640 enterprise library caching threads - how?

Answer 1

640 threads is very bad for performance. If they are all waiting for something, then I'd say it's a fair bet that you have a deadlock and they will never exit. If they are all running (not waiting)... well, with 600+ threads on a 2 or 4 core processor none of them will get enough time slices to run very far! ;>

If your app is set up with a main thread that waits on the thread handles to find out when the threads exit, and the background threads get caught up in a loop or in a wait state and never exit the thread proc, then the process and all of its threads will never exit.

Check your thread code to make sure that every threadproc has a clear path to exit the threadproc. It's bad form to write an infinite loop in a background thread on the assumption that the thread will be forcibly terminated when the process shuts down.

If the background thread code spins in a loop waiting for an event handle to signal, make sure that you have some way to signal that event so that the thread can perform a normal orderly exit. Otherwise, you need to write the background thread to wait on multiple events and unblock when any one of the events signals. One of those events can be the activity that the background thread is primarily interested in and the other can be a shutdown event.

From the names of things in the stack dump you posted, it would appear that the thread is waiting for something to appear in the ProducerConsumerQueue. Investigate how that queue object is supposed to be shut down, probably on the producer side, and whether shutting down the queue will automatically release all consumers that are waiting on that queue.

My guess is that either the queue is not being shut down correctly or shutting it down does not implicitly release the consumers that are waiting on it. If the latter case, you may need to pump a terminate message through the queue to wake up all the consumers waiting on that queue and tell them to break out of their wait loop and exit.

Answer 2

You have an major issue. Every Thread occupies 1MB of stack and there is significant cost paid for Context Switching every thread in and out. Especially it becomes worst with managed code because every time GC has to run , it would have walk the threads stack to look for roots and when these threads are paged to the disk the cost to read from the disk is expensive,which adds up Perf issue.

Creating threads are Bad unless you know what you are doing? Jeffery Richter has written in detail about this.

To solve the above issue I would look what these threads are blocked on and also put a break-point on Thread Create (example sxe ct within windbg)

And later rearchitect from avoid creating threads , instead use the thread pool.

It would have been nice to some callstacks of these threads.

Answer 3

In Microsoft Enterprise Library 4.1, the BackgroundScheduler class creates a new thread each time an object is instantiated. It will be fixed in version 5.0. I do not know enough of this Microsoft Library to advise you how to avoid that behavior, but you may try the beta version: http://entlib.codeplex.com/wikipage?title=EntLib5%20Beta2

Answer 4

Yes, the caching block has some - issues - with regard to the scavenger threads in older versions of Entlib, particularly if things are coming in faster than the scavenging settings let them come out.

This was completely rewritten in Entlib 5, so that now you'll never have more than two threads sitting in the caching block, regardless of the load, and usually it'll only be one. Unfortunately there's no easy tweak to change the behavior in earlier versions. The best you can do is change the cache settings so that each scavenge will clean out more items at a time so not as many scavenge requests need to get scheduled.