Develop Reference

C# concurrent: Is it a good idea to use many AutoResetEvent?

Suppose there are many threads calling Do(), and only one worker thread handles the actual job.
void Do(Job job)
{
concurrentQueue.Enqueue(job);
// wait for job done
}
void workerThread()
{
while (true)
{
Job job;
if (concurrentQueue.TryDequeue(out job))
{
// do job
}
}
}
The Do() should wait until the job done before return. So I wrote the following code:
class Task
{
public Job job;
public AutoResetEvent ev;
}
void Do(Job job)
{
using (var ev = new AutoResetEvent(false))
{
concurrentQueue.Enqueue(new Task { job = job, ev = ev }));
ev.WaitOne();
}
}
void workerThread()
{
while (true)
{
Task task;
if (concurrentQueue.TryDequeue(out task))
{
// do job
task.ev.Set();
}
}
}
After some tests I found it works as expected. However I'm not sure is it a good way to allocate many AutoResetEvents, or is there a better way to accomplish?

Since all clients must wait a single thread to do the job, there is no real need for using a queue. So I suggest to use the Monitor class instead, and specifically the Wait/Pulse functionality. It is a bit low level and verbose though.
class Worker<TResult> : IDisposable
{
private readonly object _outerLock = new object();
private readonly object _innerLock = new object();
private Func<TResult> _currentJob;
private TResult _currentResult;
private Exception _currentException;
private bool _disposed;
public Worker()
{
var thread = new Thread(MainLoop);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
private void MainLoop()
{
lock (_innerLock)
{
while (true)
{
Monitor.Wait(_innerLock); // Wait for client requests
if (_disposed) break;
try
{
_currentResult = _currentJob.Invoke();
_currentException = null;
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
_currentException = ex;
_currentResult = default;
}
Monitor.Pulse(_innerLock); // Notify the waiting client that the job is done
}
} // We are done
}
public TResult DoWork(Func<TResult> job)
{
TResult result;
Exception exception;
lock (_outerLock) // Accept only one client at a time
{
lock (_innerLock) // Acquire inner lock
{
if (_disposed) throw new InvalidOperationException();
_currentJob = job;
Monitor.Pulse(_innerLock); // Notify worker thread about the new job
Monitor.Wait(_innerLock); // Wait for worker thread to process the job
result = _currentResult;
exception = _currentException;
// Clean up
_currentJob = null;
_currentResult = default;
_currentException = null;
}
}
// Throw the exception, if occurred, preserving the stack trace
if (exception != null) ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(exception).Throw();
return result;
}
public void Dispose()
{
lock (_outerLock)
{
lock (_innerLock)
{
_disposed = true;
Monitor.Pulse(_innerLock); // Notify worker thread to exit loop
}
}
}
}
Usage example:
var worker = new Worker<int>();
int result = worker.DoWork(() => 1); // Accepts a function as argument
Console.WriteLine($"Result: {result}");
worker.Dispose();
Output:
Result: 1
Update: The previous solution is not await-friendly, so here is one that allows proper awaiting. It uses a TaskCompletionSource for each job, stored in a BlockingCollection.
class Worker<TResult> : IDisposable
{
private BlockingCollection<TaskCompletionSource<TResult>> _blockingCollection
= new BlockingCollection<TaskCompletionSource<TResult>>();
public Worker()
{
var thread = new Thread(MainLoop);
thread.IsBackground = true;
thread.Start();
}
private void MainLoop()
{
foreach (var tcs in _blockingCollection.GetConsumingEnumerable())
{
var job = (Func<TResult>)tcs.Task.AsyncState;
try
{
var result = job.Invoke();
tcs.SetResult(result);
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
tcs.TrySetException(ex);
}
}
}
public Task<TResult> DoWorkAsync(Func<TResult> job)
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<TResult>(job,
TaskCreationOptions.RunContinuationsAsynchronously);
_blockingCollection.Add(tcs);
return tcs.Task;
}
public TResult DoWork(Func<TResult> job) // Synchronous call
{
var task = DoWorkAsync(job);
try { task.Wait(); } catch { } // Swallow the AggregateException
// Throw the original exception, if occurred, preserving the stack trace
if (task.IsFaulted) ExceptionDispatchInfo.Capture(task.Exception.InnerException).Throw();
return task.Result;
}
public void Dispose()
{
_blockingCollection.CompleteAdding();
}
}
Usage example
var worker = new Worker<int>();
int result = await worker.DoWorkAsync(() => 1); // Accepts a function as argument
Console.WriteLine($"Result: {result}");
worker.Dispose();
Output:
Result: 1

From a synchronization perspective this is working fine.
But it seems useless to do it this way. If you want to execute jobs one after the other you can just use a lock:
lock (lockObject) {
RunJob();
}
What is your intention with this code?
There also is an efficiency question because each task creates an OS event and waits on it. If you use the more modern TaskCompletionSource this will use the same thing under the hood if you synchronously wait on that task. You can use asynchronous waiting (await myTCS.Task;) to possibly increase efficiency a bit. Of course this infects the entire call stack with async/await. If this is a fairly low volume operation you won't gain much.

In general I think would work, although when you say "many" threads are calling Do() this might not scale well ... suspended threads use resources.
Another problem with this code is that at idle times, you will have a "hard loop" in "workerThread" which will cause your application to return high CPU utilization times. You may want to add this code to "workerThread":
if (concurrentQueue.IsEmpty) Thread.Sleep(1);
You might also want to introduce a timeout to the WaitOne call to avoid a log jam.

How to catch that Task.Delay() canceled and do a callback?

Lets say I have a worker class.
public sealed class Worker : IDisposable
{
private bool _isRunning;
private CancellationTokenSource _cts;
private readonly Action _action;
private readonly int _millisecondsDelay;
private readonly object _lock = new object();
public Worker(Action action, int millisecondsDelay)
{
_action = action;
_millisecondsDelay = millisecondsDelay = 5000;
}
public void Start()
{
lock (_lock)
{
if (!_isRunning)
{
_isRunning = true;
Run();
}
}
}
public void Cancel()
{
lock (_lock)
{
if (_isRunning) _cts.Cancel();
}
}
private void Run()
{
using (_cts) _cts = new CancellationTokenSource();
Task.Run(async () => { await DoAsync(_cts.Token); });
}
private async Task DoAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
//Log.Message1("____REFRESHING STATUS____");
_action();
await Task.Delay(_millisecondsDelay, cancellationToken);
}
//this code is unreachable
lock (_lock)
{
_isRunning = false;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
try
{
_cts?.Cancel();
}
finally
{
if (_cts != null)
{
_cts.Dispose();
_cts = null;
}
}
}
}
The problem is the code _isRunning = false; is unreachable. I mean more likely when a caller call Cancel method the worker will be awaiting Task.Delay. So how I can call smth(here it's _isRunning = false;) after my Task will be canceled ? In other words I need to be sure that my worker is not running(it's not the cancelled state)

To answer your literal question, you can use a finally block:
private async Task DoAsync(CancellationToken cancellationToken)
{
try
{
while (!cancellationToken.IsCancellationRequested)
{
//Log.Message1("____REFRESHING STATUS____");
_action();
await Task.Delay(_millisecondsDelay, cancellationToken);
}
}
finally
{
lock (_lock)
{
_isRunning = false;
}
}
}
But I have some concerns about this "worker" approach:
I'm not a huge fan of the fire-and-forget inside Run. I suspect you'll want to change that.
Mixing lock with asynchronous code can be problematic. You should be absolutely sure that this is what you really want to do.
It may be worthwhile stepping back and reconsidering what you are actually wanting to do with this code.

Task<T> queueing

I have a following method
public async Task<T> SomeMethod(parameters)
{
// here we execute some instructions which are not thread safe
}
I need SomeMethod to return a Task, so that other methods can run (await) it asynchronously, and not block the UI thread.
The problem is that SomeMethod can be called in parallel, since the execution is returned to UI thread, and that will raise exception, since some of the calls inside SomeMethod() are not thread safe.
What is the best way to ensure that all calls to SomeMethod are queued (and awaitable), and that this queue will be executed in sequence?

Use AsyncLock to prevent two threads from executing a single block of code :
(A traditional lock will not work, because you can't use an await keyword inside of it)
private AsyncLock myAsyncLock = new AsyncLock();
public async Task<T> SomeMethod(parameters)
{
using (await myAsyncLock.LockAsync())
{
// here we execute some instructions which are not thread safe
}
}
public class AsyncLock
{
private readonly AsyncSemaphore m_semaphore;
private readonly Task<Releaser> m_releaser;
public AsyncLock()
{
m_semaphore = new AsyncSemaphore(1);
m_releaser = Task.FromResult(new Releaser(this));
}
public Task<Releaser> LockAsync()
{
var wait = m_semaphore.WaitAsync();
return wait.IsCompleted ?
m_releaser :
wait.ContinueWith((_, state) => new Releaser((AsyncLock)state),
this, System.Threading.CancellationToken.None,
TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously, TaskScheduler.Default);
}
public struct Releaser : IDisposable
{
private readonly AsyncLock m_toRelease;
internal Releaser(AsyncLock toRelease) { m_toRelease = toRelease; }
public void Dispose()
{
if (m_toRelease != null)
m_toRelease.m_semaphore.Release();
}
}
}
// http://blogs.msdn.com/b/pfxteam/archive/2012/02/12/10266983.aspx
public class AsyncSemaphore
{
private readonly static Task s_completed = Task.FromResult(true);
private readonly Queue<TaskCompletionSource<bool>> m_waiters = new Queue<TaskCompletionSource<bool>>();
private int m_currentCount;
public AsyncSemaphore(int initialCount)
{
if (initialCount < 0) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("initialCount");
m_currentCount = initialCount;
}
public Task WaitAsync()
{
lock (m_waiters)
{
if (m_currentCount > 0)
{
--m_currentCount;
return s_completed;
}
else
{
var waiter = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
m_waiters.Enqueue(waiter);
return waiter.Task;
}
}
}
public void Release()
{
TaskCompletionSource<bool> toRelease = null;
lock (m_waiters)
{
if (m_waiters.Count > 0)
toRelease = m_waiters.Dequeue();
else
++m_currentCount;
}
if (toRelease != null)
toRelease.SetResult(true);
}
}

How to create a FIFO/strong semaphore

I need to code my own FIFO/strong semaphore in C#, using a semaphore class of my own as a base. I found this example, but it's not quite right since I'm not supposed to be using Monitor.Enter/Exit yet.
These are the methods for my regular semaphore, and I was wondering if there was a simple way to adapt it to be FIFO.
public virtual void Acquire()
{
lock (this)
{
while (uintTokens == 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(this);
}
uintTokens--;
}
}
public virtual void Release(uint tokens = 1)
{
lock (this)
{
uintTokens += tokens;
Monitor.PulseAll(this);
}
}

So SemaphoreSlim gives us a good starting place, so we'll begin by wrapping one of those in a new class, and directing everything but the wait method to that semaphore.
To get a queue like behavior we'll want a queue object, and to make sure it's safe in the face of multithreaded access, we'll use a ConcurrentQueue.
In this queue we'll put TaskCompletionSource objects. When we want to have something start waiting it can create a TCS, add it to the queue, and then inform the semaphore to asynchronously pop the next item off of the queue and mark it as "completed" when the wait finishes. We'll know that there will always be an equal or lesser number of continuations as there are items in the queue.
Then we just wait on the Task from the TCS.
We can also trivially create a WaitAsync method that returns a task, by just returning it instead of waiting on it.
public class SemaphoreQueue
{
private SemaphoreSlim semaphore;
private ConcurrentQueue<TaskCompletionSource<bool>> queue =
new ConcurrentQueue<TaskCompletionSource<bool>>();
public SemaphoreQueue(int initialCount)
{
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount);
}
public SemaphoreQueue(int initialCount, int maxCount)
{
semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(initialCount, maxCount);
}
public void Wait()
{
WaitAsync().Wait();
}
public Task WaitAsync()
{
var tcs = new TaskCompletionSource<bool>();
queue.Enqueue(tcs);
semaphore.WaitAsync().ContinueWith(t =>
{
TaskCompletionSource<bool> popped;
if (queue.TryDequeue(out popped))
popped.SetResult(true);
});
return tcs.Task;
}
public void Release()
{
semaphore.Release();
}
}

I have created a FifoSemaphore class and I am successfully using it in my solutions. Current limitation is that it behaves like a Semaphore(1, 1).
public class FifoSemaphore
{
private readonly object lockObj = new object();
private List<Semaphore> WaitingQueue = new List<Semaphore>();
private Semaphore RequestNewSemaphore()
{
lock (lockObj)
{
Semaphore newSemaphore = new Semaphore(1, 1);
newSemaphore.WaitOne();
return newSemaphore;
}
}
#region Public Functions
public void Release()
{
lock (lockObj)
{
WaitingQueue.RemoveAt(0);
if (WaitingQueue.Count > 0)
{
WaitingQueue[0].Release();
}
}
}
public void WaitOne()
{
Semaphore semaphore = RequestNewSemaphore();
lock (lockObj)
{
WaitingQueue.Add(semaphore);
semaphore.Release();
if(WaitingQueue.Count > 1)
{
semaphore.WaitOne();
}
}
semaphore.WaitOne();
}
#endregion
}
Usage is just like with a regular semaphore:
FifoSemaphore fifoSemaphore = new FifoSemaphore();
On each thread:
fifoSemaphore.WaitOne();
//do work
fifoSemaphore.Release();

Is there a synchronization class that guarantee FIFO order in C#?

What is it and how to use?
I need that as I have a timer that inserts into DB every second, and I have a shared resource between timer handler and the main thread.
I want to gurantee that if the timer handler takes more than one second in the insertion the waited threads should be executed in order.
This is a sample code for my timer handler:
private void InsertBasicVaraibles(object param)
{
try
{
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
But currently the mutex does not guarantee any order.

You'll need to write your own class to do this, I found this example (pasted because it looks as though the site's domain has lapsed):
using System.Threading;
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private object innerLock;
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLock()
{
innerLock = new Object();
}
public void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(innerLock);
}
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(innerLock);
}
}
Example of usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
Source via archive.org

Just reading Joe Duffy's "Concurrent Programming on Windows" it sounds like you'll usually get FIFO behaviour from .NET monitors, but there are some situations where that won't occur.
Page 273 of the book says: "Because monitors use kernel objects internally, they exhibit the same roughly-FIFO behavior that the OS synchronization mechanisms also exhibit (described in the previous chapter). Monitors are unfair, so if another thread sneaks in and acquires the lock before an awakened waiting thread tries to acquire the lock, the sneaky thread is permitted to acquire the lock."
I can't immediately find the section referenced "in the previous chapter" but it does note that locks have been made deliberately unfair in recent editions of Windows to improve scalability and reduce lock convoys.
Do you definitely need your lock to be FIFO? Maybe there's a different way to approach the problem. I don't know of any locks in .NET which are guaranteed to be FIFO.

You should re-design your system to not rely on the execution order of the threads. For example, rather than have your threads make a DB call that might take more than one second, have your threads place the command they would execute into a data structure like a queue (or a heap if there is something that says "this one should be before another one"). Then, in spare time, drain the queue and do your db inserts one at a time in the proper order.

There is no guaranteed order on any built-in synchronisation objects: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684266(VS.85).aspx
If you want a guaranteed order you'll have to try and build something yourself, note though that it's not as easy as it might sound, especially when multiple threads reach the synchronisation point at (close to) the same time. To some extent the order they will be released will always be 'random' since you cannot predict in which order the point is reached, so does it really matter?

Actually the answers are good, but I solved the problem by removing the timer and run the method (timer-handler previously) into background thread as follows
private void InsertBasicVaraibles()
{
int functionStopwatch = 0;
while(true)
{
try
{
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount;
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
//simulate the timer tick value
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount - functionStopwatch;
int diff = INSERTION_PERIOD - functionStopwatch;
int sleep = diff >= 0 ? diff:0;
Thread.Sleep(sleep);
}
}

Follow up on Matthew Brindley's answer.
If converting code from
lock (LocalConnection.locker) {...}
then you could either do a IDisposable or do what I did:
public static void Locking(Action action) {
Lock();
try {
action();
} finally {
Unlock();
}
}
LocalConnection.Locking( () => {...});
I decided against IDisposable because it would creates a new invisible object on every call.
As to reentrancy issue I modified the code to this:
public sealed class QueuedLock {
private object innerLock = new object();
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
ThreadLocal<int> reenter = new ThreadLocal<int>();
public void Enter() {
reenter.Value++;
if ( reenter.Value > 1 )
return;
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketsCount );
Monitor.Enter( innerLock );
while ( true ) {
if ( myTicket == ticketToRide ) {
return;
} else {
Monitor.Wait( innerLock );
}
}
}
public void Exit() {
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
reenter.Value--;
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
return;
Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketToRide );
Monitor.PulseAll( innerLock );
Monitor.Exit( innerLock );
}
}

In case anyone needs Matt's solution in F#
type internal QueuedLock() =
let innerLock = Object()
let ticketsCount = ref 0
let ticketToRide = ref 1
member __.Enter () =
let myTicket = Interlocked.Increment ticketsCount
Monitor.Enter innerLock
while myTicket <> Volatile.Read ticketToRide do
Monitor.Wait innerLock |> ignore
member __.Exit () =
Interlocked.Increment ticketToRide |> ignore
Monitor.PulseAll innerLock
Monitor.Exit innerLock

Elaborating on Matt Brindley's great answer so that it works with the using statement:
public sealed class QueuedLockProvider
{
private readonly object _innerLock;
private volatile int _ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int _ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLockProvider()
{
_innerLock = new object();
}
public Lock GetLock()
{
return new Lock(this);
}
private void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == _ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_innerLock);
}
}
}
private void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(_innerLock);
}
public class Lock : IDisposable
{
private readonly QueuedLockProvider _lockProvider;
internal Lock(QueuedLockProvider lockProvider)
{
_lockProvider = lockProvider;
_lockProvider.Enter();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_lockProvider.Exit();
}
}
}
Now use it like this:
QueuedLockProvider _myLockProvider = new QueuedLockProvider();
// ...
using(_myLockProvider.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}

NOTE: The examples provided are susceptible to Deadlocks.
Example:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
fubc2()
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
void func2()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter(); //<<<< DEADLOCK
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
Re. optional solution (inc. an optional IDisposable usage):
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private class SyncObject : IDisposable
{
private Action m_action = null;
public SyncObject(Action action)
{
m_action = action;
}
public void Dispose()
{
lock (this)
{
var action = m_action;
m_action = null;
action?.Invoke();
}
}
}
private readonly object m_innerLock = new Object();
private volatile uint m_ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile uint m_ticketToRide = 1;
public bool Enter()
{
if (Monitor.IsEntered(m_innerLock))
return false;
uint myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(m_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == m_ticketToRide)
return true;
Monitor.Wait(m_innerLock);
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(m_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(m_innerLock);
}
public IDisposable GetLock()
{
if (Enter())
return new SyncObject(Exit);
return new SyncObject(null);
}
}
Usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
bool isLockAquire = false;
try
{
isLockAquire = queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
finally
{
if (isLockAquire)
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
or:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
using (queuedLock.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
}