Develop Reference

C# shared variable access from different threads

I am using a static variables to get access between threads, but is taking so long to get their values.
Context: I have a static class Results.cs, where I store the result variables of two running Process.cs instances.
public static int ResultsStation0 { get; set; }
public static int ResultsStation1 { get; set; }
Then, a function of the two process instances is called at the same time, with initial value of ResultsStation0/1 = -1.
Because the result will be provided not at the same time, the function is checking that both results are available. The fast instance will set the result and await for the result of the slower instance.
void StationResult(){
Stopwatch sw = new Stopwatch();
sw.Restart();
switch (stationIndex) //Set the result of the station thread
{
case 0: Results.ResultsStation0 = 1; break;
case 1: Results.ResultsStation1 = 1; break;
}
//Waits to get the results of both threads
while (true)
{
if (Results.ResultsStation0 != -1 && Results.ResultsStation1 != -1)
{
break;
}
}
Trace_Info("GOT RESULTS " + stationIndex + "Time: " + sw.ElapsedMilliseconds.ToString() + "ms");
if (Results.ResultsStation0 == 1 && Results.ResultsStation1 == 1)
{
//set OK if both results are OK
Device.profinet.WritePorts(new Enum[] { NOK, OK },
new int[] { 0, 1 });
}
}
It works, but the problem is that the value of sw of the thread that awaits, should be 1ms more or less. I am getting 1ms sometimes, but most of the times I have values up to 80ms.
My question is: why it takes that much if they are sharing the same memory (I guess)?
Is this the right way to access to a variable between threads?

Don't use this method. Global mutable state is bad enough. Mixing in multiple threads sounds like a recipe for unmaintainable code. Since there is no synchronization at all in sight there is no real guarantee that your program may ever finish. On a single CPU system your loop will prevent any real work from actually being done until the scheduler picks one of the worker threads to run, an even on multi core system you will waste a ton of CPU cycles.
If you really want global variables, these should be something that can signal the completion of the operation, i.e. a Task, or ManualResetEvent. That way you can get rid of your horrible spin-wait, and actually wait for each task to complete.
But I would highly recommend to get rid of the global variables and just use standard task based programming:
var result1 = Task.Run(MyMethod1);
var result2 = Task.Run(MyMethod2);
await Task.WhenAll(new []{result1, result2});
Such code is much easier to reason about and understand.
Multi threaded programming is difficult. There are a bunch of new ways your program can break, and the compiler will not help you. You are lucky if you even get an exception, in many cases you will just get an incorrect result. If you are unlucky you will only get incorrect results in production, not in development or testing. So you should read a fair amount about the topic so that you are at least familiar with the common dangers and the ways to mitigate them.

You are using flags as signaling for this you have a class called AutoResetEvent.
There's a difference between safe access and synchronization.
For safe access (atomic) purpose you can use the class Interlocked
For synchronization you use mutex based solutions - either spinlocks, barriers, etc...
What it looks like is you need a synchronization mechanism because you relay on an atomic behavior to signal a process that it is done.
Further more,
For C# there's the async way to do things and that is to call await.
It is Task based so in case you can redesign your flow to use Tasks instead of Threads it will suit you more.
Just to be clear - atomicity means you perform the call in one go.
So for example this is not atomic
int a = 0;
int b = a; //not atomic - read 'a' and then assign to 'b'.
I won't teach you everything to know about threading in C# in one post answer - so my advice is to read the MSDN articles about threading and tasks.

How to debug particular async method, when runnig several async methods in parallel?

Look at this sample code:
class Program
{
private static readonly Random Random = new Random();
static async Task TaskBody()
{
var counter = Random.Next(100);
while (true)
{
counter += Random.Next(100);
await Task.Delay(5000);
Console.WriteLine($"Counter = {counter}");
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (var i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
var _ = TaskBody();
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Suppose, that one need to debug this code (e.g., while body).
The obvious way is to hit breakpoint somewhere:
But since there are 10 asynchronous methods running in parallel, debugger will stop at each method.
What if one wants to debug only particular method?
The most obvious is to set some breakpoint condition.
These things were considered as conditions:
ThreaId. Doesn't fit async methods, since thread can be changed after await.
TaskId. Can be (and will be in this sample) null.
AsyncLocal<T> local variable. AsyncLocal<T>.Value can't be used in breakpoint condition, since it leads to native method call, and this is not allowed.
TaskBody signature changes. E.g., pass some "Id" on scheduling (in the sample most obvious way is to pass i from calling method). This will work, but requires unnecessary changes for debugging purposes only.
Another local variable (e.g. Guid) as "method Id". This will work and looks as the best option, but still is the trick.
I know about Threads, Tasks and Parallel Stacks debug windows.
In fact, the question is being asked after quick reading of this guide.
Can this be achieved without tricks and hacks, using VS2015 capabilities only?

I think the simplest way would be to either use something like Debug.WriteLine() and output whatever you need, or much better, pass some value to the Thread/Task, (some sort of ID) and then just set a conditional Breakpoint where ID==Thread#
e.g. you start your threads with IDs from 1-10 and you want to Debug Thread#5
Conditional Breakpoint with ID == 5
I hope this works :)
EDIT: I think the latter one is what you said in your Question however I think that this is the best solution, and a ThreadID shouldn't hurt unless you've got a LOT of threads.

Do zombies exist ... in .NET?

I was having a discussion with a teammate about locking in .NET. He's a really bright guy with an extensive background in both lower-level and higher-level programming, but his experience with lower level programming far exceeds mine. Anyway, He argued that .NET locking should be avoided on critical systems expected to be under heavy-load if at all possible in order to avoid the admittedly small possibility of a "zombie thread" crashing a system. I routinely use locking and I didn't know what a "zombie thread" was, so I asked. The impression I got from his explanation is that a zombie thread is a thread that has terminated but somehow still holds onto some resources. An example he gave of how a zombie thread could break a system was a thread begins some procedure after locking on some object, and then is at some point terminated before the lock can be released. This situation has the potential to crash the system, because eventually, attempts to execute that method will result in the threads all waiting for access to an object that will never be returned, because the thread that is using the locked object is dead.
I think I got the gist of this, but if I'm off base, please let me know. The concept made sense to me. I wasn't completely convinced that this was a real scenario that could happen in .NET. I've never previously heard of "zombies", but I do recognize that programmers who have worked in depth at lower levels tend to have a deeper understanding of computing fundamentals (like threading). I definitely do see the value in locking, however, and I have seen many world class programmers leverage locking. I also have limited ability to evaluate this for myself because I know that the lock(obj) statement is really just syntactic sugar for:
bool lockWasTaken = false;
var temp = obj;
try { Monitor.Enter(temp, ref lockWasTaken); { body } }
finally { if (lockWasTaken) Monitor.Exit(temp); }
and because Monitor.Enter and Monitor.Exit are marked extern. It seems conceivable that .NET does some kind of processing that protects threads from exposure to system components that could have this kind of impact, but that is purely speculative and probably just based on the fact that I've never heard of "zombie threads" before. So, I'm hoping I can get some feedback on this here:
Is there a clearer definition of a "zombie thread" than what I've explained here?
Can zombie threads occur on .NET? (Why/Why not?)
If applicable, How could I force the creation of a zombie thread in .NET?
If applicable, How can I leverage locking without risking a zombie thread scenario in .NET?
Update
I asked this question a little over two years ago. Today this happened:

Is there a clearer definition of a "zombie thread" than what I've explained here?
Seems like a pretty good explanation to me - a thread that has terminated (and can therefore no longer release any resources), but whose resources (e.g. handles) are still around and (potentially) causing problems.
Can zombie threads occur on .NET? (Why/Why not?)
If applicable, How could I force the creation of a zombie thread in .NET?
They sure do, look, I made one!
[DllImport("kernel32.dll")]
private static extern void ExitThread(uint dwExitCode);
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Thread(Target).Start();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void Target()
{
using (var file = File.Open("test.txt", FileMode.OpenOrCreate))
{
ExitThread(0);
}
}
This program starts a thread Target which opens a file and then immediately kills itself using ExitThread. The resulting zombie thread will never release the handle to the "test.txt" file and so the file will remain open until the program terminates (you can check with process explorer or similar). The handle to "test.txt" won't be released until GC.Collect is called - it turns out it is even more difficult than I thought to create a zombie thread that leaks handles)
If applicable, How can I leverage locking without risking a zombie thread scenario in .NET?
Don't do what I just did!
As long as your code cleans up after itself correctly (use Safe Handles or equivalent classes if working with unmanaged resources), and as long as you don't go out of your way to kill threads in weird and wonderful ways (safest way is just to never kill threads - let them terminate themselves normally, or through exceptions if necessary), the only way that you are going to have something resembling a zombie thread is if something has gone very wrong (e.g. something goes wrong in the CLR).
In fact its actually surprisingly difficult to create a zombie thread (I had to P/Invoke into a function that esentially tells you in the documentation not to call it outside of C). For example the following (awful) code actually doesn't create a zombie thread.
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var thread = new Thread(Target);
thread.Start();
// Ugh, never call Abort...
thread.Abort();
Console.ReadLine();
}
private static void Target()
{
// Ouch, open file which isn't closed...
var file = File.Open("test.txt", FileMode.OpenOrCreate);
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
GC.KeepAlive(file);
}
Despite making some pretty awful mistakes, the handle to "test.txt" is still closed as soon as Abort is called (as part of the finalizer for file which under the covers uses SafeFileHandle to wrap its file handle)
The locking example in C.Evenhuis answer is probably the easiest way to fail to release a resource (a lock in this case) when a thread is terminated in a non-weird way, but thats easily fixed by either using a lock statement instead, or putting the release in a finally block.
See also
Subtleties of C# IL
codegen
for a very subtle case where an exception can prevent a lock from
being released even when using the lock keyword (but only in .Net 3.5 and earlier)
Locks and exceptions do not
mix

I've cleaned up my answer a bit, but left the original one below for reference
It’s the first time I've heard of the term zombies so I'll assume its definition is:
A thread that has terminated without releasing all of its resources
So given that definition, then yes, you can do that in .NET, as with other languages (C/C++, java).
However, I do not think this as a good reason not to write threaded, mission critical code in .NET. There may be other reasons to decide against .NET but writing off .NET just because you can have zombie threads somehow doesn't make sense to me. Zombie threads are possible in C/C++ (I'd even argue that it’s a lot easier to mess up in C) and a lot of critical, threaded apps are in C/C++ (high volume trading, databases etc).
Conclusion
If you are in the process of deciding on a language to use, then I suggest you take the big picture into consideration: performance, team skills, schedule, integration with existing apps etc. Sure, zombie threads are something that you should think about, but since it’s so difficult to actually make this mistake in .NET compared to other languages like C, I think this concern will be overshadowed by other things like the ones mentioned above. Good luck!
Original Answer
Zombies† can exist if you don't write proper threading code. The same is true for other languages like C/C++ and Java. But this is not a reason not to write threaded code in .NET.
And just like with any other language, know the price before using something. It also helps to know what is happening under the hood so you can foresee any potential problems.
Reliable code for mission critical systems is not easy to write, whatever language you're in. But I'm positive it’s not impossible to do correctly in .NET. Also AFAIK, .NET threading is not that different from threading in C/C++, it uses (or is built from) the same system calls except for some .net specific constructs (like the light weight versions of RWL and event classes).
†first time I've heard of the term zombies but based on your description, your colleague probably meant a thread that terminated without release all resources. This could potentially cause a deadlock, memory leak or some other bad side effect. This is obviously not desirable but singling out .NET because of this possibility is probably not a good idea since it’s possible in other languages too. I'd even argue that it’s easier to mess up in C/C++ than in .NET (especially so in C where you don't have RAII) but a lot of critical apps are written in C/C++ right? So it really depends on your individual circumstances. If you want to extract every ounce of speed from your application and want to get as close to bare metal as possible, then .NET might not be the best solution. If you are on a tight budget and do a lot of interfacing with web services/existing .net libraries/etc then .NET may be a good choice.

Right now most of my answer has been corrected by the comments below. I won't delete the answer because I need the reputation points because the information in the comments may be valuable to readers.
Immortal Blue pointed out that in .NET 2.0 and up finally blocks are immune to thread aborts. And as commented by Andreas Niedermair, this may not be an actual zombie thread, but the following example shows how aborting a thread can cause problems:
class Program
{
static readonly object _lock = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread thread = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Zombie));
thread.Start();
Thread.Sleep(500);
thread.Abort();
Monitor.Enter(_lock);
Console.WriteLine("Main entered");
Console.ReadKey();
}
static void Zombie()
{
Monitor.Enter(_lock);
Console.WriteLine("Zombie entered");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Monitor.Exit(_lock);
Console.WriteLine("Zombie exited");
}
}
However when using a lock() { } block, the finally would still be executed when a ThreadAbortException is fired that way.
The following information, as it turns out, is only valid for .NET 1 and .NET 1.1:
If inside the lock() { } block an other exception occurs, and the ThreadAbortException arrives exactly when the finally block is about to be ran, the lock is not released. As you mentioned, the lock() { } block is compiled as:
finally
{
if (lockWasTaken)
Monitor.Exit(temp);
}
If another thread calls Thread.Abort() inside the generated finally block, the lock may not be released.

This isn't about Zombie threads, but the book Effective C# has a section on implementing IDisposable, (item 17), which talks about Zombie objects which I thought you may find interesting.
I recommend reading the book itself, but the gist of it is that if you have a class either implementing IDisposable, or containing a Desctructor, the only thing you should be doing in either is releasing resources. If you do other things here, then there is a chance that the object will not be garbage collected, but will also not be accessible in any way.
It gives an example similar to below:
internal class Zombie
{
private static readonly List<Zombie> _undead = new List<Zombie>();
~Zombie()
{
_undead.Add(this);
}
}
When the destructor on this object is called, a reference to itself is placed on the global list, meaning it stays alive and in memory for the life of the program, but isn't accessible. This may mean that resources (particularly unmanaged resources) may not be fully released, which can cause all sorts of potential issues.
A more complete example is below. By the time the foreach loop is reached, you have 150 objects in the Undead list each containing an image, but the image has been GC'd and you get an exception if you try to use it. In this example, I am getting an ArgumentException (Parameter is not valid) when I try and do anything with the image, whether I try to save it, or even view dimensions such as height and width:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (var i = 0; i < 150; i++)
{
CreateImage();
}
GC.Collect();
//Something to do while the GC runs
FindPrimeNumber(1000000);
foreach (var zombie in Zombie.Undead)
{
//object is still accessable, image isn't
zombie.Image.Save(#"C:\temp\x.png");
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
//Borrowed from here
//http://stackoverflow.com/a/13001749/969613
public static long FindPrimeNumber(int n)
{
int count = 0;
long a = 2;
while (count < n)
{
long b = 2;
int prime = 1;// to check if found a prime
while (b * b <= a)
{
if (a % b == 0)
{
prime = 0;
break;
}
b++;
}
if (prime > 0)
count++;
a++;
}
return (--a);
}
private static void CreateImage()
{
var zombie = new Zombie(new Bitmap(#"C:\temp\a.png"));
zombie.Image.Save(#"C:\temp\b.png");
}
}
internal class Zombie
{
public static readonly List<Zombie> Undead = new List<Zombie>();
public Zombie(Image image)
{
Image = image;
}
public Image Image { get; private set; }
~Zombie()
{
Undead.Add(this);
}
}
Again, I am aware you were asking about zombie threads in particular, but the question title is about zombies in .net, and I was reminded of this and thought others may find it interesting!

On critical systems under heavy load, writing lock-free code is better primarily because of the performance improvments. Look at stuff like LMAX and how it leverages "mechanical sympathy" for great discussions of this. Worry about zombie threads though? I think that's an edge case that's just a bug to be ironed out, and not a good enough reason not to use lock.
Sounds more like your friend is just being fancy and flaunting his knowledege of obscure exotic terminology to me! In all the time I was running the performance labs at Microsoft UK, I never came across an instance of this issue in .NET.

1.Is there a clearer definition of a "zombie thread" than what I've explained here?
I do agree that "Zombie Threads" exist, it's a term to refer to what happens with Threads that are left with resources that they don't let go of and yet don't completely die, hence the name "zombie," so your explanation of this referral is pretty right on the money!
2.Can zombie threads occur on .NET? (Why/Why not?)
Yes they can occur. It's a reference, and actually referred to by Windows as "zombie": MSDN uses the Word "Zombie" for Dead processes/threads
Happening frequently it's another story, and depends on your coding techniques and practices, as for you that like Thread Locking and have done it for a while I wouldn't even worry about that scenario happening to you.
And Yes, as #KevinPanko correctly mentioned in the comments, "Zombie Threads" do come from Unix which is why they are used in XCode-ObjectiveC and referred to as "NSZombie" and used for debugging. It behaves pretty much the same way... the only difference is an object that should've died becomes a "ZombieObject" for debugging instead of the "Zombie Thread" which might be a potential problem in your code.

I can make zombie threads easily enough.
var zombies = new List<Thread>();
while(true)
{
var th = new Thread(()=>{});
th.Start();
zombies.Add(th);
}
This leaks the thread handles (for Join()). It's just another memory leak as far as we are concerned in the managed world.
Now then, killing a thread in a way that it actually holds locks is a pain in the rear but possible. The other guy's ExitThread() does the job. As he found, the file handle got cleaned up by the gc but a lock around an object wouldn't. But why would you do that?

Do we really need VOLATILE keyword in C#?

Here is the code that I was trying on my workstation.
class Program
{
public static volatile bool status = true;
public static void Main()
{
Thread FirstStart = new Thread(threadrun);
FirstStart.Start();
Thread.Sleep(200);
Thread thirdstart = new Thread(threadrun2);
thirdstart.Start();
Console.ReadLine();
}
static void threadrun()
{
while (status)
{
Console.WriteLine("Waiting..");
}
}
static void threadrun2()
{
status = false;
Console.WriteLine("the bool value is now made FALSE");
}
}
As you can see I have fired three threads in Main. Then using breakpoints I tracked the threads. My initial conception was all the three threads will be fired simultaneously, but my breakpoint flow showed that the thread-execution-flow followed one after other (and so was the output format i.e. Top to bottom execution of threads). Guys why is that happening ?
Additionally I tried to run the same program without using the volatile keyword in declaration, and I found no change in program execution. I doubt the volatile keyword is of no practical live use. Am I going wrong somewhere?

Your method of thinking is flawed.
The very nature of threading related issues is that they're non-deterministic. This means that what you have observed is potentially no indicator of what may happen in the future.
This is the very nature of why multithreaded programming is "hard." It often defies ad hoc testing, or even most unit testing. The only way to do it effectively is to understand your entire software and hardware stack, and diagram every possible occurrence through use of state machines.
In summary, threaded programming is not about what you've seen happen, it's about what might possibly happen, no matter how improbable.

Ok I will try to explain a very long story as short as possible:
Number 1: Trying to inspect the behavior of threads with the debugger is as useful as repeatedly running a multithreaded program and concluding that it works fine because out of 100 tests none failed: WRONG! Threads behave in a completely nondeterministic (some would say random) way and you need different methods to make sure such a program will run correctly.
Number 2: The use of volatile will become clear once you remove it and then run your program in Debug mode and then switch to Release mode. I think you will have a surprise... What happens in Release mode is that the compiler will optimize code (this includes reordering instructions and caching of values). Now, if your two threads run on different processor cores, then the core executing the thread that is checking for the value of status will cache its value instead of repeatedly checking for it. The other thread will set it but the first one will never see the change: deadlock! volatile prevents this kind of situation from occurring.
In a sense, volatile is a guard in case the code does not actually (and most likely will not) run as you think it will in a multithreaded scenario.

The fact that your simple code doesn't behave dirrefently with volatile doesn't mean anything. Your code is too simple and has nothing to do with volatile. You need to write very computation-intensive code to create a clearly visible memory race condition.
Also, volatile keyword may be useful on other platforms than x86/x64 with other memory models. (I mean like for example Itanium.)
Joe Duffy wrote interesting information about volatile on his blog. I strongly recommend to read it.

Then using breakpoints I tracked the threads. My initial conception
was all the three threads will be fired simultaneously, but my
breakpoint flow showed that the thread-execution-flow followed one
after other (and so was the output format i.e. Top to bottom execution
of threads). Guys why is that happening?
The debugger is temporarily suspending the threads to make it easier to debug.
I doubt the volatile keyword is of no practical live use. Am I going
wrong somewhere?
The Console.WriteLine calls are very likely fixing masking the problem. They are most likely generating the necessary memory barrier for you implicitly. Here is a really simple snippet of code that demonstrates that there is, in fact, a problem when volatile is not used to declare the stop variable.
Compile the following code with the Release configuration and run it outside of the debugger.
class Program
{
static bool stop = false;
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
var t = new Thread(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("thread begin");
bool toggle = false;
while (!stop)
{
toggle = !toggle;
}
Console.WriteLine("thread end");
});
t.Start();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
stop = true;
Console.WriteLine("stop = true");
Console.WriteLine("waiting...");
t.Join();
}
}

Simple threading question, locking non local changes

Ok first I must preface this question with a disclaimer, I'm really new to threading so this may be a 'newbie' question but I searched google and couldn't find an answer. As I understand it a critical section is code that can be accessed by two or more threads, the danger being one thread will overwrite a value before the other is finished and vice versa. What can you do about changes made outside of your class for example, I have a line monitoring program:
int currentNumber = provider.GetCurrentNumber();
if(provider.CanPassNumber(false, currentNumber))
{
currentNumber++;
provider.SetNumber(currentNumber);
}
and on another thread I have something like this:
if(condition)
provider.SetNumber(numberToSet);
Now I'm afraid that in the first function I get currentNumber which is 5, right after that on another thread the number is set to 7 and then it rewrites the 7 to 6, ignoring the change made by the thread that set it to 7.
Is there anyway to lock provider.SetNumber until the first function finishes? The critical section is basically the currentNumber which can be changed by many places in the program.
I hope I made myself clear, if not let me know and I will try to explain myself better.
EDIT:
Also I made the functions really short for the example. In reality the function is much longer and makes changes to currentNumber many times so I don't really want to put a lock around the entire function. If I lock every call to provider.SetNumber and release it after I finish it can change during the time it is released before I lock it again to call provider.SetNumber. Honestly I'm also worried about locking the entire function because of performance and deadlock.

Rather than using the lock() keywords I'd suggested seeing if you can use the Interlocked class which is designed for small operations. It's got much less overhead than lock, in fact can be down to a single CPU instruction on some CPUs.
There are a couple of methods of interest for you, Exchange and Read, both of which are thread safe.

You want to look into the Lock keyword. Also you might want to this tutorial to Threading in C#.

As Filip said, lock is useful here.
Not only should you lock on provider.SetNumber(currentNumber), you also need to lock on any conditional that the setter depends on.
lock(someObject)
{
if(provider.CanPassNumber(false, currentNumber))
{
currentNumber++;
provider.SetNumber(currentNumber);
}
}
as well as
if(condition)
{
lock(someObject)
{
provider.SetNumber(numberToSet);
}
}
If condition is reliant on numberToSet, you should take the lock statement around the whole block. Also note that someObject must be the same object.

You can use the lock statement, to enter a critical section with mutual exclusion. The lock will use the object's reference to differentiate one critical section from another, you must have the same reference for all your lock if it accesses to the same elements.
// Define an object which can be locked in your class.
object locker = new object();
// Add around your critical sections the following :
lock (locker) { /* ... */ }
That will change your code to :
int currentNumber = provider.GetCurrentNumber();
lock (locker)
{
if(provider.CanPassNumber(false, currentNumber))
{
currentNumber++;
provider.SetNumber(currentNumber);
}
}
And :
if(condition)
{
lock (locker)
{
provider.SetNumber(numberToSet);
}
}

In your SetNumber method you can simply use a lock statement:
public class MyProvider {
object numberLock = new object();
...
public void SetNumber(int num) {
lock(numberLock) {
// Do Stuff
}
}
}
Also, note that in your example currentNumber is a primitive (int), which means that variable's value won't be overwritten should your provider's actual data member's value change.

Well first of im not so good with threading but a critical section is a part of your code that can only be accessed my one thread at a time not the other way around..
To create a critical section is easy
Lock(this)
{
//Only one thread can run this at a time
}
note: that this should be replaced with some internal object...