Skip to main content

UI freezing when CPU hits 100% constantly

I've been working with a team where I've been putting a WPF UI over a set of implementations of a custom interface. Each implementation is a long running process which is handled in standard manner by creating an asynchronous Task<T> and displaying the results from the continuation.

The standard CPU utilisation for the majority of the interface implementations is shown below - this represent the ideal, not hogging the CPU's and behaving like a good citizen...
Where as one implementation has the following CPU utilisation - all logical processors max'ed out. The app becomes unresponsive, the UI starts to stutter and freeze all because the dispatcher (UI) thread is not being scheduled frequently enough - white screen of death (WSoD). It's not only this app it starts to affect but all other apps running.
Hopefully the difference between the majority and this particular instance is obvious - the majority are single-threaded long running processes and the other is a multi-threaded long running process. It is not multi-threaded by a factor 2, 3 or 4, but by a factor of n, where n is considerably larger than the number of available logical processors, a value greater than 100.

The code causing this issue is generating simulation data for a set of stochastic models, the generation is CPU bound for around 5 minutes, after that the long running process returns to be being a single-threaded and behaves like all the other implementations, I can't show the actual code, but shown below is something similar:
As you can see the for-loop creates a lot of tasks - 1000 in the example. The method then waits for all of them to complete before returning. 

The scheduling of tasks (onto the logical processors) can be configured, but in this case it isn't and this is the problem, the default method overload has been usēd.

Because we aren't attempting to control the number of concurrent tasks running the TPL is maximizing the number of tasks, in this case it's running 8 in parallel across the logical processors until all the scheduled tasks have completed.

How do I control the level of concurrency for so many tasks?

The overloads for StartNew on the TaskFactory class doesn't expose an obvious solution such as an integer value for the maximum concurrency. The answer is to pass a custom scheduler to the method which it controls the level of concurrency. MSDN has an article on the subject, and it's perfectly suited to this problem. The modified method now looks like this:
I've hardcoded the maximum number of concurrency to 6 in the above example, but you could do something more dynamic by using the System.Environment.ProcessorCount property. The CPU utilisation now looks something like this:
The CPU utilisation is now around 75% which represent the level of concurrency I've specified with the scheduler - it was created  with a concurrency of 6 (out of possible 8 logical processors). This still seems rather large, but there is enough spare capacity for the dispatcher thread to be scheduled and therefore the UI remains responsive.

Note: The code above could be re-written to be more elegant using Parallel.For method, this would remove the need for the custom scheduler - it's not my code to change apparently :)

If I was to re-write it, something like this following would be better IMO:
More info about the differences can be found in the following pdf, Pattern of Parallel Programming in C# for info on Parallel.ForEach vs Task.Factory.StartNew.


Popular posts from this blog

Showing a message box from a ViewModel in MVVM

I was doing a code review with a client last week for a WPF app using MVVM and they asked ' How can I show a message from the ViewModel? '. What follows is how I would (and have) solved the problem in the past. When I hear the words ' show a message... ' I instantly think you mean show a transient modal message box that requires the user input before continuing ' with something else ' - once the user has interacted with the message box it will disappear. The following solution only applies to this scenario. The first solution is the easiest but is very wrong from a separation perspective. It violates the ideas behind the Model-View-Controller pattern because it places View concerns inside the ViewModel - the ViewModel now knows about the type of the View and specifically it knows how to show a message box window: The second approach addresses this concern by introducing the idea of messaging\events between the ViewModel and the View. In the example below

Implementing a busy indicator using a visual overlay in MVVM

This is a technique we use at work to lock the UI whilst some long running process is happening - preventing the user clicking on stuff whilst it's retrieving or rendering data. Now we could have done this by launching a child dialog window but that feels rather out of date and clumsy, we wanted a more modern pattern similar to the way <div> overlays are done on the web. Imagine we have the following simple WPF app and when 'Click' is pressed a busy waiting overlay is shown for the duration entered into the text box. What I'm interested in here is not the actual UI element of the busy indicator but how I go about getting this to show & hide from when using MVVM. The actual UI elements are the standard Busy Indicator coming from the WPF Toolkit : The XAML behind this window is very simple, the important part is the ViewHost. As you can see the ViewHost uses a ContentPresenter element which is bound to the view model, IMainViewModel, it contains 3 child v

Custom AuthorizationHandler for SignalR Hubs

How to implement IAuthorizationRequirement for SignalR in Asp.Net Core v5.0 Been battling this for a couple of days, and eventually ended up raising an issue on Asp.Net Core gitHub  to find the answer. Wanting to do some custom authorization on a SignalR Hub when the client makes a connection (Hub is created) and when an endpoint (Hub method) is called:  I was assuming I could use the same Policy for both class & method attributes, but it ain't so - not because you can't, because you need the signatures to be different. Method implementation has a resource type of HubInnovationContext: I assumed class implementation would have a resource type of HubConnectionContext - client connects etc... This isn't the case, it's infact of type DefaultHttpContext . For me I don't even need that, it can be removed completely  from the inheritence signature and override implementation. Only other thing to note, and this could be a biggy, is the ordering of the statements in th