Develop Reference

How safe are Interlocked.Exchange?

Beeing a threading noob, I'm trying to find a way w/o locking objects that allows me to enqueue a threadpool task, in such way that it has a max degree of parallelism = 1.
Will this code do what I think it does?
private int status;
private const int Idle = 0;
private const int Busy = 1;
private void Schedule()
{
// only schedule if we idle
// we become busy and get the old value to compare with
// in an atomic way (?)
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref status, Busy) == Idle)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(Run);
}
}
That is, in a threadsafe way enqueue the Run method if the status is Idle.
It seems to work fine in my tests, but since this is not my area, I'm not sure.

Yes, this will do what you want. It will never allow you to get a return value of Idle when in fact status is Busy, and it will set status to Busy in the same operation, with no chance of a conflict. So far so good.
However, if you're using a ConcurrentQueue<T> later on, why do you even do this? Why do you use a ThreadPool to enqueue Run over and over again, instead of just having a single thread continually take data from the concurrent queue using TryDequeue?
In fact, there is a producer-consumer collection that is specifically designed for this, the BlockingCollection<T>. Your consumer thread would just call Take (with a cancellation token if necessary - probably a good idea) and that either returns a value as in ConcurrentQueue<T>; or if no value is available, blocks the thread until there is something to take. When some other thread adds an item to the collection, it will notify as many consumers as it has data for (in your case, no need for anything complex, since you only have one consumer).
That means you only have to handle starting and stopping a single thread, which will run an "infinite" cycle, which will call col.Take, while the producers call col.Add.
Of course, this assumes you have .NET 4.0+ available, but then again, you probably do, since you're using ConcurrentQueue<T>.

Creating a execution queue by using Task.ContinueWith?

I have several actions that I want to execute in the background, but they have to be executed synchronously one after the other.
I was wondering if it's a good idea to use the Task.ContinueWith method to achieve this. Do you foresee any problems with this?
My code looks something like this:
private object syncRoot =new object();
private Task latestTask;
public void EnqueueAction(System.Action action)
{
lock (syncRoot)
{
if (latestTask == null)
latestTask = Task.Factory.StartNew(action);
else
latestTask = latestTask.ContinueWith(tsk => action());
}
}

There is one flaw with this, which I recently discovered myself because I am also using this method of ensuring tasks execute sequentially.
In my application I had thousands of instances of these mini-queues and quickly discovered I was having memory issues. Since these queues were often idle I was holding onto the last completed task object for a long time and preventing garbage collection. Since the result object of the last completed task was often over 85,000 bytes it was allocated to Large Object Heap (which does not perform compaction during garbage collection). This resulted in fragmentation of the LOH and the process continuously growing in size.
As a hack to avoid this, you can schedule a no-op task right after the real one within your lock. For a real solution, I will need to move to a different method of controlling the scheduling.

This should work as designed (using the fact that TPL will schedule the continuation immediately if the corresponding task already has completed).
Personally in this case I would just use a dedicated thread using a concurrent queue (ConcurrentQueue) to draw tasks from - this is more explicit but easier to parse reading the code, especially if you want to find out i.e. how many tasks are currently queued etc.

I used this snippet and have seem to get it work as designed.
The number of instances in my case does not runs in to thousands, but in single digit.
Nevertheless, no issues so far.
I would be interested in the ConcurrentQueue example, if there is any?
Thanks

Monitor.Wait, Condition variable

Given a following code snippet(found in somewhere while learning threading).
public class BlockingQueue<T>
{
private readonly object sync = new object();
private readonly Queue<T> queue;
public BlockingQueue()
{
queue = new Queue<T>();
}
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
lock (sync)
{
queue.Enqueue(item);
Monitor.PulseAll(sync);
}
}
public T Dequeue()
{
lock (sync)
{
while (queue.Count == 0)
Monitor.Wait(sync);
return queue.Dequeue();
}
}
}
What I want to understand is ,
Why is there a while loop ?
while (queue.Count == 0)
Monitor.Wait(sync);
and what is wrong with the,
if(queue.Count == 0)
Monitor.Wait(sync);
In fact, all the time when I see the similar code I found using while loop, can anyone please help me understand the use of one above another.
Thank you.

You need to understand what Pulse, PulseAll, and Wait are doing. The Monitor maintains two queues: the waiting queue and the ready queue. When a thread calls Wait it is moved into the waiting queue. When a thread calls Pulse it moves one and only one thread from the waiting queue to the ready queue. When a thread calls PulseAll it moves all threads from the waiting queue to the ready queue. Threads in the ready queue are eligible to reacquire the lock at any moment, but only after the current holder releases it of course.
Based on this knowledge it is fairly easy to understand why you must recheck the queue count when using PulseAll. It is because all dequeueing threads will eventually wake and will want to attempt to extract an item from queue. But, what if there is only one item in the queue to begin with? Obviously, we must recheck the queue count to avoid dequeueing an empty queue.
So what would be the conclusion if you had used Pulse instead of PulseAll? There would still be a problem with the simple if check. The reason is because a thread from the ready queue is not necessarily going to be the next thread to acquire the lock. That is because the Monitor does not give preference to a Wait call above an Enter call.
The while loop is a fairly standard pattern when using Monitor.Wait. This is because pulsing a thread does not have semantic meaning by itself. It is only a signal that the lock state has changed. When threads wake up after blocking on Wait they should recheck the same condition that was originally used to block the thread to see if the thread can now proceed. Sometimes it cannot and so it should block some more.
The best rule of thumb here is that if there is doubt about whether to use an if check or a while check then always choose a while loop because it is safer. In fact, I would take this to the extreme and suggest to always use a while loop because there is no inherent advantage in using the simpler if check and because the if check is almost always the wrong choice anyway. A similar rule holds for choosing whether to use Pulse or PulseAll. If there is doubt about which one to use then always choose PulseAll.

you have to keep checking whether the queue is still empty or not. Using only if would only check it once, wait for a while, then a dequeue. What if at that time the queue is still empty? BANG! queue underflow error...

with if condition when something released the lock the queue.Count == 0 will not check again and maybe a queue underflow error so we have to check the condition every time because of concurrency and this is called Spinning

Why on Unix it could go wrong is because of the spurious wake up, possibility caused by OS signals. It is a side effect that is not guaranteed to never happen on windows as well. This is not a legacy, it is how OS works. If Monitors are implemented in terms of Condition Variable, that is.
def : a spurious wake up is a re-scheduling of a sleeping thread on a condition variable wait site, that was not triggered by an action coming from the current program threads (like Pulse()).
This inconvenience could be masked in managed languages by, e.g. the queues. So before going out of the Wait() function, the framework could check that this running thread is actually really being requested for scheduling, if it does not find itself in a run queue it can go back to sleep. Hiding the problem.

if (queue.Count == 0)
will do.
Using while loop pattern for "wait for and check condition" context is a legacy leftover, I think. Because non-Windows, non-.NET monitor variables can be triggered without actual Pulse.
In .NET, you private monitor variable cannot be triggered without Queue filling so you don't need to worry about queue underflow after monitor waiting. But, it is really not bad habit to use while loop for "wait for and check condition".

C# Threading and Queues

This isn't about the different methods I could or should be using to utilize the queues in the best manner, rather something I have seen happening that makes no sense to me.
void Runner() {
// member variable
queue = Queue.Synchronized(new Queue());
while (true) {
if (0 < queue.Count) {
queue.Dequeue();
}
}
}
This is run in a single thread:
var t = new Thread(Runner);
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
Other events are "Enqueue"ing else where. What I've seen happen is over a period of time, the Dequeue will actually throw InvalidOperationException, queue empty. This should be impossible seeing as how the count guarantees there is something there, and I'm positive that nothing else is "Dequeue"ing.
The question(s):
Is it possible that the Enqueue actually increases the count before the item is fully on the queue (whatever that means...)?
Is it possible that the thread is somehow restarting (expiring, reseting...) at the Dequeue statement, but immediately after it already removed an item?
Edit (clarification):
These code pieces are part of a Wrapper class that implements the background helper thread. The Dequeue here is the only Dequeue, and all Enqueue/Dequeue are on the Synchronized member variable (queue).

Using Reflector, you can see that no, the count does not get increased until after the item is added.
As Ben points out, it does seem as you do have multiple people calling dequeue.
You say you are positive that nothing else is calling dequeue. Is that because you only have the one thread calling dequeue? Is dequeue called anywhere else at all?
EDIT:
I wrote a little sample code, but could not get the problem to reproduce. It just kept running and running without any exceptions.
How long was it running before you got errors? Maybe you can share a bit more of the code.
class Program
{
static Queue q = Queue.Synchronized(new Queue());
static bool running = true;
static void Main()
{
Thread producer1 = new Thread(() =>
{
while (running)
{
q.Enqueue(Guid.NewGuid());
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
});
Thread producer2 = new Thread(() =>
{
while (running)
{
q.Enqueue(Guid.NewGuid());
Thread.Sleep(25);
}
});
Thread consumer = new Thread(() =>
{
while (running)
{
if (q.Count > 0)
{
Guid g = (Guid)q.Dequeue();
Console.Write(g.ToString() + " ");
}
else
{
Console.Write(" . ");
}
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
});
consumer.IsBackground = true;
consumer.Start();
producer1.Start();
producer2.Start();
Console.ReadLine();
running = false;
}
}

Here is what I think the problematic sequence is:
(0 < queue.Count) evaluates to true, the queue is not empty.
This thread gets preempted and another thread runs.
The other thread removes an item from the queue, emptying it.
This thread resumes execution, but is now within the if block, and attempts to dequeue an empty list.
However, you say nothing else is dequeuing...
Try outputting the count inside the if block. If you see the count jump numbers downwards, someone else is dequeuing.

Here's a possible answer from the MSDN page on this topic:
Enumerating through a collection is
intrinsically not a thread-safe
procedure. Even when a collection is
synchronized, other threads can still
modify the collection, which causes
the enumerator to throw an exception.
To guarantee thread safety during
enumeration, you can either lock the
collection during the entire
enumeration or catch the exceptions
resulting from changes made by other
threads.
My guess is that you're correct - at some point, there's a race condition happening, and you end up dequeuing something that isn't there.
A Mutex or Monitor.Lock is probably appropriate here.
Good luck!

Are the other areas that are "Enqueuing" data also using the same synchronized queue object? In order for the Queue.Synchronized to be thread-safe, all Enqueue and Dequeue operations must use the same synchronized queue object.
From MSDN:
To guarantee the thread safety of the
Queue, all operations must be done
through this wrapper only.
Edited:
If you are looping over many items that involve heavy computation or if you are using a long-term thread loop (communications, etc.), you should consider having a wait function such as System.Threading.Thread.Sleep, System.Threading.WaitHandle.WaitOne, System.Threading.WaitHandle.WaitAll, or System.Threading.WaitHandle.WaitAny in the loop, otherwise it might kill system performance.

question 1: If you're using a synchronized queue, then: no, you're safe! But you'll need to use the synchronized instance on both sides, the supplier and the feeder.
question 2: Terminating your worker thread when there is no work to do, is a simple job. However, you either way need a monitoring thread or have the queue start a background worker thread whenever the queue has something to do. The last one sounds more like the ActiveObject Pattern, than a simple queue (which's Single-Responsibily-Pattern says that it should only do queueing).
In addition, I'd go for a blocking queue instead of your code above. The way your code works requires CPU processing power even if there is no work to do. A blocking queue lets your worker thread sleep whenever there is nothing to do. You can have multiple sleeping threads running without using CPU processing power.
C# doesn't come with a blocking queue implementation, but there a many out there. See this example and this one.

Another option for making thread-safe use of queues is the ConcurrentQueue<T> class that has been introduced since 2009 (the year of this question). This may help avoid having to write your own synchronization code or at least help making it much simpler.
From .NET Framework 4.6 onward, ConcurrentQueue<T> also implements the interface IReadOnlyCollection<T>.

Implementing multithreading in C# (code review)

Greetings.
I'm trying to implement some multithreaded code in an application. The purpose of this code is to validate items that the database gives it. Validation can take quite a while (a few hundred ms to a few seconds), so this process needs to be forked off into its own thread for each item.
The database may give it 20 or 30 items a second in the beginning, but that begins to decline rapidly, eventually reaching about 65K items over 24 hours, at which point the application exits.
I'd like it if anyone more knowledgeable could take a peek at my code and see if there's any obvious problems. No one I work with knows multithreading, so I'm really just on my own, on this one.
Here's the code. It's kinda long but should be pretty clear. Let me know if you have any feedback or advice. Thanks!
public class ItemValidationService
{
/// <summary>
/// The object to lock on in this class, for multithreading purposes.
/// </summary>
private static object locker = new object();
/// <summary>Items that have been validated.</summary>
private HashSet<int> validatedItems;
/// <summary>Items that are currently being validated.</summary>
private HashSet<int> validatingItems;
/// <summary>Remove an item from the index if its links are bad.</summary>
/// <param name="id">The ID of the item.</param>
public void ValidateItem(int id)
{
lock (locker)
{
if
(
!this.validatedItems.Contains(id) &&
!this.validatingItems.Contains(id)
){
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(sender =>
{
this.Validate(id);
});
}
}
} // method
private void Validate(int itemId)
{
lock (locker)
{
this.validatingItems.Add(itemId);
}
// *********************************************
// Time-consuming routine to validate an item...
// *********************************************
lock (locker)
{
this.validatingItems.Remove(itemId);
this.validatedItems.Add(itemId);
}
} // method
} // class

The thread pool is a convenient choice if you have light weight sporadic processing that isn't time sensitive. However, I recall reading on MSDN that it's not appropriate for large scale processing of this nature.
I used it for something quite similar to this and regret it. I took a worker-thread approach in subsequent apps and am much happier with the level of control I have.
My favorite pattern in the worker-thread model is to create a master thread which holds a queue of tasks items. Then fork a bunch of workers that pop items off that queue to process. I use a blocking queue so that when there are no items the process, the workers just block until something is pushed onto the queue. In this model, the master thread produces work items from some source (db, etc.) and the worker threads consume them.

I second the idea of using a blocking queue and worker threads. Here is a blocking queue implementation that I've used in the past with good results:
https://www.codeproject.com/Articles/8018/Bounded-Blocking-Queue-One-Lock
What's involved in your validation logic? If its mainly CPU bound then I would create no more than 1 worker thread per processor/core on the box. This will tell you the number of processors:
Environment.ProcessorCount
If your validation involves I/O such as File Access or database access then you could use a few more threads than the number of processors.

Be careful, QueueUserWorkItem might fail

There is a possible logic error in the code posted with the question, depending on where the item id in ValidateItem(int id) comes from. Why? Because although you correctly lock your validatingItems and validatedItems queues before queing a work item, you do not add the item to the validatingItems queue until the new thread spins up. That means there could be a time gap where another thread calls ValidateItem(id) with the same id (unless this is running on a single main thread).
I would add item to the validatingItems queue just before queuing the item, inside the lock.
Edit: also QueueUserWorkItem() returns a bool so you should use the return value to make sure the item was queued and THEN add it to the validatingItems queue.

ThreadPool may not be optimal for jamming so much at once into it. You may want to research the upper limits of its capabilities and/or roll your own.
Also, there is a race condition that exists in your code, if you expect no duplicate validations. The call to
this.validatingItems.Add(itemId);
needs to happen in the main thread (ValidateItem), not in the thread pool thread (Validate method). This call should occur a line before the queueing of the work item to the pool.
A worse bug is found by not checking the return of QueueUserWorkItem. Queueing can fail, and why it doesn't throw an exception is a mystery to us all. If it returns false, you need to remove the item that was added to the validatingItems list, and handle the error (throw exeception probably).

I would be concerned about performance here. You indicated that the database may give it 20-30 items per second and an item could take up to a few seconds to be validated. That could be quite a large number of threads -- using your metrics, worst case 60-90 threads! I think you need to reconsider the design here. Michael mentioned a nice pattern. The use of the queue really helps keep things under control and organized. A semaphore could also be employed to control number of threads created -- i.e. you could have a maximum number of threads allowed, but under smaller loads, you wouldn't necessarily have to create the maximum number if fewer ended up getting the job done -- i.e. your own pool size could be dynamic with a cap.
When using the thread-pool, I also find it more difficult to monitor the execution of threads from the pool in their performing the work. So, unless it's fire and forget, I am in favor of more controlled execution. I know you mentioned that your app exits after the 65K items are all completed. How are you monitoring you threads to determine if they have completed their work -- i.e. all queued workers are done. Are you monitoring the status of all items in the HashSets? I think by queuing your items up and having your own worker threads consume off that queue, you can gain more control. Albeit, this can come at the cost of more overhead in terms of signaling between threads to indicate when all items have been queued allowing them to exit.

You could also try using the CCR - Concurrency and Coordination Runtime. It's buried inside Microsoft Robotics Studio, but provides an excellent API for doing this sort of thing.
You'd just need to create a "Port" (essentially a queue), hook up a receiver (method that gets called when something is posted to it), and then post work items to it. The CCR handles the queue and the worker thread to run it on.
Here's a video on Channel9 about the CCR.
It's very high-performance and is even being used for non-Robotics stuff (Myspace.com uses it behind the scenese for their content-delivery network).

I would recommend looking into MSDN: Task Parallel Library - DataFlow. You can find examples of implementing Producer-Consumer in your case would be the database producing items to validate and the validation routine becomes the consumer.
Also recommend using ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, TValue> as a "Concurrent" hash set where you just populate the keys with no values :). You can potentially make your code lock-free.