Develop Reference

Unexpected values for AsyncLocal.Value when mixing ExecutionContext.SuppressFlow and tasks

In an application I am experiencing odd behavior due to wrong/unexpected values of AsyncLocal: Despite I suppressed the flow of the execution context, I the AsyncLocal.Value-property is sometimes not reset within the execution scope of a newly spawned Task.
Below I created a minimal reproducible sample which demonstrates the problem:
private static readonly AsyncLocal<object> AsyncLocal = new AsyncLocal<object>();
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Trace.WriteLine(System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation.FrameworkDescription);
var mainTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
AsyncLocal.Value = "1";
Task anotherTask;
using (ExecutionContext.SuppressFlow())
{
anotherTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
Trace.WriteLine(AsyncLocal.Value); // "1" <- ???
Assert.IsNull(AsyncLocal.Value); // BOOM - FAILS
AsyncLocal.Value = "2";
});
}
Task.WaitAll(anotherTask);
});
mainTask.Wait(500000, CancellationToken.None);
}
In nine out of ten runs (on my pc) the outcome of the Test-method is:
.NET 6.0.2
"1"
-> The test fails
As you can see the test fails because within the action which is executed within Task.Run the the previous value is still present within AsyncLocal.Value (Message: 1).
My concrete questions are:
Why does this happen?
I suspect this happens because Task.Run may use the current thread to execute the work load. In that case, I assume lack of async/await-operators does not force the creation of a new/separate ExecutionContext for the action. Like Stephen Cleary said "from the logical call context’s perspective, all synchronous invocations are “collapsed” - they’re actually part of the context of the closest async method further up the call stack". If that’s the case I do understand why the same context is used within the action.
Is this the correct explanation for this behavior? In addition, why does it work flawlessly sometimes (about 1 run out of 10 on my machine)?
How can I fix this?
Assuming that my theory above is true it should be enough to forcefully introduce a new async "layer", like below:
private static readonly AsyncLocal<object> AsyncLocal = new AsyncLocal<object>();
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Trace.WriteLine(System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation.FrameworkDescription);
var mainTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
AsyncLocal.Value = "1";
Task anotherTask;
using (ExecutionContext.SuppressFlow())
{
var wrapper = () =>
{
Trace.WriteLine(AsyncLocal.Value);
Assert.IsNull(AsyncLocal.Value);
AsyncLocal.Value = "2";
return Task.CompletedTask;
};
anotherTask = Task.Run(async () => await wrapper());
}
Task.WaitAll(anotherTask);
});
mainTask.Wait(500000, CancellationToken.None);
}
This seems to fix the problem (it consistently works on my machine), but I want to be sure that this is a correct fix for this problem.
Many thanks in advance

Why does this happen? I suspect this happens because Task.Run may use the current thread to execute the work load.
I suspect that it happens because Task.WaitAll will use the current thread to execute the task inline.
Specifically, Task.WaitAll calls Task.WaitAllCore, which will attempt to run it inline by calling Task.WrappedTryRunInline. I'm going to assume the default task scheduler is used throughout. In that case, this will invoke TaskScheduler.TryRunInline, which will return false if the delegate is already invoked. So, if the task has already started running on a thread pool thread, this will return back to WaitAllCore, which will just do a normal wait, and your code will work as expected (1 out of 10).
If a thread pool thread hasn't picked it up yet (9 out of 10), then TaskScheduler.TryRunInline will call TaskScheduler.TryExecuteTaskInline, the default implementation of which will call Task.ExecuteEntryUnsafe, which calls Task.ExecuteWithThreadLocal. Task.ExecuteWithThreadLocal has logic for applying an ExecutionContext if one was captured. Assuming none was captured, the task's delegate is just invoked directly.
So, it seems like each step is behaving logically. Technically, what ExecutionContext.SuppressFlow means is "don't capture the ExecutionContext", and that is what is happening. It doesn't mean "clear the ExecutionContext". Sometimes the task is run on a thread pool thread (without the captured ExecutionContext), and WaitAll will just wait for it to complete. Other times the task will be executed inline by WaitAll instead of a thread pool thread, and in that case the ExecutionContext is not cleared (and technically isn't captured, either).
You can test this theory by capturing the current thread id within your wrapper and comparing it to the thread id doing the Task.WaitAll. I expect that they will be the same thread for the runs where the async local value is (unexpectedly) inherited, and they will be different threads for the runs where the async local value works as expected.

If you can, I'd first consider whether it's possible to replace the thread-specific caches with a single shared cache. The app likely predates useful types such as ConcurrentDictionary.
If it isn't possible to use a singleton cache, then you can use a stack of async local values. Stacking async local values is a common pattern. I prefer wrapping the stack logic into a separate type (AsyncLocalValue in the code below):
public sealed class AsyncLocalValue
{
private static readonly AsyncLocal<ImmutableStack<object>> _asyncLocal = new();
public object Value => _asyncLocal.Value?.Peek();
public IDisposable PushValue(object value)
{
var originalValue = _asyncLocal.Value;
var newValue = (originalValue ?? ImmutableStack<object>.Empty).Push(value);
_asyncLocal.Value = newValue;
return Disposable.Create(() => _asyncLocal.Value = originalValue);
}
}
private static AsyncLocalValue AsyncLocal = new();
[TestMethod]
public void Test()
{
Console.WriteLine(System.Runtime.InteropServices.RuntimeInformation.FrameworkDescription);
var mainTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(() =>
{
Task anotherTask;
using (AsyncLocal.PushValue("1"))
{
using (AsyncLocal.PushValue(null))
{
anotherTask = Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Observed: " + AsyncLocal.Value);
using (AsyncLocal.PushValue("2"))
{
}
});
}
}
Task.WaitAll(anotherTask);
});
mainTask.Wait(500000, CancellationToken.None);
}
This code sample uses Disposable.Create from my Nito.Disposables library.

Is there a way to abort a thread and then open it again with a new variable?

I want to open a thread to do the things it needs to do until a new command is given by the user. Then this thread should either close or receive a new command.
I have seen many posts that sending a variable to a running thread is hard, that is why I decided to kill the thread and start it again with the new variable.
I used the following post: https://stackoverflow.com/a/1327377 but without success. When I start the thread again (after it has done abort()) it gives me an exception: System.Threading.ThreadStateException.
private static Thread t = new Thread(Threading);
private static bool _running = false;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
[get arg]
if (CanRedo(arg))
{
if (t.IsAlive)
{
_running = false;
t.Interrupt();
if (t.Join(2000)) // with a '!' like in the post, abort() would not be called
{
t.Abort();
}
}
_running = true;
t.Start(arg); // gives System.Threading.ThreadStateException
}
}
private static void Threading(object obj)
{
_stopped = false;
string arg = obj.ToString();
while(_running)
{
if (bot._isDone)
{
ExecuteInstruction(arg);
}
}
}
What am I doing wrong?

I'm going to guess that you don't literally mean to abort the thread and start that same thread again. That's because if we start a thread to do some work we don't care which thread it is. If you cancel one thing and start something else, you probably don't care if it's the same thread or a different one. (In fact it's probably better if you don't care. If you need precise control over which thread is doing what then something has gotten complicated.) You can't "abort" a thread and restart it anyway.
Regarding Thread.Abort:
The Thread.Abort method should be used with caution. Particularly when you call it to abort a thread other than the current thread, you do not know what code has executed or failed to execute when the ThreadAbortException is thrown, nor can you be certain of the state of your application or any application and user state that it is responsible for preserving. For example, calling Thread.Abort may prevent static constructors from executing or prevent the release of unmanaged resources.
It's like firing an employee by teleporting them out of the building without warning. What if they were in the middle of a phone call or carrying a stack of papers? That might be okay in an emergency, but it wouldn't be a normal way to operate. It would be better to let the employee know that they need to wrap up what they're doing immediately. Put down what you're carrying. Tell the customer that you can't finish entering their order and they'll need to call back.
You're describing an expected behavior, so it would be better to cancel the thread in an orderly way.
That's where we might use a CancellationToken. In effect you're passing an object to the thread and telling it to check it from time to time to see if it should cancel what it's doing.
So you could start your thread like this:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
using (var cts = new CancellationTokenSource())
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(DoSomethingOnAnotherThread, cts.Token);
// This is just for demonstration. It allows the other thread to run for a little while
// before it gets canceled.
Thread.Sleep(5000);
cts.Cancel();
}
}
private static void DoSomethingOnAnotherThread(object obj)
{
var cancellationToken = (CancellationToken) obj;
// This thread does its thing. Once in a while it does this:
if (cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
return;
}
// Keep doing what it's doing.
}
}
Whatever the method is that's running in your separate thread, it's going to check IsCancellationRequested from time to time. If it's right in the middle of doing something it can stop. If it has unmanaged resources it can dispose them. But the important thing is that you can cancel what it does in a predictable way that leaves your application in a known state.
CancellationToken is one way to do this. In other really simple scenarios where the whole thing is happening inside one class you could also use a boolean field or property that acts as a flag to tell the thread if it needs to stop. The separate thread checks it to see if cancellation has been requested.
But using the CancellationToken makes it more manageable if you want to refactor and now the method executing on another thread is a in separate class. When you use a known pattern it makes it easier for the next person to understand what's going on.
Here's some documentation.

What about doing it this way:
private static Task t = null;
private static CancellationTokenSource cts = null;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
[get arg]
if (CanRedo(out var arg))
{
if (t != null)
{
cts.Cancel();
t.Wait();
}
// Set up a new task and matching cancellation token
cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
t = Task.Run(() => liveTask(arg, cts.Token));
}
}
private static void liveTask(object obj, CancellationToken ct)
{
string arg = obj.ToString();
while(!ct.IsCancellationRequested)
{
if (bot._isDone)
{
ExecuteInstruction(arg);
}
}
}
Tasks are cancellable, and I can see nothing in your thread that requires the same physical thread to be re-used.

Can a second thread enter the same critical section just because the first thread called Monitor.Wait using the same sync lock?

Please tell me if I am thinking it alright.
A different thread cannot enter the same critical section using
the same lock just because the first thread called Monitor.Wait, right? The Wait method only allows a different thread to acquire
the same monitor, i.e. the same synchronization lock but only for a different critical section and never for the same critical
section.
Is my understanding correct?
Because if the Wait method meant that anyone can now enter this
same critical section using this same lock, then that would defeat
the whole purpose of synchronization, right?
So, in the code below (written in notepad, so please forgive any
typos), ThreadProc2 can only use syncLock to enter the code in
ThreadProc2 and not in ThreadProc1 while the a previous thread
that held and subsequently relinquished the lock was executing
ThreadProc1, right?
Two or more threads can use the same synchronization lock to run
different pieces of code at the same time, right? Same question as
above, basically, but just confirming for the sake of symmetry with
point 3 below.
Two or more threads can use a different synchronization lock to
run the same piece of code, i.e. to enter the same critical section.
Boilerplate text to correct the formatting.
class Foo
{
private static object syncLock = new object();
public void ThreadProc1()
{
try
{
Monitor.Enter(syncLock);
Monitor.Wait(syncLock);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
finally
{
if (Monitor.IsLocked(syncLock))
{
Monitor.Exit(syncLock);
}
}
}
public void ThreadProc2()
{
bool acquired = false;
try
{
// Calling TryEnter instead of
// Enter just for the sake of variety
Monitor.TryEnter(syncLock, ref acquired);
if (acquired)
{
Thread.Sleep(200);
Monitor.Pulse(syncLock);
}
}
finally
{
if (acquired)
{
Monitor.Exit(syncLock);
}
}
}
}
Update
The following illustration confirms that #3 is correct although I don't think it will be a nice thing to do.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace DifferentSyncLockSameCriticalSection
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var sathyaish = new Person { Name = "Sathyaish Chakravarthy" };
var superman = new Person { Name = "Superman" };
var tasks = new List<Task>();
// Must not lock on string so I am using
// an object of the Person class as a lock
tasks.Add(Task.Run( () => { Proc1(sathyaish); } ));
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() => { Proc1(superman); }));
Task.WhenAll(tasks);
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit.");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void Proc1(object state)
{
// Although this would be a very bad practice
lock(state)
{
try
{
Console.WriteLine((state.ToString()).Length);
}
catch(Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine(ex.Message);
}
}
}
}
class Person
{
public string Name { get; set; }
public override string ToString()
{
return Name;
}
}
}

When a thread calls Monitor.Wait it is suspended and the lock released. This will allow another thread to acquire the lock, update some state, and then call Monitor.Pulse in order to communicate to other threads that something has happened. You must have acquired the lock in order to call Pulse. Before Monitor.Wait returns the framework will reacquire the lock for the thread that called Wait.
In order for two threads to communicate with each other they need to use the same synchronization primitive. In your example you've used a monitor, but you usually need to combine this with some kind of test that the Wait returned in response to a Pulse. This is because it is technically possible to Wait to return even if Pulse wasn't called (although this doesn't happen in practice).
It's also worth remembering that a call to Pulse isn't "sticky", so if nobody is waiting on the monitor then Pulse does nothing and a subsequent call to Wait will miss the fact that Pulse was called. This is another reason why you tend to record the fact that something has been done before calling Pulse (see the example below).
It's perfectly valid for two different threads to use the same lock to run different bits of code - in fact this is the typical use-case. For example, one thread acquires the lock to write some data and another thread acquires the lock to read the data. However, it's important to realize that they don't run at the same time. The act of acquiring the lock prevents another thread from acquiring the same lock, so any thread attempting to acquire the lock when it is already locked will block until the other thread releases the lock.
In point 3 you ask:
Two or more threads can use a different synchronization lock to run
the same piece of code, i.e. to enter the same critical section.
However, if two threads are using different locks then they are not entering the same critical section. The critical section is denoted by the lock that protects it - if they're different locks then they are different sections that just happen to access some common data within the section. You should avoid doing this as it can lead to some difficult to debug data race conditions.
Your code is a bit over-complicated for what you're trying to accomplish. For example, let's say we've got 2 threads, and one will signal when there is data available for another to process:
class Foo
{
private readonly object syncLock = new object();
private bool dataAvailable = false;
public void ThreadProc1()
{
lock(syncLock)
{
while(!dataAvailable)
{
// Release the lock and suspend
Monitor.Wait(syncLock);
}
// Now process the data
}
}
public void ThreadProc2()
{
LoadData();
lock(syncLock)
{
dataAvailable = true;
Monitor.Pulse(syncLock);
}
}
private void LoadData()
{
// Gets some data
}
}
}

Condition Variables C#/.NET

In my quest to build a condition variable class I stumbled on a trivially simple way of doing it and I'd like to share this with the stack overflow community. I was googling for the better part of an hour and was unable to actually find a good tutorial or .NET-ish example that felt right, hopefully this can be of use to other people out there.

It's actually incredibly simple, once you know about the semantics of lock and Monitor.
But first, you do need an object reference. You can use this, but remember that this is public, in the sense that anyone with a reference to your class can lock on that reference. If you are uncomfortable with this, you can create a new private reference, like this:
readonly object syncPrimitive = new object(); // this is legal
Somewhere in your code where you'd like to be able to provide notifications, it can be accomplished like this:
void Notify()
{
lock (syncPrimitive)
{
Monitor.Pulse(syncPrimitive);
}
}
And the place where you'd do the actual work is a simple looping construct, like this:
void RunLoop()
{
lock (syncPrimitive)
{
for (;;)
{
// do work here...
Monitor.Wait(syncPrimitive);
}
}
}
Yes, this looks incredibly deadlock-ish, but the locking protocol for Monitor is such that it will release the lock during the Monitor.Wait. In fact, it's a requirement that you have obtained the lock before you call either Monitor.Pulse, Monitor.PulseAll or Monitor.Wait.
There's one caveat with this approach that you should know about. Since the lock is required to be held before calling the communication methods of Monitor you should really only hang on to the lock for an as short duration as possible. A variation of the RunLoop that's more friendly towards long running background tasks would look like this:
void RunLoop()
{
for (;;)
{
// do work here...
lock (syncPrimitive)
{
Monitor.Wait(syncPrimitive);
}
}
}
But now we've changed up the problem a bit, because the lock is no longer protecting the shared resource throughout the processing. So, if some of your code in the do work here... bit needs to access a shared resource you'll need an separate lock managing access to that.
We can leverage the above to create a simple thread-safe producer consumer collection (although .NET already provides an excellent ConcurrentQueue<T> implementation; this is just to illustrate the simplicity of using Monitor in implementing such mechanisms).
class BlockingQueue<T>
{
// We base our queue on the (non-thread safe) .NET 2.0 Queue collection
readonly Queue<T> q = new Queue<T>();
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
lock (q)
{
q.Enqueue(item);
System.Threading.Monitor.Pulse(q);
}
}
public T Dequeue()
{
lock (q)
{
for (;;)
{
if (q.Count > 0)
{
return q.Dequeue();
}
System.Threading.Monitor.Wait(q);
}
}
}
}
Now the point here is not to build a blocking collection, that also available in the .NET framework (see BlockingCollection). The point is to illustrate how simple it is to build an event driven message system using the Monitor class in .NET to implement conditional variable. Hope you find this useful.

Use ManualResetEvent
The class that is similar to conditional variable is the ManualResetEvent, just that the method name is slightly different.
The notify_one() in C++ would be named Set() in C#.
The wait() in C++ would be named WaitOne() in C#.
Moreover, ManualResetEvent also provides a Reset() method to set the state of the event to non-signaled.

The accepted answer is not a good one.
According to the Dequeue() code, Wait() gets called in each loop, which causes unnecessary waiting thus excessive context switches. The correct paradigm should be, wait() is called when the waiting condition is met. In this case, the waiting condition is q.Count() == 0.
Here's a better pattern to follow when it comes to using a Monitor.
https://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/windows/desktop/ms682052%28v=vs.85%29.aspx
Another comment on C# Monitor is, it does not make use of a condition variable(which will essentially wake up all threads waiting for that lock, regardless of the conditions in which they went to wait; consequently, some threads may grab the lock and immediately return to sleep when they find the waiting condition hasn't been changed). It does not provide you with as find-grained threading control as pthreads. But it's .Net anyway, so not completely unexpected.
=============upon the request of John, here's an improved version=============
class BlockingQueue<T>
{
readonly Queue<T> q = new Queue<T>();
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
lock (q)
{
while (false) // condition predicate(s) for producer; can be omitted in this particular case
{
System.Threading.Monitor.Wait(q);
}
// critical section
q.Enqueue(item);
}
// generally better to signal outside the lock scope
System.Threading.Monitor.Pulse(q);
}
public T Dequeue()
{
T t;
lock (q)
{
while (q.Count == 0) // condition predicate(s) for consumer
{
System.Threading.Monitor.Wait(q);
}
// critical section
t = q.Dequeue();
}
// this can be omitted in this particular case; but not if there's waiting condition for the producer as the producer needs to be woken up; and here's the problem caused by missing condition variable by C# monitor: all threads stay on the same waiting queue of the shared resource/lock.
System.Threading.Monitor.Pulse(q);
return t;
}
}
A few things I'd like to point out:
1, I think my solution captures the requirements & definitions more precisely than yours. Specifically, the consumer should be forced to wait if and only if there's nothing left in the queue; otherwise it's up to the OS/.Net runtime to schedule threads. In your solution, however, the consumer is forced to wait in each loop, regardless whether it has actually consumed anything or not - this is the excessive waiting/context switches I was talking about.
2, My solution is symmetric in the sense that both the consumer and the producer code share the same pattern while yours is not. If you did know the pattern and just omitted for this particular case, then I take back this point.
3, Your solution signals inside the lock scope, while my solutions signals outside the lock scope. Please refer to this answer as to why your solution is worse.
why should we signal outside the lock scope
I was talking about the flaw of missing condition variables in C# monitor, and here's its impact: there's simply no way for C# to implemented the solution of moving the waiting thread from the condition queue to the lock queue. Therefore, the excessive context switch is doomed to take place in the three-thread scenario proposed by the answer in the link.
Also, the lack of condition variable makes it impossible to distinguish between the various cases where threads wait on the same shared resource/lock, but for different reasons. All waiting threads are place on a big waiting queue for that shared resource, which undermines efficiency.
"But it's .Net anyway, so not completely unexpected" --- it's understandable that .Net does not pursue as high efficiency as C++, it's understandable. But it does not imply programmers should not know the differences and their impacts.

Go to deadlockempire.github.io/. They have an amazing tutorial that will help you understand the condition variable as well as locks and will cetainly help you write your desired class.
You can step through the following code at deadlockempire.github.io and trace it. Here is the code snippet
while (true) {
Monitor.Enter(mutex);
if (queue.Count == 0) {
Monitor.Wait(mutex);
}
queue.Dequeue();
Monitor.Exit(mutex);
}
while (true) {
Monitor.Enter(mutex);
if (queue.Count == 0) {
Monitor.Wait(mutex);
}
queue.Dequeue();
Monitor.Exit(mutex);
}
while (true) {
Monitor.Enter(mutex);
queue.Enqueue(42);
Monitor.PulseAll(mutex);
Monitor.Exit(mutex);
}

As has been pointed out by h9uest's answer and comments the Monitor's Wait interface does not allow for proper condition variables (i.e. it does not allow for waiting on multiple conditions per shared lock).
The good news is that the other synchronization primitives (e.g. SemaphoreSlim, lock keyword, Monitor.Enter/Exit) in .NET can be used to implement a proper condition variable.
The following ConditionVariable class will allow you to wait on multiple conditions using a shared lock.
class ConditionVariable
{
private int waiters = 0;
private object waitersLock = new object();
private SemaphoreSlim sema = new SemaphoreSlim(0, Int32.MaxValue);
public ConditionVariable() {
}
public void Pulse() {
bool release;
lock (waitersLock)
{
release = waiters > 0;
}
if (release) {
sema.Release();
}
}
public void Wait(object cs) {
lock (waitersLock) {
++waiters;
}
Monitor.Exit(cs);
sema.Wait();
lock (waitersLock) {
--waiters;
}
Monitor.Enter(cs);
}
}
All you need to do is create an instance of the ConditionVariable class for each condition you want to be able to wait on.
object queueLock = new object();
private ConditionVariable notFullCondition = new ConditionVariable();
private ConditionVariable notEmptyCondition = new ConditionVariable();
And then just like in the Monitor class, the ConditionVariable's Pulse and Wait methods must be invoked from within a synchronized block of code.
T Take() {
lock(queueLock) {
while(queue.Count == 0) {
// wait for queue to be not empty
notEmptyCondition.Wait(queueLock);
}
T item = queue.Dequeue();
if(queue.Count < 100) {
// notify producer queue not full anymore
notFullCondition.Pulse();
}
return item;
}
}
void Add(T item) {
lock(queueLock) {
while(queue.Count >= 100) {
// wait for queue to be not full
notFullCondition.Wait(queueLock);
}
queue.Enqueue(item);
// notify consumer queue not empty anymore
notEmptyCondition.Pulse();
}
}
Below is a link to the full source code of a proper Condition Variable class using 100% managed code in C#.
https://github.com/CodeExMachina/ConditionVariable

i think i found "The WAY" on the tipical problem of a
List<string> log;
used by multiple thread, one tha fill it and the other processing and the other one empting
avoiding empty
while(true){
//stuff
Thread.Sleep(100)
}
variables used in Program
public static readonly List<string> logList = new List<string>();
public static EventWaitHandle evtLogListFilled = new AutoResetEvent(false);
the processor work like
private void bw_DoWorkLog(object sender, DoWorkEventArgs e)
{
StringBuilder toFile = new StringBuilder();
while (true)
{
try
{
{
//waiting form a signal
Program.evtLogListFilled.WaitOne();
try
{
//critical section
Monitor.Enter(Program.logList);
int max = Program.logList.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < max; i++)
{
SetText(Program.logList[0]);
toFile.Append(Program.logList[0]);
toFile.Append("\r\n");
Program.logList.RemoveAt(0);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(Program.logList);
// end critical section
}
try
{
if (toFile.Length > 0)
{
Logger.Log(toFile.ToString().Substring(0, toFile.Length - 2));
toFile.Clear();
}
}
catch
{
}
}
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Logger.Log(System.Reflection.MethodBase.GetCurrentMethod(), ex);
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
On the filler thread we have
public static void logList_add(string str)
{
try
{
try
{
//critical section
Monitor.Enter(Program.logList);
Program.logList.Add(str);
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(Program.logList);
//end critical section
}
//set start
Program.evtLogListFilled.Set();
}
catch{}
}
this solution is fully tested, the istruction Program.evtLogListFilled.Set(); may release the lock on Program.evtLogListFilled.WaitOne() and also the next future lock.
I think this is the simpliest way.

Lazy<T> ExecutionAndPublication - Examples That Could Cause Deadlock

The documentation for LazyThreadSafetyMode states that using the value ExecutionAndPublication could cause deadlocks if the initialization method (or the default constructor, if there is no initialization method) uses locks internally. I am trying to get a better understanding of examples that could cause a deadlock when using this value. In my use of this value, I am initializing a ChannelFactory. I cannot see the ChannelFactory's constructor using any internal locks (reviewing the class with Reflector), so I believe this scenario does not fit the possible deadlock situation, but I am curious what situations could cause a deadlock as well as if there could be a possible deadlock initializing the ChannelFactory.
So, to summarize, my questions are:
Is it possible to cause a deadlock initializing the ChannelFactory using ExecutionAndPublication?
What are some possible ways to cause a deadlock initializing other objects using ExecutionAndPublication?
Suppose you have the following code:
class x
{
static Lazy<ChannelFactory<ISomeChannel>> lcf =
new Lazy<ChannelFactory<ISomeChannel>>(
() => new ChannelFactory<ISomeChannel>("someEndPointConfig"),
LazyThreadSafetyMode.ExecutionAndPublication
);
public static ISomeChannel Create()
{
return lcf.Value.CreateChannel();
}
}

It's as documented – if it doesn't use any locks, this usage cannot cause any deadlocks.
Imagine that you have a lazy value that you initialize by reading from a database, but you want to make sure that only one thread is accessing the DB at any moment. If you have other code that accesses the DB, you could have a deadlock. Consider the following code:
void Main()
{
Task otherThread = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => UpdateDb(43));
Thread.Sleep(100);
Console.WriteLine(lazyInt.Value);
}
static object l = new object();
Lazy<int> lazyInt = new Lazy<int>(Init, LazyThreadSafetyMode.ExecutionAndPublication);
static int Init()
{
lock(l)
{
return ReadFromDb();
}
}
void UpdateDb(int newValue)
{
lock(l)
{
// to make sure deadlock occurs every time
Thread.Sleep(1000);
if (newValue != lazyInt.Value)
{
// some code that requires the lock
}
}
}
Init() reads from the DB, so it has to use the lock. UpdateDb() writes to the DB, so it needs the lock too, and since Lazy uses a lock internally too in this case, it causes deadlock.
In this case, it would be easy to fix the deadlock by moving the access to lazyInt.Value in UpdateDb() outside the lock statement, but it may not be so trivial (or obvious) in other cases.