Develop Reference

How to stop an object (and everything inside it) from being finalized?

In my two-week long quest to solve a problem:
How to get notified before static variables are finalized
Unload event for the default Application Domain?
Profiling ASP.net applications over the long term?
the fundamental problem is the garbage collector. My object's Finalizer would have been the ideal time to react when the object is about to be freed (i.e. to have its resources reclaimed). The problem with the .NET garbage collection system is that by the time my finalizer is called, it's entirely likely that other objects i own have already been finalized.
The problem would be trivial to solve if i were interoping with native class objects. The garbage collector is unable to free those objects behind my back (and without my permission). So by the time my managed object's finalizer is called, i know that my internal state is still valid.
What i need is a way to tell the garbage collector to keep your hands off.
Is there a ways to prevent an object from being finalized?
For example
For example, the following code is buggy, because the finalizer mistakenly things that the private _values object still exists. In reality it is likely already finalized out from under me:
class Sqm
{
private List<Value> _values = new List<Value>();
//finalizer
public ~Sqm()
{
Shutdown();
}
protected void Shutdown()
{
foreach (var value in _values) //<-- crash; _values no longer exists
SaveValueToHardDrive(value); //<-- crash; value no longer exists
}
}
What i need is a way to tell the garbage collector not to finalize that list object, or any of the objects inside it:
class Sqm
{
private List<Value> _values = new List<Value>();
//constructor
public Sqm()
{
GC.LetMeManuallyFinalize(_values);
}
//finalizer
public ~Sqm()
{
Shutdown();
GC.ManuallyFinalize(_values);
}
protected void Shutdown()
{
foreach (var value in _values)
SaveValueToHardDrive(value);
}
}
That has two possible problems:
there is no GC.ManuallyFinalize method
it might suppress freeing the _values list itself, but the objects it references would likely still be finalized behind my back:
protected void Shutdown()
{
foreach (var value in _values)
SaveValueToHardDrive(value); //<---crash, contained object already finalized
}
So now i need to ensure that the objects, as they are added to the list, are also excluded from finalization:
public void AddSample(String name, Int64 value)
{
Entry entry = GetEntryByName(name);
if (entry == null)
{
entry = new Entry();
GC.LetMeManuallyFinalize(entry);
}
entry.Count += 1;
entry.Sum += value;
entry.Average = entry.Sum / entry.Count;
}
//finalizer
public ~Sqm()
{
foreach (var value in _values)
GC.ManuallyFinalize(value);
GC.ManuallyFinalize(_values);
}
That probably has the problem that while Entry has no other internal objects, i don't know about List<T>. And the garbage collector might perform an unwanted labotomy on _values even though _values itself hasn't been finalized.
Use GCAlloc.Alloc()
#MatthewWatson had an excellent idea. i think it would be useful to point out why it's wrong. Use GCAlloc.Alloc to hold a reference to the object. Then you use can access it during your finalizer:
public Sqm()
{
private List<Value> _values = new List<Value>();
private GCHandle _valuesHandle; //handle to keep _values alive
//constructor
Sqm()
{
//prevent _values from being finalized
_valuesHandle = GCAlloc.Alloc(_values);
}
//finalizer
~Sqm()
{
try
{
Shutdown(_values); //Safe, right? RIGHT? _values couldn't have been finalized
}
finally
{
_valuesHandle.Free();
}
}
private void Shutdown(List<Values> values)
{
foreach (var value in values)
{
//The list itself might not have been finalized
//But objects used internally to Microsoft's List<T> class have been finalized
//and objects in the list itself were already finalized
SaveValueToHardDrive(value); //<--BAD: values inside list were already finalized
}
}
}
Note: It also probably fails because of the pseudo-documented behavior. From The Truth About GCHandles:
When you create a new GCHandle, a new entry in the AppDomain's handle table is created. This entry is kept until the handle is freed (via GCHandle.Free()) or the AppDomain is unloaded.
Emphasis mine.
So that's right out. i need to tell the garbage collector
Do not finalize this object (and everything inside it)
The tricky part is the internal private members of classes i do not own; even an object still referenced by GCAlloc will still have objects it depends on finalized behind it's back.
Sample Usage
public static Foo
{
public static Sqm = new Sqm();
}
Foo.Sqm.AddSample("QueryCustomerInfo", stopwatch.TotalMicroseconds);

It's a very bad practice to do any long term operations during finalization, like input-output, anyway.
You should consider storing your _values lists of your objects in the static list - this will prevent values from destruction. When your object is being finalizing, you could save the reference to the inner list in another static list, which is checked periodically. When it contains references to lists, it will mean that your object was destructed and values it contained should be saved.
class Sqm
{
private static List<List<Value>> = _lists = new List<List<Value>>();
private static List<List<Value>> = _finalizationQueue = new List<List<Value>>();
private List<Value> _values = new List<Value>();
Sqm() { _lists.Add(_values); }
~Sqm() { _finalizationQueue.Add(_values); }
public static void CheckAndSave()
{
foreach(var list in _finalizationQueue)
SaveValues(list);
}
}
UPD.: If domain may be shutdown when you dont want it to, your only way is to store values in another domain.

how to prevent a deadlock when you need to lock multiple objects

Image this code:
You have 2 arrays, and you need to lock both of them in same moment (for any reason - you just need to keep locked both of them because they are somehow depending on each other) - you could nest the lock
lock (array1)
{
lock (array2)
{
... do your code
}
}
but this may result in a deadlock in case that someone in other part of your code would do
lock (array2)
{
lock (array1)
{
... do your code
}
}
and array 1 was locked - execution context switched - then array 2 was locked by second thread.
Is there a way to atomically lock them? such as
lock_array(array1, array2)
{
....
}
I know I could just create some extra "lock object" and lock that instead of both arrays everywhere in my code, but that just doesn't seem correct to me...

In general you should avoid locking on publicly accessible members (the arrays in your case). You'd rather have a private static object you'd lock on.

You should never allow locking on publicly accessible variable as Darin said. For example
public class Foo
{
public object Locker = new object();
}
public class Bar
{
public void DoStuff()
{
var foo = new Foo();
lock(foo.Locker)
{
// doing something here
}
}
}
rather do something like this.
public class Foo
{
private List<int> toBeProtected = new List<int>();
private object locker = new object();
public void Add(int value)
{
lock(locker)
{
toBeProtected.Add(value);
}
}
}
The reason for this is if you have multiple threads accessing multiple public synchronization constructs then run the very real possiblity of deadlock. Then you have to be very careful about how you code. If you are making your library available to others can you be sure that you can grab the lock? Perhaps someone using your library has also grabbed the lock and between the two of you have worked your way into a deadlock scenario. This is the reason Microsoft recommend not using SyncRoot.

I am not sure what you mean by lock to arrays.
You can easily perform operation on both arrays in single lock.
static readonly object a = new object();
lock(a){
//Perform operation on both arrays
}

C# lock object inside instance object

i faced ith situation that force me to lock a lock object that is inside of instance object i want to know is it true or not?
for clarify :
public class classA
{
object objLock = new object();
public void MethodA(object objClassA)
{
classA cls = (classA)objClassA;
lock(cls.objLock)
{
Do something with cls
}
}
}
is it allowed to do it?

The object you lock on is in the same class, but a different instance. In that sense you are not breaking encapsulation, but you should still prefer extracting that code so you can prevent locking on an external object. Here's an example:
public class classA
{
private readonly object objLock = new object();
public void MethodA(object objClassA)
{
classA cls = (classA)objClassA;
cls.DoSomething();
}
private void DoSomething()
{
lock (this.objLock)
{
Do something with cls
}
}
}

This is perfectly fine. It is legal C#. In fact this is the preferred way instead of locking this. Because this can be locked from outside the class whereas objLock being private can only be locked within the class, giving you better control and avoiding some deadlock conditions
However the casting could potentially throw an exception. You might want to handle that scenario

Properly locking a List<T> in MultiThreaded Scenarios?

Okay, I just can't get my head around multi-threading scenarios properly. Sorry for asking a similar question again, I'm just seeing many different "facts" around the internet.
public static class MyClass {
private static List<string> _myList = new List<string>;
private static bool _record;
public static void StartRecording()
{
_myList.Clear();
_record = true;
}
public static IEnumerable<string> StopRecording()
{
_record = false;
// Return a Read-Only copy of the list data
var result = new List<string>(_myList).AsReadOnly();
_myList.Clear();
return result;
}
public static void DoSomething()
{
if(_record) _myList.Add("Test");
// More, but unrelated actions
}
}
The idea is that if Recording is activated, calls to DoSomething() get recorded in an internal List, and returned when StopRecording() is called.
My specification is this:
StartRecording is not considered Thread-Safe. The user should call this while no other Thread is calling DoSomething(). But if it somehow could be, that would be great.
StopRecording is also not officially thread-safe. Again, it would be great if it could be, but that is not a requirement.
DoSomething has to be thread-safe
The usual way seems to be:
public static void DoSomething()
{
object _lock = new object();
lock(_lock){
if(_record) _myList.Add("Test");
}
// More, but unrelated actions
}
Alternatively, declaring a static variable:
private static object _lock;
public static void DoSomething()
{
lock(_lock){
if(_record) _myList.Add("Test");
}
// More, but unrelated actions
}
However, this answer says that this does not prevent other code from accessing it.
So I wonder
How would I properly lock a list?
Should I create the lock object in my function or as a static class variable?
Can I wrap the functionality of Start and StopRecording in a lock-block as well?
StopRecording() does two things: Set a boolean variable to false (to prevent DoSomething() from adding more stuff) and then copying the list to return a copy of the data to the caller). I assume that _record = false; is atomic and will be in effect immediately? So normally I wouldn't have to worry about Multi-Threading here at all, unless some other Thread calls StartRecording() again?
At the end of the day, I am looking for a way to express "Okay, this list is mine now, all other threads have to wait until I am done with it".

I will lock on the _myList itself here since it is private, but using a separate variable is more common. To improve on a few points:
public static class MyClass
{
private static List<string> _myList = new List<string>;
private static bool _record;
public static void StartRecording()
{
lock(_myList) // lock on the list
{
_myList.Clear();
_record = true;
}
}
public static IEnumerable<string> StopRecording()
{
lock(_myList)
{
_record = false;
// Return a Read-Only copy of the list data
var result = new List<string>(_myList).AsReadOnly();
_myList.Clear();
return result;
}
}
public static void DoSomething()
{
lock(_myList)
{
if(_record) _myList.Add("Test");
}
// More, but unrelated actions
}
}
Note that this code uses lock(_myList) to synchronize access to both _myList and _record. And you need to sync all actions on those two.
And to agree with the other answers here, lock(_myList) does nothing to _myList, it just uses _myList as a token (presumably as key in a HashSet). All methods must play fair by asking permission using the same token. A method on another thread can still use _myList without locking first, but with unpredictable results.
We can use any token so we often create one specially:
private static object _listLock = new object();
And then use lock(_listLock) instead of lock(_myList) everywhere.
This technique would have been advisable if myList had been public, and it would have been absolutely necessary if you had re-created myList instead of calling Clear().

Creating a new lock in DoSomething() would certainly be wrong - it would be pointless, as each call to DoSomething() would use a different lock. You should use the second form, but with an initializer:
private static object _lock = new object();
It's true that locking doesn't stop anything else from accessing your list, but unless you're exposing the list directly, that doesn't matter: nothing else will be accessing the list anyway.
Yes, you can wrap Start/StopRecording in locks in the same way.
Yes, setting a Boolean variable is atomic, but that doesn't make it thread-safe. If you only access the variable within the same lock, you're fine in terms of both atomicity and volatility though. Otherwise you might see "stale" values - e.g. you set the value to true in one thread, and another thread could use a cached value when reading it.

There are a few ways to lock the list. You can lock on _myList directly providing _myList is never changed to reference a new list.
lock (_myList)
{
// do something with the list...
}
You can create a locking object specifically for this purpose.
private static object _syncLock = new object();
lock (_syncLock)
{
// do something with the list...
}
If the static collection implements the System.Collections.ICollection interface (List(T) does), you can also synchronize using the SyncRoot property.
lock (((ICollection)_myList).SyncRoot)
{
// do something with the list...
}
The main point to understand is that you want one and only one object to use as your locking sentinal, which is why creating the locking sentinal inside the DoSomething() function won't work. As Jon said, each thread that calls DoSomething() will get its own object, so the lock on that object will succeed every time and grant immediate access to the list. By making the locking object static (via the list itself, a dedicated locking object, or the ICollection.SyncRoot property), it becomes shared across all threads and can effectively serialize access to your list.

The first way is wrong, as each caller will lock on a different object.
You could just lock on the list.
lock(_myList)
{
_myList.Add(...)
}

You may be misinterpreting the this answer, what is actually being stated is that they lock statement is not actually locking the object in question from being modified, rather it is preventing any other code using that object as a locking source from executing.
What this really means is that when you use the same instance as the locking object the code inside the lock block should not get executed.
In essence you are not really attempting to "lock" your list, you are attempting to have a common instance that can be used as a reference point for when you want to modify your list, when this is in use or "locked" you want to prevent other code from executing that would potentially modify the list.

What's the use of the SyncRoot pattern?

I'm reading a c# book that describes the SyncRoot pattern. It shows
void doThis()
{
lock(this){ ... }
}
void doThat()
{
lock(this){ ... }
}
and compares to the SyncRoot pattern:
object syncRoot = new object();
void doThis()
{
lock(syncRoot ){ ... }
}
void doThat()
{
lock(syncRoot){ ... }
}
However, I don't really understand the difference here; it seems that in both cases both methods can only be accessed by one thread at a time.
The book describes ... because the object of the instance can also be used for synchronized access from the outside and you can't control this form the class itself, you can use the SyncRoot pattern Eh? 'object of the instance'?
Can anyone tell me the difference between the two approaches above?

If you have an internal data structure that you want to prevent simultaneous access to by multiple threads, you should always make sure the object you're locking on is not public.
The reasoning behind this is that a public object can be locked by anyone, and thus you can create deadlocks because you're not in total control of the locking pattern.
This means that locking on this is not an option, since anyone can lock on that object. Likewise, you should not lock on something you expose to the outside world.
Which means that the best solution is to use an internal object, and thus the tip is to just use Object.
Locking data structures is something you really need to have full control over, otherwise you risk setting up a scenario for deadlocking, which can be very problematic to handle.

The actual purpose of this pattern is implementing correct synchronization with wrappers hierarchy.
For example, if class WrapperA wraps an instance of ClassThanNeedsToBeSynced, and class WrapperB wraps the same instance of ClassThanNeedsToBeSynced, you can't lock on WrapperA or WrapperB, since if you lock on WrapperA, lock on WrappedB won't wait.
For this reason you must lock on wrapperAInst.SyncRoot and wrapperBInst.SyncRoot, which delegate lock to ClassThanNeedsToBeSynced's one.
Example:
public interface ISynchronized
{
object SyncRoot { get; }
}
public class SynchronizationCriticalClass : ISynchronized
{
public object SyncRoot
{
// you can return this, because this class wraps nothing.
get { return this; }
}
}
public class WrapperA : ISynchronized
{
ISynchronized subClass;
public WrapperA(ISynchronized subClass)
{
this.subClass = subClass;
}
public object SyncRoot
{
// you should return SyncRoot of underlying class.
get { return subClass.SyncRoot; }
}
}
public class WrapperB : ISynchronized
{
ISynchronized subClass;
public WrapperB(ISynchronized subClass)
{
this.subClass = subClass;
}
public object SyncRoot
{
// you should return SyncRoot of underlying class.
get { return subClass.SyncRoot; }
}
}
// Run
class MainClass
{
delegate void DoSomethingAsyncDelegate(ISynchronized obj);
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
SynchronizationCriticalClass rootClass = new SynchronizationCriticalClass();
WrapperA wrapperA = new WrapperA(rootClass);
WrapperB wrapperB = new WrapperB(rootClass);
// Do some async work with them to test synchronization.
//Works good.
DoSomethingAsyncDelegate work = new DoSomethingAsyncDelegate(DoSomethingAsyncCorrectly);
work.BeginInvoke(wrapperA, null, null);
work.BeginInvoke(wrapperB, null, null);
// Works wrong.
work = new DoSomethingAsyncDelegate(DoSomethingAsyncIncorrectly);
work.BeginInvoke(wrapperA, null, null);
work.BeginInvoke(wrapperB, null, null);
}
static void DoSomethingAsyncCorrectly(ISynchronized obj)
{
lock (obj.SyncRoot)
{
// Do something with obj
}
}
// This works wrong! obj is locked but not the underlaying object!
static void DoSomethingAsyncIncorrectly(ISynchronized obj)
{
lock (obj)
{
// Do something with obj
}
}
}

Here is an example :
class ILockMySelf
{
public void doThat()
{
lock (this)
{
// Don't actually need anything here.
// In this example this will never be reached.
}
}
}
class WeveGotAProblem
{
ILockMySelf anObjectIShouldntUseToLock = new ILockMySelf();
public void doThis()
{
lock (anObjectIShouldntUseToLock)
{
// doThat will wait for the lock to be released to finish the thread
var thread = new Thread(x => anObjectIShouldntUseToLock.doThat());
thread.Start();
// doThis will wait for the thread to finish to release the lock
thread.Join();
}
}
}
You see that the second class can use an instance of the first one in a lock statement. This leads to a deadlock in the example.
The correct SyncRoot implementation is:
object syncRoot = new object();
void doThis()
{
lock(syncRoot ){ ... }
}
void doThat()
{
lock(syncRoot ){ ... }
}
as syncRoot is a private field, you don't have to worry about external use of this object.

Here's one other interesting thing related to this topic:
Questionable value of SyncRoot on Collections (by Brad Adams):
You’ll notice a SyncRoot property on many of the Collections in System.Collections. In retrospeced (sic), I think this property was a mistake. Krzysztof Cwalina, a Program Manger on my team, just sent me some thoughts on why that is – I agree with him:
We found the SyncRoot-based synchronization APIs to be insufficiently flexible for most scenarios. The APIs allow for thread safe access to a single member of a collection. The problem is that there are numerous scenarios where you need to lock on multiple operations (for example remove one item and add another). In other words, it’s usually the code that uses a collection that wants to choose (and can actually implement) the right synchronization policy, not the collection itself. We found that SyncRoot is actually used very rarely and in cases where it is used, it actually does not add much value. In cases where it’s not used, it is just an annoyance to implementers of ICollection.
Rest assured we will not make the same mistake as we build the generic versions of these collections.

See this Jeff Richter's article. More specifically, this example which demonstrates that locking on "this" can cause a deadlock:
using System;
using System.Threading;
class App {
static void Main() {
// Construct an instance of the App object
App a = new App();
// This malicious code enters a lock on
// the object but never exits the lock
Monitor.Enter(a);
// For demonstration purposes, let's release the
// root to this object and force a garbage collection
a = null;
GC.Collect();
// For demonstration purposes, wait until all Finalize
// methods have completed their execution - deadlock!
GC.WaitForPendingFinalizers();
// We never get to the line of code below!
Console.WriteLine("Leaving Main");
}
// This is the App type's Finalize method
~App() {
// For demonstration purposes, have the CLR's
// Finalizer thread attempt to lock the object.
// NOTE: Since the Main thread owns the lock,
// the Finalizer thread is deadlocked!
lock (this) {
// Pretend to do something in here...
}
}
}

Another concrete example:
class Program
{
public class Test
{
public string DoThis()
{
lock (this)
{
return "got it!";
}
}
}
public delegate string Something();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var test = new Test();
Something call = test.DoThis;
//Holding lock from _outside_ the class
IAsyncResult async;
lock (test)
{
//Calling method on another thread.
async = call.BeginInvoke(null, null);
}
async.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
string result = call.EndInvoke(async);
lock (test)
{
async = call.BeginInvoke(null, null);
async.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
}
result = call.EndInvoke(async);
}
}
In this example, the first call will succeed, but if you trace in the debugger the call to DoSomething will block until the lock is release. The second call will deadlock, since the Main thread is holding the monitor lock on test.
The issue is that Main can lock the object instance, which means that it can keep the instance from doing anything that the object thinks should be synchronized. The point being that the object itself knows what requires locking, and outside interference is just asking for trouble. That's why the pattern of having a private member variable that you can use exclusively for synchronization without having to worry about outside interference.
The same goes for the equivalent static pattern:
class Program
{
public static class Test
{
public static string DoThis()
{
lock (typeof(Test))
{
return "got it!";
}
}
}
public delegate string Something();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Something call =Test.DoThis;
//Holding lock from _outside_ the class
IAsyncResult async;
lock (typeof(Test))
{
//Calling method on another thread.
async = call.BeginInvoke(null, null);
}
async.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
string result = call.EndInvoke(async);
lock (typeof(Test))
{
async = call.BeginInvoke(null, null);
async.AsyncWaitHandle.WaitOne();
}
result = call.EndInvoke(async);
}
}
Use a private static object to synchronize on, not the Type.