Here's a overview of my workflow implementation:
GUI thread starts worker thread
worker thread analyzes some data
worker thread starts several other worker threads to work on subsets of
data
each of these last worker threads creates a workflow runtime and
executes a sequential workflow
Up until now, I've been creating a new WorkflowRuntime object in each thread like this:
using( WorkflowRuntime workflow_runtime = new WorkflowRuntime()) {
AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false);
workflow_runtime.WorkflowCompleted += delegate(object sender, WorkflowCompletedEventArgs e) {waitHandle.Set();};
workflow_runtime.WorkflowTerminated += delegate(object sender, WorkflowTerminatedEventArgs e)
{
Console.WriteLine(e.Exception.Message);
waitHandle.Set();
};
WorkflowInstance instance = workflow_runtime.CreateWorkflow(typeof(MyWorkflow), parameters);
instance.Start();
waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
The reason for doing it this way is that I need to know when a specific workflow instance has been terminated or errored. The problem is that it causes a huge memory leak in my application, as mentioned here on SO.
If I use the using keyword, or even if I call Dispose and set the workflow_runtime reference to null, I get a massive memory leak. However, if I implement the workflow runtime as a Singleton, as described in this post, memory usage is very low and consistent. I can see when workflows are launched and completed by blips in the graph.
The problem is, if I use the Singleton pattern for the WF runtime, how will I know when a specific workflow has an error? If I just register the event handlers, won't all of them get called when any of the workflows get terminated or completed?
EDIT: should I just use another handle on the stack for errors, and then wait for either to be set, and then check which one was set? I should have considered that before.
So here is how I have decided to solve the problem. If there is something wrong with my solution, please post comments and I will mark someone else's answer instead, if it's correct.
I changed the code to unregister the event handlers in my previous post, and confirmed that the code was executing by setting breakpoints. After running the application, it still leaked 1.5GB.
One of my issues with the Singleton pattern is that I didn't know how to handle different instances of the workflows. It turns out that I just had to check the InstanceID of the Instance passed through the event args and make sure they matched. This is how you deal with disparate workflow events.
I implemented the Singleton pattern from http://bit.ly/8pkEWT and in addition, unregistered the event handlers and handled the InstanceIDs. The memory leak is gone! However, I haven't gotten around to validating the results of each workflow. (yikes)
Related
I have a mono created from a runnable. I am using an ExecutorService with fixed thread size to create Scheduler instance. I am creating multiple Mono's using below code and subscribing to them.
Mono.fromRunnable(new Runnable() {
//Some business logic
}).subscribeOn(scheduler)
These subscriptions can happen parallel due to invocations from multiple calls and we are using a common ExecutorService for all these invocations, there could be possibility of lag between when it is subscribed and when "Some business logic" block mentioned below is actually executed due to limited thread size set for ExecutorService. Is there a way to find this time lag between when it is subscribed and when it actually got a thread to be executed?
There's no built-in way that I know of, so the best you'll likely do is use doOnSubscribe() (on the Mono object) to save one timestamp, and then create another timestamp as the first line of the run() method in that Runnable.
Those timestamps can then be compared to work out what, if any, lag is present.
I have to create a library that communicates with a device via a COM port.
In the one of the functions, I need to issue a command, then wait for several seconds as it performs a test (it varies from 10 to 1000 seconds) and return the result of the test:
One approach is to use async-await pattern:
public async Task<decimal> TaskMeasurementAsync(CancellationToken ctx = default)
{
PerformTheTest();
// Wait till the test is finished
await Task.Delay(_duration, ctx);
return ReadTheResult();
}
The other that comes to mind is to just fire an event upon completion.
The device performs a test and the duration is specified prior to performing it. So in either case I would either have to use Task.Delay() or Thread.Sleep() in order to wait for the completion of the task on the device.
I lean towards async-await as it easy to build in the cancellation and for the lack of a better term, it is self contained, i.e. I don't have to declare an event, create a EventArgs class etc.
Would appreciate any feedback on which approach is better if someone has come across a similar dilemma.
Thank you.
There are several tools available for how to structure your code.
Events are a push model (so is System.Reactive, a.k.a. "LINQ over events"). The idea is that you subscribe to the event, and then your handler is invoked zero or more times.
Tasks are a pull model. The idea is that you start some operation, and the Task will let you know when it completes. One drawback to tasks is that they only represent a single result.
The coming-soon async streams are also a pull model - one that works for multiple results.
In your case, you are starting an operation (the test), waiting for it to complete, and then reading the result. This sounds very much like a pull model would be appropriate here, so I recommend Task<T> over events/Rx.
I'm thinking about how to reduce the cost of loading Forms.Init during the start of my app.
There's some work my app does that I can already do without access to Xamari.Forms. I'm thinking about loading Forms.Init in parallel in another thread.
In case that thread isn't yet finished and I already need Xamari.Forms, I'm not sure what my option are at handling the event.
What happens in Xamarin when Forms.Init gets called and the function is already running in another thread? Or are there otherwise best practices of dealing with loading Forms.Init in parallel to other work?
Forms.Init() calls the private SetupInit() which runs platform dependent code ranging from getting an Android Context, registering renderers, adding log listeners, etc...
Assembly callingAssembly = Assembly.GetCallingAssembly ();
SetupInit (activity, callingAssembly);
There are no callbacks or events tried to the competition of Init other then its synchronous completion, but there is a boolean flag that can be checked:
global::Xamarin.Forms.Forms.IsInitialized
But, depending upon platform, this flag can be set at the beginning of the method or at the end and also note there is no lock on setting this flag (which would cause a performance hit).
So, if the other code you need to run can be done completely without Forms, yes, you could do run this in parallel.
Your Application subclass and its LoadApplication step, of course, should not be done until Init() is finished.
re: https://github.com/xamarin/Xamarin.Forms
I'm working on an Outlook Addin, and I have to process a large amount of items. This takes quite a lot of time, and I therefore tried to have the processing running in a different thread (using Task.Factory.StartNew). However, that results in Outlook randomly crashing.
I'm using Redemption to work with MAPITable, in order to reduce workload and load only relevant data.
I've tried initializing my RDOSession from both my main thread, and my worker thread.
I've tried getting the MAPIFolders on the main thread, and working with only the MAPITable on the worker thread
Currently, the only thing that works for me is running all my logic on the main thread (in the button click event), however that locks Outlook's user interface for a long period of time, which is unacceptable from a user's point of view.
Does anyone have some pointer on how to work with background threads from within an Outlook Addin?
Having similar code in my project I would suggest the following:
Create new thread using the Thread class and set it apartment to STA.
Loggin to session using "session.Logon("profileName", NoMail: true, NewSession: false);" and not using MAPIOBJECT. I found it has better performance than using MAPIOBJECT, my guess is it still marshal some calls back to the main thread as MAPIOBJECT was created on the main thread.
Use "Marshal.ReleaseComObject" on each and every COM object you use as soon as you are done with them. This is probably what causing the instability as Outlook really doesn't like when it's object are left too long. For example this line of code "var table = rdoFolder.Items.MAPITable;" create two COM objects: RDOItems and MAPITable, both of them must be released so you need to split this line to hold reference to RDOItems object.
Call GC.Collect and Application.DoEvents because if you don't call Marshal.ReleaseComObject on all COM object the finalizer will try to release them and will hang because the COM objects were created on thread that don't pump message loop and it's finalizer method must run on the thread that created them.
If you can, fire a secondary process and do this loop in the separate process. This will make maximum separation between the UI and your background work.
What was the problem using RDO objects in a secondary thread? As long as RDOSession is created on the secondary thread, MAPI should be properly initialized.
Also, TaskFactory uses a thread pool, you'd be better off using an explicit Thread class, o at least make sure that RDOSession is not shared between different threads - MAPI must be initialized on each thread.
I wish to launch a separate thread for handling window messages (via a blocking GetMessage loop), but still create the windows in the initial thread, afterward.
Within the separate thread, as soon as it launches, I am calling PeekMessage with PM_NOREMOVE to ensure a message queue exists (is this necessary?), followed by..
AttachThreadInput(initial thread id,GetCurrentThreadId(),true)
..before finally entering the message loop
I am not yet using a mutex or cs to ensure this is happening in time, but am merely using a Sleep statement in my initial thread for the sake of simplicity.
Regardless, window messages do not appear to be intercepted by the separate thread.
I am a little unsure as to whether I am doing this correctly, and would appreciate any possible guidance. Both threads are in the same process
Thank you all
That's not what AttachThreadInput does. Even after you attach your input queue to another thread, Windows still have thread affinity. Messages in the queue for a given window can only be removed from the queue by that window's thread.
What AttachTheadInput does is to make two threads share an input queue. This allows them to query information about the input state and know that the other thread will get the same answer for the same query. For instance, one thread could call GetAsyncKeyState and know that the answer reflected the key state for the other thread.
It allows two or more threads to have the same relationship to the input queue and each other as processes had in Windows 3x. This is the reason that this API exists; so that complex multiprocess applications could be ported from Win 3x to Win95/WinNT.
It seems the best way to instigate window creation from the main thread, while having messages for them handled in a separate, looping thread is to use a custom message, that can be sent to the separate thread - Thus allowing it to create the window, but still allowing that action to be invoked from the initial thread:
1) Allocate a custom message, and create a structure to hold the window initialisation parameters:
message_create_window = WM_USER + 0;
class Message_create_window{
Message_create_window(...);
};
2) Instead of calling CreateWindow(Ex), use something similiar to the following, passing in the relavant window creation parameters:
PostThreadMessage(
thread.id,
message_create_window,
new Message_create_window(...),
0
);
3) Handle the custom message in the message pump of your ui handling thread, extract the creation parameters, & free afterwards:
MSG msg;
GetMessage(&msg,0,0,0);
...
switch(msg->message){
...
case message_create_window:{
Message_create_window *data=msg->wParam;
CreateWindowEx(data->...);
delete data;
}break;
...
This does, however, have the following side-effects:
The window will be created asynchronously. If it is required that the initial thread block until the window is created (or, indeed, that the window's existence can ever be asserted) then a thread synchronisation tool must be used (such as an event)
Care should be taken when interacting with the window (it is a multithreaded application, after all)
If there are any major holes in this answer, or this seems like a terrible approach, please correct me.
(This is still my question, & I am trying to find the best way to accomplish this)