterProject)
I removed it, I just tried "Sleep"ing to check if it's a Sync issue. Sleep helped to print the index in order, but misses the whole point of using threads. - need to run fast. And Sleep is just for debugging. never a solution, unless the BugFix-Priority-Column says "Fix Right NoW". ;)
-
I removed it, I just tried "Sleep"ing to check if it's a Sync issue. Sleep helped to print the index in order, but misses the whole point of using threads. - need to run fast. And Sleep is just for debugging. never a solution, unless the BugFix-Priority-Column says "Fix Right NoW". ;)
For your knowledge, Thread is used when you do not want any task in sequence. if you need some task to be in sequence you need to use single threaded function. if you are doing thread.join() it will not degrade performance of your application, although it will impact on your current thread. at that time other thread will keep executing. First you need to decide if your current process is not meant to execute in sequence then you can defiantly use thread. hope this makes sense.
Thanks -Amit Gajjar (MinterProject)
-
I'm just letting the monkey go off my head at the moment as the code works with the ParametereizedThread start. Packing the code and sending it to my mates. Once done, will come back to explore the method that you pointed out. cheers! Mr. Manfred :java: :)
Threading is not deterministic in the order of execution unless you add constructs to synchronize your threads, e.g. Thread 2 waits for completion of Thread 1 before it starts, Thread 3 waits for completion of Thread 2 before it starts, etc. But that would defeat the purpose of threading, if you create threads to allow parallel execution, but then you serialize all of their execution. (On a multi-core machine, they can even be scheduled to execute physically at the same time, which opens up a can of even more indeterministic behavior ;) )
-
Thanks for your efforts, but it still didn't work Mr.Manfred This produced a debug out like:
3 : 3
3 : 3
3 : 3
4 : 4I tried Parameterized Thread start:
ParameterizedThreadStart pt = new System.Threading.ParameterizedThreadStart(simpleThread); Thread t = new System.Threading.Thread(pt); t.Start(i);It produces:
0 : 0
2 : 2
3 : 3
1 : 1It covered all the indexes, but still it's not in the right order. May be we can't expect this in the right order? as they are "Threads!"?
If you don't want to execute this sequence on the current thread but still in the same order you could try to just execute the whole loop in another thread. Change:
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(() => simpleThread(i));
t.Start();
}to:
Thread t = new Thread(() => {
for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) {
simpleThread(i);
}
});
t.Start();This would process all items in the right order while still running in another (not blocking) thread.
-
I have a very simple WCF service, :
[service contract] public class Service1 : IService1 { List m_list = new List(); public Service1() { for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) { m_list.Add(i); } } [OperationContract] public string GetData(int value) { for (int i = 0; i < 4; i++) { Thread t = new Thread(() => simpleThread(i)); t.Start(); } return "text"; // :| } void simpleThread(int i_in) { Trace.WriteLine(m_list[i_in].ToString()); } }The code stores 0,1,2,3 as values inside m_list. So m_list[0] is 0, [1] is 1 .. [3] is 3. And when we print it through "SimpleThread(int i)" Thread function, In the log it's supposed to be 0,1,2,3 but it's always like 2,2,3 or something weird. And the index passed in itself is wrong. It never passes 0,1. And sometimes it prints... 4 : 4 4 : 4 4 : 4 4 : 4 And the problem is random. I'm missing something very fundamental with threading on WCF. Any help please? I would like to get it : 0 : 0 1 : 1 2 : 2 3 : 3VKAnanth wrote:
And the problem is random
Ast stated elsewhere... No the problem is that you are using threads and you think that there should be an order. It is simple - stopping thinking that. There is no order. It doesn't matter how you create them nor execute them - there still is no order. If you want an order then you must assert that order yourself into the code. HOW you do that depends on what you actually want to acheive. It could be as simple as just ordering the final set after processing of all the threads completes. Or providing a bucket into which each thread puts its result.
-
VKAnanth wrote:
And the problem is random
Ast stated elsewhere... No the problem is that you are using threads and you think that there should be an order. It is simple - stopping thinking that. There is no order. It doesn't matter how you create them nor execute them - there still is no order. If you want an order then you must assert that order yourself into the code. HOW you do that depends on what you actually want to acheive. It could be as simple as just ordering the final set after processing of all the threads completes. Or providing a bucket into which each thread puts its result.
Sometimes the execution order does not matter, but the publishing of the result (e.g. if your processing takes significant time before results are available). In this case you should spinup the threads and let them execute in any order as they will, but when the results are available wait for the completion of the "previous" thread and then publish your results. Using a pattern like this would allow to use the parallel execution of the long processing and still have the serialized behavior at time of the publishing of the results.