I have a slow and expensive method that return some data for me:
public Data GetData(){...}
I don't want to wait until this method will execute. Rather than I want to return a cached data immediately.
I have a class CachedData that contains one property Data cachedData.
So I want to create another method public CachedData GetCachedData() that will initiate a new task(call GetData inside of it) and immediately return cached data and after task will finish we will update the cache.
I need to have thread safe GetCachedData() because I will have multiple request that will call this method.
I will have a light ping "is there anything change?" each minute and if it will return true (cachedData != currentData) then I will call GetCachedData().
I'm new in C#. Please, help me to implement this method.
I'm using .net framework 4.5.2
The basic idea is clear:
You have a Data property which is wrapper around an expensive function call.
In order to have some response immediately the property holds a cached value and performs updating in the background.
No need for an event when the updater is done because you poll, for now.
That seems like a straight-forward design. At some point you may want to use events, but that can be added later.
Depending on the circumstances it may be necessary to make access to the property thread-safe. I think that if the Data cache is a simple reference and no other data is updated together with it, a lock is not necessary, but you may want to declare the reference volatile so that the reading thread does not rely on a stale cached (ha!) version. This post seems to have good links which discuss the issues.
If you will not call GetCachedData at the same time, you may not use lock. If data is null (for sure first run) we will wait long method to finish its work.
public class SlowClass
{
private static object _lock;
private static Data _cachedData;
public SlowClass()
{
_lock = new object();
}
public void GetCachedData()
{
var task = new Task(DoStuffLongRun);
task.Start();
if (_cachedData == null)
task.Wait();
}
public Data GetData()
{
if (_cachedData == null)
GetCachedData();
return _cachedData;
}
private void DoStuffLongRun()
{
lock (_lock)
{
Console.WriteLine("Locked Entered");
Thread.Sleep(5000);//Do Long Stuff
_cachedData = new Data();
}
}
}
I have tested on console application.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var mySlow = new SlowClass();
var mySlow2 = new SlowClass();
mySlow.GetCachedData();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine(i);
mySlow.GetData();
mySlow2.GetData();
}
mySlow.GetCachedData();
Console.Read();
}
Maybe you can use the MemoryCache class,
as explained here in MSDN
I have 2 threads to are triggered at the same time and run in parallel. These 2 threads are going to be manipulating a string value, but I want to make sure that there are no data inconsistencies. For that I want to use a lock with Monitor.Pulse and Monitor.Wait. I used a method that I found on another question/answer, but whenever I run my program, the first thread gets stuck at the Monitor.Wait level. I think that's because the second thread has already "Pulsed" and "Waited". Here is some code to look at:
string currentInstruction;
public void nextInstruction()
{
Action actions = {
fetch,
decode
}
Parallel.Invoke(actions);
_pc++;
}
public void fetch()
{
lock(irLock)
{
currentInstruction = "blah";
GiveTurnTo(2);
WaitTurn(1);
}
decodeEvent.WaitOne();
}
public void decode()
{
decodeEvent.Set();
lock(irLock)
{
WaitTurn(2);
currentInstruction = "decoding..."
GiveTurnTo(1);
}
}
// Below are the methods I talked about before.
// Wait for turn to use lock object
public static void WaitTurn(int threadNum, object _lock)
{
// While( not this threads turn )
while (threadInControl != threadNum)
{
// "Let go" of lock on SyncRoot and wait utill
// someone finishes their turn with it
Monitor.Wait(_lock);
}
}
// Pass turn over to other thread
public static void GiveTurnTo(int nextThreadNum, object _lock)
{
threadInControl = nextThreadNum;
// Notify waiting threads that it's someone else's turn
Monitor.Pulse(_lock);
}
Any idea how to get 2 parallel threads to communicate (manipulate the same resources) within the same cycle using locks or anything else?
You want to run 2 peaces of code in parallel, but locking them at start using the same variable?
As nvoigt mentioned, it already sounds wrong. What you have to do is to remove lock from there. Use it only when you are about to access something exclusively.
Btw "data inconsistencies" can be avoided by not having to have them. Do not use currentInstruction field directly (is it a field?), but provide a thread safe CurrentInstruction property.
private object _currentInstructionLock = new object();
private string _currentInstruction
public string CurrentInstruction
{
get { return _currentInstruction; }
set
{
lock(_currentInstructionLock)
_currentInstruction = value;
}
}
Other thing is naming, local variables name starting from _ is a bad style. Some peoples (incl. me) using them to distinguish private fields. Property name should start from BigLetter and local variables fromSmall.
I have a silverlight 5 app that depends on several asynchronous calls to web services to populate the attributes of newly created graphics. I am trying to find a way to handle those asynchronous calls synchronously. I have tried the suggestions listed in this article and this one. i have tried the many suggestions regarding the Dispatcher object. None have worked well, so I am clearly missing something...
Here is what I have:
public partial class MainPage : UserControl {
AutoResetEvent waitHandle = new AutoResetEvent(false);
private void AssignNewAttributeValuesToSplitPolygons(List<Graphic> splitGraphics)
{
for (int i = 0; i < splitGraphics.Count; i++)
{
Graphic g = splitGraphics[i];
Thread lookupThread1 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetStateCountyUtm));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
Thread lookupThread2 = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(SetCongressionalDistrict));
lookupThread1.Start(g);
waitHandle.WaitOne();
}
private void SetStateCountyUtm(object graphic)
{
this.Dispatcher.BeginInvoke(delegate() {
WrapperSetStateCountyUtm((Graphic)graphic);
});
}
private void WrapperSetStateCountyUtm(Graphic graphic)
{
GISQueryEngine gisQEngine = new GISQueryEngine();
gisQEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent += new GISQueryEngine.StateCountyUtmLookupEventHandler(gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent);
gisQEngine.PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(graphic.Geometry, graphic.Attributes["clu_number"].ToString());
}
void gisQEngine_StateCountyUtmLookupCompletedEvent(object sender, StateCountyUtmLookupCompleted stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs)
{
string fred = stateCountyUtmLookupEventArgs.
waitHandle.Set();
}
}
public class GISQueryEngine
{
public void PerformStateCountyUtmQuery(Geometry inSpatialQueryGeometry, string cluNumber)
{
QueryTask queryTask = new QueryTask(stateandCountyServiceURL);
queryTask.ExecuteCompleted += new EventHandler<QueryEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupExecuteCompleted);
queryTask.Failed += new EventHandler<TaskFailedEventArgs>(queryTask_StateCountyLookupFailed);
Query spatialQueryParam = new ESRI.ArcGIS.Client.Tasks.Query();
spatialQueryParam.OutFields.AddRange(new string[] { "*" });
spatialQueryParam.ReturnGeometry = false;
spatialQueryParam.Geometry = inSpatialQueryGeometry;
spatialQueryParam.SpatialRelationship = SpatialRelationship.esriSpatialRelIntersects;
spatialQueryParam.OutSpatialReference = inSpatialQueryGeometry.SpatialReference;
queryTask.ExecuteAsync(spatialQueryParam, cluNumber);
}
//and a whole bunch of other stuff i can add if needed
}
If I leave the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()' method uncommented, no code beyond that method is ever called, at least that I can see with the step through debugger. The application just hangs.
If I comment out the 'waitHandle.WaitOne()', everything runs just fine - except asynchronously. In other words, when the app reads the Attribute values of the new graphics, those values may or may not be set depending on how quickly the asynch methods return.
Thanks for any help.
It's going to be rather difficult to work through a problem like this as there are a few issues you'll need to address. SL is by nature asynch so forcing it to try and work synchronously is usually a very bad idea. You shouldn't do it unless it's absolutely necessary.
Is there a reason that you cannot wait for an async. callback? From what I see you appear to be making two calls for every state that is being rendered. I'm guessing the concern is that one call must complete before the second is made? In scenarios like this, I would kick off the first async call, and in it's response kick off the second call passing along the result you'll want to use from the first call. The second call response updates the provided references.
However, in cases where you've got a significant number of states to update, this results in a rather chatty, and difficult to debug set of calls. I'd really be looking at creating a service call that can accept a set of state references and pass back a data structure set for the values to be updated all in one hit. (or at least grouping them up to one call per state if the batch will be too time consuming and you want to render/interact with visual elements as they load up.)
I have a question about improving the efficiency of my program. I have a Dictionary<string, Thingey> defined to hold named Thingeys. This is a web application that will create multiple named Thingey’s over time. Thingey’s are somewhat expensive to create (not prohibitively so) but I’d like to avoid it whenever possible. My logic for getting the right Thingey for the request looks a lot like this:
private Dictionary<string, Thingey> Thingeys;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string thingeyName = request.ThingeyName;
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
// create a new thingey on 1st reference
Thingey newThingey = new Thingey(request);
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
this.Thingeys.Add(thingeyName, newThingey);
}
// else - oops someone else beat us to it
// newThingey will eventually get GCed
}
}
return this. Thingeys[thingeyName];
}
In this application, Thingeys live forever once created. We don’t know how to create them or which ones will be needed until the app starts and requests begin coming in. The question I have is in the above code is there are occasional instances where newThingey is created because we get multiple simultaneous requests for it before it’s been created. We end up creating 2 of them but only adding one to our collection.
Is there a better way to get Thingeys created and added that doesn’t involve check/create/lock/check/add with the rare extraneous thingey that we created but end up never using? (And this code works and has been running for some time. This is just the nagging bit that has always bothered me.)
I'm trying to avoid locking the dictionary for the duration of creating a Thingey.
This is the standard double check locking problem. The way it is implemented here is unsafe and can cause various problems - potentially up to the point of a crash in the first check if the internal state of the dictionary is screwed up bad enough.
It is unsafe because you are checking it without synchronization and if your luck is bad enough you can hit it while some other thread is in the middle of updating internal state of the dictionary
A simple solution is to place the first check under a lock as well. A problem with this is that this becomes a global lock and in web environment under heavy load it can become a serious bottleneck.
If we are talking about .NET environment, there are ways to work around this issue by piggybacking on the ASP.NET synchronization mechanism.
Here is how I did it in NDjango rendering engine: I keep one global dictionary and one dictionary per rendering thread. When a request comes I check the local dictionary first - this check does not have to be synchronized and if the thingy is there I just take it
If it is not I synchronize on the global dictionary check if it is there and if it is add it to my thread dictionary and release the lock. If it is not in the global dictionary I add it there first while still under lock.
Well, from my point of view simpler code is better, so I'd only use one lock:
private readonly object thingeysLock = new object();
private readonly Dictionary<string, Thingey> thingeys;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string key = request.ThingeyName;
lock (thingeysLock)
{
Thingey ret;
if (!thingeys.TryGetValue(key, out ret))
{
ret = new Thingey(request);
thingeys[key] = ret;
}
return ret;
}
}
Locks are really cheap when they're not contended. The downside is that this means that occasionally you will block everyone for the whole duration of the time you're creating a new Thingey. Clearly to avoid creating redundant thingeys you'd have to at least block while multiple threads create the Thingey for the same key. Reducing it so that they only block in that situation is somewhat harder.
I would suggest you use the above code but profile it to see whether it's fast enough. If you really need "only block when another thread is already creating the same thingey" then let us know and we'll see what we can do...
EDIT: You've commented on Adam's answer that you "don't want to lock while a new Thingey is being created" - you do realise that there's no getting away from that if there's contention for the same key, right? If thread 1 starts creating a Thingey, then thread 2 asks for the same key, your alternatives for thread 2 are either waiting or creating another instance.
EDIT: Okay, this is generally interesting, so here's a first pass at the "only block other threads asking for the same item".
private readonly object dictionaryLock = new object();
private readonly object creationLocksLock = new object();
private readonly Dictionary<string, Thingey> thingeys;
private readonly Dictionary<string, object> creationLocks;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string key = request.ThingeyName;
Thingey ret;
bool entryExists;
lock (dictionaryLock)
{
entryExists = thingeys.TryGetValue(key, out ret);
// Atomically mark the dictionary to say we're creating this item,
// and also set an entry for others to lock on
if (!entryExists)
{
thingeys[key] = null;
lock (creationLocksLock)
{
creationLocks[key] = new object();
}
}
}
// If we found something, great!
if (ret != null)
{
return ret;
}
// Otherwise, see if we're going to create it or whether we need to wait.
if (entryExists)
{
object creationLock;
lock (creationLocksLock)
{
creationLocks.TryGetValue(key, out creationLock);
}
// If creationLock is null, it means the creating thread has finished
// creating it and removed the creation lock, so we don't need to wait.
if (creationLock != null)
{
lock (creationLock)
{
Monitor.Wait(creationLock);
}
}
// We *know* it's in the dictionary now - so just return it.
lock (dictionaryLock)
{
return thingeys[key];
}
}
else // We said we'd create it
{
Thingey thingey = new Thingey(request);
// Put it in the dictionary
lock (dictionaryLock)
{
thingeys[key] = thingey;
}
// Tell anyone waiting that they can look now
lock (creationLocksLock)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(creationLocks[key]);
creationLocks.Remove(key);
}
return thingey;
}
}
Phew!
That's completely untested, and in particular it isn't in any way, shape or form robust in the face of exceptions in the creating thread... but I think it's the generally right idea :)
If you're looking to avoid blocking unrelated threads, then additional work is needed (and should only be necessary if you've profiled and found that performance is unacceptable with the simpler code). I would recommend using a lightweight wrapper class that asynchronously creates a Thingey and using that in your dictionary.
Dictionary<string, ThingeyWrapper> thingeys = new Dictionary<string, ThingeyWrapper>();
private class ThingeyWrapper
{
public Thingey Thing { get; private set; }
private object creationLock;
private Request request;
public ThingeyWrapper(Request request)
{
creationFlag = new object();
this.request = request;
}
public void WaitForCreation()
{
object flag = creationFlag;
if(flag != null)
{
lock(flag)
{
if(request != null) Thing = new Thingey(request);
creationFlag = null;
request = null;
}
}
}
}
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string thingeyName = request.ThingeyName;
ThingeyWrapper output;
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
if(!this.Thingeys.TryGetValue(thingeyName, out output))
{
output = new ThingeyWrapper(request);
this.Thingeys.Add(thingeyName, output);
}
}
output.WaitForCreation();
return output.Thing;
}
While you are still locking on all calls, the creation process is much more lightweight.
Edit
This issue has stuck with me more than I expected it to, so I whipped together a somewhat more robust solution that follows this general pattern. You can find it here.
IMHO, if this piece of code is called from many thread simultaneous, it is recommended to check it twice.
(But: I'm not sure that you can safely call ContainsKey while some other thread is call Add. So it might not be possible to avoid the lock at all.)
If you just want to avoid the Thingy is created but not used, just create it within the locking block:
private Dictionary<string, Thingey> Thingeys;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string thingeyName = request.ThingeyName;
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
// only one can create the same Thingy
Thingey newThingey = new Thingey(request);
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
this.Thingeys.Add(thingeyName, newThingey);
}
}
}
return this. Thingeys[thingeyName];
}
You have to ask yourself the question whether the specific ContainsKey operation and the getter are themselfes threadsafe (and will stay that way in newer versions), because those may and willbe invokes while another thread has the dictionary locked and is performing the Add.
Typically, .NET locks are fairly efficient if used correctly, and I believe that in this situation you're better of doing this:
bool exists;
lock (thingeys) {
exists = thingeys.TryGetValue(thingeyName, out thingey);
}
if (!exists) {
thingey = new Thingey();
}
lock (thingeys) {
if (!thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName)) {
thingeys.Add(thingeyName, thingey);
}
}
return thingey;
Well I hope not being to naive at giving this answer. but what I would do, as Thingyes are expensive to create, would be to add the key with a null value. That is something like this
private Dictionary<string, Thingey> Thingeys;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string thingeyName = request.ThingeyName;
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
this.Thingeys.Add(thingeyName, null);
if (!this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
{
// create a new thingey on 1st reference
Thingey newThingey = new Thingey(request);
Thingeys[thingeyName] = newThingey;
}
// else - oops someone else beat us to it
// but it doesn't mather anymore since we only created one Thingey
}
}
return this.Thingeys[thingeyName];
}
I modified your code in a rush so no testing was done.
Anyway, I hope my idea is not so naive. :D
You might be able to buy a little bit of speed efficiency at the expense of memory. If you create an immutable array that lists all of the created Thingys and reference the array with a static variable, then you could check the existance of a Thingy outside of any lock, since immutable arrays are always thread safe. Then when adding a new Thingy, you can create a new array with the additional Thingy and replace it (in the static variable) in one (atomic) set operation. Some new Thingys may be missed, because of race conditions, but the program shouldn't fail. It just means that on rare occasions extra duplicate Thingys will be made.
This will not replace the need for duplicate checking when creating a new Thingy, and it will use a lot of memory resources, but it will not require that the lock be taken or held while creating a Thingy.
I'm thinking of something along these lines, sorta:
private Dictionary<string, Thingey> Thingeys;
// An immutable list of (most of) the thingeys that have been created.
private string[] existingThingeys;
public Thingey GetThingey(Request request)
{
string thingeyName = request.ThingeyName;
// Reference the same list throughout the method, just in case another
// thread replaces the global reference between operations.
string[] localThingyList = existingThingeys;
// Check to see if we already made this Thingey. (This might miss some,
// but it doesn't matter.
// This operation on an immutable array is thread-safe.
if (localThingyList.Contains(thingeyName))
{
// But referencing the dictionary is not thread-safe.
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
if (this.Thingeys.ContainsKey(thingeyName))
return this.Thingeys[thingeyName];
}
}
Thingey newThingey = new Thingey(request);
Thiney ret;
// We haven't locked anything at this point, but we have created a new
// Thingey that we probably needed.
lock (this.Thingeys)
{
// If it turns out that the Thingey was already there, then
// return the old one.
if (!Thingeys.TryGetValue(thingeyName, out ret))
{
// Otherwise, add the new one.
Thingeys.Add(thingeyName, newThingey);
ret = newThingey;
}
}
// Update our existingThingeys array atomically.
string[] newThingyList = new string[localThingyList.Length + 1];
Array.Copy(localThingyList, newThingey, localThingyList.Length);
newThingey[localThingyList.Length] = thingeyName;
existingThingeys = newThingyList; // Voila!
return ret;
}
I have a multithreaded app that uses sqlite. When two threads try to update the db at once i get the exception
Additional information: The database file is locked
I thought it would retry in a few milliseconds. My querys arent complex. The most complex one (which happens frequently) is update, select, run trivial code update/delete, commit. Why does it throw the exception? How can i make it retry a few times before throwing an exception?
SQLite isn't thread safe for access, which is why you get this error message.
You should synchronize the access to the database (create an object, and "lock" it) whenever you go to update. This will cause the second thread to block and wait until the first thread's update finishes automatically.
try to make your transaction / commit blocks as short as possible. The only time you can deadlock/block is with a transaction -- thus if you don't do them you won't have the problem.
That said, there are times when you need to do transactions (mostly on data updates), but don't do them while you are "run trivial code" if you can avoid it.
A better approach may be to use an update queue, if you can do the database updates out of line with the rest of your code. For example, you could do something like:
m_updateQueue.Add(()=>InsertOrder(o));
Then you could have a dedicated update thread that processed the queue.
That code would look similar to this (I haven't compiled or tested it):
class UpdateQueue : IDisposable
{
private object m_lockObj;
private Queue<Action> m_queue;
private volatile bool m_shutdown;
private Thread m_thread;
public UpdateQueue()
{
m_lockObj = new Object();
m_queue = new Queue<Action>();
m_thread = new Thread(ThreadLoop);
m_thread.Start();
}
public void Add(Action a)
{
lock(m_lockObj)
{
m_queue.Enqueue(a);
Monitor.Pulse(m_lockObj);
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (m_thread != null)
{
m_shutdown = true;
Monitor.PulseAll(m_lockObj);
m_thread.Join();
m_thread = null;
}
}
private void ThreadLoop()
{
while (! m_shutdown)
{
Action a;
lock (m_lockObj)
{
if (m_queue.Count == 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(m_lockObj);
}
if (m_shutdown)
{
return;
}
a = m_queuue.Dequeue();
}
a();
}
}
}
Or, you could use something other than Sql Lite.