Develop Reference

Read/Write locking confusion

I'm not entirely sure how best accomplish this multi-threading scenario so any input would be appreciated.
I have one block, that reads data, that several threads can access at once. I have another block that writes data, only one thread can write at any time. Also it can't start writing as long as any thread is reading the data. Is ReaderWriterLockSlim the way to go here, will it wait for the read threads to exit before blocking the thread for writing?

Yes, ReaderWriterLockSlim is perfect for frequent reader/infrequent writer scenarios.
The behaviour is as you guessed - single writer only, writers block until all readers are done, readers cannot access while writer is in process.
Be careful that the time you hold the lock (whether for read or write) is long enough to prevent any concurrent access, and no longer.

Yes, it sounds like ReaderWriterLockSlim is what you want.
A write lock will not be acquired as long as read locks are in place. I suggest you read the documentation for a complete description of the behavior (locking queues, etc):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.readerwriterlockslim.aspx

ReaderWriterLock vs lock{}

Please explain what are the main differences and when should I use what.
The focus on web multi-threaded applications.

lock allows only one thread to execute the code at the same time. ReaderWriterLock may allow multiple threads to read at the same time or have exclusive access for writing, so it might be more efficient. If you are using .NET 3.5 ReaderWriterLockSlim is even faster. So if your shared resource is being read more often than being written, use ReaderWriterLockSlim. A good example for using it is a file that you read very often (on each request) and you update the contents of the file rarely. So when you read from the file you enter a read lock so that many requests can open it for reading and when you decide to write you enter a write lock. Using a lock on the file will basically mean that you can serve one request at a time.

Consider using ReaderWriterLock if you have lots of threads that only need to read the data and these threads are getting blocked waiting for the lock and and you don’t often need to change the data.
However ReaderWriterLock may block a thread that is waiting to write for a long time.
Therefore only use ReaderWriterLock after you have confirmed you get high contention for the lock in “real life” and you have confirmed you can’t redesign your locking design to reduce how long the lock is held for.
Also consider if you can't rather store the shared data in a database and let it take care of all the locking, as this is a lot less likely to give you a hard time tracking down bugs, iff a database is fast enough for your application.
In some cases you may also be able to use the Aps.net cache to handle shared data, and just remove the item from the cache when the data changes. The next read can put a fresh copy in the cache.
Remember
"The best kind of locking is the
locking you don't need (i.e. don't
share data between threads)."

Monitor and the underlying "syncblock" that can be associated with any reference object—the underlying mechanism under C#'s lock—support exclusive execution. Only one thread can ever have the lock. This is simple and efficient.
ReaderWriterLock (or, in V3.5, the better ReaderWriterLockSlim) provide a more complex model. Avoid unless you know it will be more efficient (i.e. have performance measurements to support yourself).
The best kind of locking is the locking you don't need (i.e. don't share data between threads).

ReaderWriterLock allows you to have multiple threads hold the ReadLock at the same time... so that your shared data can be consumed by many threads at once. As soon as a WriteLock is requested no more ReadLocks are granted and the code waiting for the WriteLock is blocked until all the threads with ReadLocks have released them.
The WriteLock can only ever be held by one thread, allow your 'data updates' to appear atomic from the point of view of the consuming parts of your code.
The Lock on the other hand only allows one thread to enter at a time, with no allowance for threads that are simply trying to consume the shared data.
ReaderWriterLockSlim is a new more performant version of ReaderWriterLock with better support for recursion and the ability to have a thread move from a Lock that is essentially a ReadLock to the WriteLock smoothly (UpgradeableReadLock).

ReaderWriterLock/Slim is specifically designed to help you efficiently lock in a multiple consumer/ single producer scenario. Doing so with the lock statement is possible, but not efficient. RWL/S gets the upper hand by being able to aggressively spinlock to acquire the lock. That also helps you avoid lock convoys, a problem with the lock statement where a thread relinquishes its thread quantum when it cannot acquire the lock, making it fall behind because it won't be rescheduled for a while.

It is true that ReaderWriterLockSlim is FASTER than ReaderWriterLock. But the memory consumption by ReaderWriterLockSlim is outright outrageous. Try attaching a memory profiler and see for yourself. I would pick ReaderWriterLock anyday over ReaderWriterLockSlim.

I would suggest looking through http://www.albahari.com/threading/part4.aspx#_Reader_Writer_Locks. It talks about ReaderWriterLockSlim (which you want to use instead of ReaderWriterLock).

Slowdown identified: ReaderWriterLock(-1). May I use different locks?

after hours of tracking mysterious one or two seconds long lasting "freeze" I finally found out that its ReaderWriterLock(-1). It is server app and the lock here is held for writing to client collection. Im not familiar with locking so I would like to ask if there is not any better/faster way? How about using lock object to lock add/read statements of collection?
This freeze occurs very randomly but its very annoying since it causes lag to all connected clients.
Thanks!

Do you mean AcquireReaderLock(-1)/AcquireWriterLock(-1) or similar? That would suggest that the lock is contended - in which case, fix whichever code is holding the (write) lock at the time. If the delay is literally with the locking class, then maybe ReaderWriterLockSlim would have less overhead. lock would indeed be simpler still (hence cheaper), but doesn't allow the same granularity - it is essentially a mutex lock, so only one thread can play with the object. Contrast a reader/writer lock which allows one writer NAND multiple readers.
To be honest, it sounds as simple as "occasionally, some code will take a write lock (blocking other callers), and take a while to complete". Finding the offending code is a black art, but has little to do with the lock itself.

Optimized ReaderWriterLock Read Access

So it's my understanding that on a ReaderWriterLock (or ReaderWriterLockSlim more specifically), both the read and write need acquire a mutex to take the lock. I'd like to optimize the read access of the lock, such that if there are no writes pending, no lock need be acquired. (And I'm willing to sacrifice the performance of writes, add some constraints to the reads, make the first read slow and second fast, etc.. if necessary, as long as the vast majority of the reads are as fast as possible.)
So, how would one do this, or even better, is there a framework or "standard" implementation one could point me to? (Or if I've misunderstood and it's supported already, great!)
So for my piece:
It would seem that if one were to have a counter for the number of readers/writers (protected by Interlocked.Increment), that would be enough for the reader to check if the writer count was non-zero, and only acquire the lock then. (And increment within the lock if acquired.)
Writers would always increment, acquire the lock, spin till the reader count went to 0 (willing to assume readers always finish quickly, or even bypass the reader count entirely in an optimistic scenario), and finally decrement. (It'd be nice to throw in some form priority too when we do block, or potentially clear all pending readers/writers in one pass since I'm only protecting one value, but I'll forgo that for now..)
So.. anyone seen anything similar or have a suggestion? If there's nothing out there after a bit, I'd be happy to throw together an initial implementation and talk more concretely.

What you've described is, at a basic level, already how the reader/writer locks work. They don't need to take a mutex out as the reader/writer lock controls access by using an internal count of readers and writers (and, indeed, a mutex would imply that readers would block each other, whereas in fact multiple concurrent readers are allowed -- that's the whole point of the lock type!).
So yes, there is a framework/standard implementation for this: ReaderWriterLockSlim. I really doubt you'll be able to write a reader/writer lock with better performance than this. In any case -- are you sure that this lock is the root of your performance problems?

I am afraid you are wrong, since ReaderWriterLockSlim is based on spin locking, not on mutexes (you can see this in Reflector).

lock keyword in C#

I understand the main function of the lock key word from MSDN
lock Statement (C# Reference)
The lock keyword marks a statement
block as a critical section by
obtaining the mutual-exclusion lock
for a given object, executing a
statement, and then releasing the
lock.
When should the lock be used?
For instance it makes sense with multi-threaded applications because it protects the data. But is it necessary when the application does not spin off any other threads?
Is there performance issues with using lock?
I have just inherited an application that is using lock everywhere, and it is single threaded and I want to know should I leave them in, are they even necessary?
Please note this is more of a general knowledge question, the application speed is fine, I want to know if that is a good design pattern to follow in the future or should this be avoided unless absolutely needed.

When should the lock be used?
A lock should be used to protect shared resources in multithreaded code. Not for anything else.
But is it necessary when the application does not spin off any other threads?
Absolutely not. It's just a time waster. However do be sure that you're not implicitly using system threads. For example if you use asynchronous I/O you may receive callbacks from a random thread, not your original thread.
Is there performance issues with using lock?
Yes. They're not very big in a single-threaded application, but why make calls you don't need?
...if that is a good design pattern to follow in the future[?]
Locking everything willy-nilly is a terrible design pattern. If your code is cluttered with random locking and then you do decide to use a background thread for some work, you're likely to run into deadlocks. Sharing a resource between multiple threads requires careful design, and the more you can isolate the tricky part, the better.

All the answers here seem right: locks' usefulness is to block threads from acessing locked code concurrently. However, there are many subtleties in this field, one of which is that locked blocks of code are automatically marked as critical regions by the Common Language Runtime.
The effect of code being marked as critical is that, if the entire region cannot be entirely executed, the runtime may consider that your entire Application Domain is potentially jeopardized and, therefore, unload it from memory. To quote MSDN:
For example, consider a task that attempts to allocate memory while holding a lock. If the memory allocation fails, aborting the current task is not sufficient to ensure stability of the AppDomain, because there can be other tasks in the domain waiting for the same lock. If the current task is terminated, other tasks could be deadlocked.
Therefore, even though your application is single-threaded, this may be a hazard for you. Consider that one method in a locked block throws an exception that is eventually not handled within the block. Even if the exception is dealt as it bubbles up through the call stack, your critical region of code didn't finish normally. And who knows how the CLR will react?
For more info, read this article on the perils of Thread.Abort().

Bear in mind that there might be reasons why your application is not as single-threaded as you think. Async I/O in .NET may well call-back on a pool thread, for example, as do some of the various timer classes (not the Windows Forms Timer, though).

Generally speaking if your application is single threaded, you're not going to get much use out of the lock statement. Not knowing your application exactly, I don't know if they're useful or not - but I suspect not. Further, if you're application is using lock everywhere I don't know that I would feel all that confident about it working in a multi-threaded environment anyways - did the original developer actually know how to develop multi-threaded code, or did they just add lock statements everywhere in the vague hope that that would do the trick?

lock should be used around the code that modifies shared state, state that is modified by other threads concurrently, and those other treads must take the same lock.
A lock is actually a memory access serializer, the threads (that take the lock) will wait on the lock to enter until the current thread exits the lock, so memory access is serialized.
To answer you question lock is not needed in a single threaded application, and it does have performance side effects. because locks in C# are based on kernel sync objects and every lock you take creates a transition to kernel mode from user mode.
If you're interested in multithreading performance a good place to start is MSDN threading guidelines

You can have performance issues with locking variables, but normally, you'd construct your code to minimize the lengths of time that are spent inside a 'locked' block of code.
As far as removing the locks. It'll depend on what exactly the code is doing. Even though it's single threaded, if your object is implemented as a Singleton, it's possible that you'll have multiple clients using an instance of it (in memory, on a server) at the same time..

Yes, there will be some performance penalty when using lock but it is generally neglible enough to not matter.
Using locks (or any other mutual-exclusion statement or construct) is generally only needed in multi-threaded scenarios where multiple threads (either of your own making or from your caller) have the opportunity to interact with the object and change the underlying state or data maintained. For example, if you have a collection that can be accessed by multiple threads you don't want one thread changing the contents of that collection by removing an item while another thread is trying to read it.

Lock(token) is only used to mark one or more blocks of code that should not run simultaneously in multiple threads. If your application is single-threaded, it's protecting against a condition that can't exist.
And locking does invoke a performance hit, adding instructions to check for simultaneous access before code is executed. It should only be used where necessary.

See the question about 'Mutex' in C#. And then look at these two questions regarding use of the 'lock(Object)' statement specifically.

There is no point in having locks in the app if there is only one thread and yes, it is a performance hit although it does take a fair number of calls for that hit to stack up into something significant.