Develop Reference

Understanding the C# lock [duplicate]

I am having hard time in understanding Wait(), Pulse(), PulseAll(). Will all of them avoid deadlock? I would appreciate if you explain how to use them?

Short version:
lock(obj) {...}
is short-hand for Monitor.Enter / Monitor.Exit (with exception handling etc). If nobody else has the lock, you can get it (and run your code) - otherwise your thread is blocked until the lock is aquired (by another thread releasing it).
Deadlock typically happens when either A: two threads lock things in different orders:
thread 1: lock(objA) { lock (objB) { ... } }
thread 2: lock(objB) { lock (objA) { ... } }
(here, if they each acquire the first lock, neither can ever get the second, since neither thread can exit to release their lock)
This scenario can be minimised by always locking in the same order; and you can recover (to a degree) by using Monitor.TryEnter (instead of Monitor.Enter/lock) and specifying a timeout.
or B: you can block yourself with things like winforms when thread-switching while holding a lock:
lock(obj) { // on worker
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker) delegate { // switch to UI
lock(obj) { // oopsiee!
...
}
});
}
The deadlock appears obvious above, but it isn't so obvious when you have spaghetti code; possible answers: don't thread-switch while holding locks, or use BeginInvoke so that you can at least exit the lock (letting the UI play).
Wait/Pulse/PulseAll are different; they are for signalling. I use this in this answer to signal so that:
Dequeue: if you try to dequeue data when the queue is empty, it waits for another thread to add data, which wakes up the blocked thread
Enqueue: if you try and enqueue data when the queue is full, it waits for another thread to remove data, which wakes up the blocked thread
Pulse only wakes up one thread - but I'm not brainy enough to prove that the next thread is always the one I want, so I tend to use PulseAll, and simply re-verify the conditions before continuing; as an example:
while (queue.Count >= maxSize)
{
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
With this approach, I can safely add other meanings of Pulse, without my existing code assuming that "I woke up, therefore there is data" - which is handy when (in the same example) I later needed to add a Close() method.

Simple recipe for use of Monitor.Wait and Monitor.Pulse. It consists of a worker, a boss, and a phone they use to communicate:
object phone = new object();
A "Worker" thread:
lock(phone) // Sort of "Turn the phone on while at work"
{
while(true)
{
Monitor.Wait(phone); // Wait for a signal from the boss
DoWork();
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal boss we are done
}
}
A "Boss" thread:
PrepareWork();
lock(phone) // Grab the phone when I have something ready for the worker
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
Monitor.Wait(phone); // Wait for the work to be done
}
More complex examples follow...
A "Worker with something else to do":
lock(phone)
{
while(true)
{
if(Monitor.Wait(phone,1000)) // Wait for one second at most
{
DoWork();
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal boss we are done
}
else
DoSomethingElse();
}
}
An "Impatient Boss":
PrepareWork();
lock(phone)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
if(Monitor.Wait(phone,1000)) // Wait for one second at most
Console.Writeline("Good work!");
}

No, they don't protect you from deadlocks. They are just more flexible tools for thread synchronization. Here is a very good explanation how to use them and very important pattern of usage - without this pattern you will break all the things:
http://www.albahari.com/threading/part4.aspx

Something that total threw me here is that Pulse just gives a "heads up" to a thread in a Wait. The Waiting thread will not continue until the thread that did the Pulse gives up the lock and the waiting thread successfully wins it.
lock(phone) // Grab the phone
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker
Monitor.Wait(phone); // ****** The lock on phone has been given up! ******
}
or
lock(phone) // Grab the phone when I have something ready for the worker
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
DoMoreWork();
} // ****** The lock on phone has been given up! ******
In both cases it's not until "the lock on phone has been given up" that another thread can get it.
There might be other threads waiting for that lock from Monitor.Wait(phone) or lock(phone). Only the one that wins the lock will get to continue.

They are tools for synchronizing and signaling between threads. As such they do nothing to prevent deadlocks, but if used correctly they can be used to synchronize and communicate between threads.
Unfortunately most of the work needed to write correct multithreaded code is currently the developers' responsibility in C# (and many other languages). Take a look at how F#, Haskell and Clojure handles this for an entirely different approach.

Unfortunately, none of Wait(), Pulse() or PulseAll() have the magical property which you are wishing for - which is that by using this API you will automatically avoid deadlock.
Consider the following code
object incomingMessages = new object(); //signal object
LoopOnMessages()
{
lock(incomingMessages)
{
Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
}
if (canGrabMessage()) handleMessage();
// loop
}
ReceiveMessagesAndSignalWaiters()
{
awaitMessages();
copyMessagesToReadyArea();
lock(incomingMessages) {
Monitor.PulseAll(incomingMessages); //or Monitor.Pulse
}
awaitReadyAreaHasFreeSpace();
}
This code will deadlock! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. Most likely when your code is placed under stress because suddenly it has become popular or important, and you are being called to fix an urgent issue.
Why?
Eventually the following will happen:
All consumer threads are doing some work
Messages arrive, the ready area can't hold any more messages, and PulseAll() is called.
No consumer gets woken up, because none are waiting
All consumer threads call Wait() [DEADLOCK]
This particular example assumes that producer thread is never going to call PulseAll() again because it has no more space to put messages in. But there are many, many broken variations on this code possible. People will try to make it more robust by changing a line such as making Monitor.Wait(); into
if (!canGrabMessage()) Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
Unfortunately, that still isn't enough to fix it. To fix it you also need to change the locking scope where Monitor.PulseAll() is called:
LoopOnMessages()
{
lock(incomingMessages)
{
if (!canGrabMessage()) Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
}
if (canGrabMessage()) handleMessage();
// loop
}
ReceiveMessagesAndSignalWaiters()
{
awaitMessagesArrive();
lock(incomingMessages)
{
copyMessagesToReadyArea();
Monitor.PulseAll(incomingMessages); //or Monitor.Pulse
}
awaitReadyAreaHasFreeSpace();
}
The key point is that in the fixed code, the locks restrict the possible sequences of events:
A consumer threads does its work and loops
That thread acquires the lock
And thanks to locking it is now true that either:
a. Messages haven't yet arrived in the ready area, and it releases the lock by calling Wait() BEFORE the message receiver thread can acquire the lock and copy more messages into the ready area, or
b. Messages have already arrived in the ready area and it receives the messages INSTEAD OF calling Wait(). (And while it is making this decision it is impossible for the message receiver thread to e.g. acquire the lock and copy more messages into the ready area.)
As a result the problem of the original code now never occurs:
3. When PulseEvent() is called No consumer gets woken up, because none are waiting
Now observe that in this code you have to get the locking scope exactly right. (If, indeed I got it right!)
And also, since you must use the lock (or Monitor.Enter() etc.) in order to use Monitor.PulseAll() or Monitor.Wait() in a deadlock-free fashion, you still have to worry about possibility of other deadlocks which happen because of that locking.
Bottom line: these APIs are also easy to screw up and deadlock with, i.e. quite dangerous

This is a simple example of monitor use :
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp4
{
class Program
{
public static int[] X = new int[30];
static readonly object _object = new object();
public static int count=0;
public static void PutNumbers(int numbersS, int numbersE)
{
for (int i = numbersS; i < numbersE; i++)
{
Monitor.Enter(_object);
try
{
if(count<30)
{
X[count] = i;
count++;
Console.WriteLine("Punt in " + count + "nd: "+i);
Monitor.Pulse(_object);
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_object);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_object);
}
}
}
public static void RemoveNumbers(int numbersS)
{
for (int i = 0; i < numbersS; i++)
{
Monitor.Enter(_object);
try
{
if (count > 0)
{
X[count] = 0;
int x = count;
count--;
Console.WriteLine("Removed " + x + " element");
Monitor.Pulse(_object);
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_object);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_object);
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread W1 = new Thread(() => PutNumbers(10,50));
Thread W2 = new Thread(() => PutNumbers(1, 10));
Thread R1 = new Thread(() => RemoveNumbers(30));
Thread R2 = new Thread(() => RemoveNumbers(20));
W1.Start();
R1.Start();
W2.Start();
R2.Start();
W1.Join();
R1.Join();
W2.Join();
R2.Join();
}
}
}

Delay in parallel computing

I'm using parallel.for to launch in many threads a external program. But despite the fact that these are separate threads I need implement sth like delay. E.g. 2 threads want to launch this external program at the same moment - then one of them should wait and start e.g. 10 sec after second thread.
Is it possible?

It's possible, but given the information you've provided it seems pointless... you're enforcing single-threaded execution of the external program, so you might as well have a single thread executing it. If Thread 2 has to wait for Thread 1 in order to start the "external program," then just let Thread 1 do all the work since it already knows when it started the "external program."
The only benefit you will get from a multi-threaded approach is if you have a bunch of processing that you need to do prior to executing the "external program" and that processing has to be a good candidate for concurrent execution.
Update
OK, there are a couple of ways to do this with only one extra thread in order to keep your Main/GUI thread responsive. The first approach is a simple lock around the external resource which you're interacting with:
public class ExternalResourceHandler
{
private readonly ExternalResource _resource;
private readonly object _sync = new object();
// constructors
// ...
// other methods
public void PerformExternalOperation()
{
lock(_sync)
{
Result result = _resource.Execute();
// do soemthing with the result
}
}
}
Here are 3 multi-threaded version for executing the code:
Using a Parallel.For method: recommended if the external program takes a short amount of time to execute- I'd suggest for things under 25 seconds (although this is not necessarily a "correct" number).
Using a ThreadPool: again, I'd recommend for things that take less than 25 seconds (with the same reservation as above).
Using a Thread: this would be recommended if the operation runs longer (i.e. more than 25 seconds, but it would do just as good if it's under 25 seconds).
Here are some examples (not necessarily functional, mostly meant to give you an idea of the different approaches):
public class Program
{
public static ExternalResourceHandler _erh = new ExternalResourceHandler();
static int Main()
{
Console.WriteLine("Type 'exit' to stop; 'parallel', 'pool' or 'thread' for the corresponding execution version.");
string input = Console.ReadLine();
while(input != "exit")
{
switch(input)
{
case "parallel":
// Run the Parallel.For version
ParallelForVersion();
break;
caase "pool":
// Run the threadpool version
ThreadPoolVersion();
break;
case "thread":
// Run the thread version
ThreadVersion();
break;
default:
break;
}
input = Console.ReadLine();
}
return 0;
}
public static void ParallelForVersion()
{
Parallel.For(0, 1, i =>
{
_erh.PerformExternalOperation();
});
}
public static void ThreadPoolVersion()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(o=>
{
_erh.PerformExternalOperation();
});
}
public static void ThreadVersion()
{
Thread t = new Thread(()=>
{
_erh.PerformExternalOperation();
});
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
}
The other option is to employ the Producer/Consumer design pattern where your ExternalResourceHandler is the consumer and it processes requests to the external resource from a thread-safe queue. Your main thread just places requests on the queue and immediately returns back to work. Here is an example:
public class ExternalResourceHandler
{
private volatile boolean _running;
private readonly ExternalResource _resource;
private readonly BlockingQueue<Request> _requestQueue;
public ExternalResourceHandler( BlockingQueue<Request> requestQueue)
{
_requestQueue = requestQueue;
_running = false;
}
public void QueueRequest(Request request)
{
_requestQueue.Enqueue(request);
}
public void Run()
{
_running = true;
while(_running)
{
Request request = null;
if(_requestQueue.TryDequeue(ref request) && request!=null)
{
_resource.Execute(request);
}
}
}
// methods to stop the handler (i.e. set the _running flag to false)
}
Your main would look like this:
public class Program
{
public static ExternalResourceHandler _erh = new ExternalResourceHandler();
static int Main()
{
Thread erhThread = new Thread(()=>{_erh.Run();});
erhThread.IsBackground = true;
erhThread.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Type 'exit' to stop or press enter to enqueue another request.");
string input = Console.ReadLine();
while(input != "exit")
{
_erh.EnqeueRequest(new Request());
input = Console.ReadLine();
}
// Stops the erh by setting the running flag to false
_erh.Stop();
// You may also need to interrupt the thread in order to
// get it out of a blocking state prior to calling Join()
erhThread.Join();
return 0;
}
}
As you see: in both cases all the work for the external handler is forced on a single thread yet your main thread still remains responsive.

Look at producer-consumer pattern. The first thread produces the information "external progam launched" the second thread consumes it, waits 10 second and then launches the external program.

Multithreading: When would I use a Join?

I see online that it says I use myThread.Join(); when I want to block my thread until another thread finishes. (One of the things I don't get about this is what if I have multiple threads).
But generally, I just don't get when I'd use .Join() or a condition that it's useful for. Can anyone please explain this to me like I'm a fourth grader? Very simple explanation to understand will get my answer vote.

Let's say you want to start some worker threads to perform some kind of calculation, and then do something afterwards with all the results.
List<Thread> workerThreads = new List<Thread>();
List<int> results = new List<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 5; i++) {
Thread thread = new Thread(() => {
Thread.Sleep(new Random().Next(1000, 5000));
lock (results) {
results.Add(new Random().Next(1, 10));
}
});
workerThreads.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
// Wait for all the threads to finish so that the results list is populated.
// If a thread is already finished when Join is called, Join will return immediately.
foreach (Thread thread in workerThreads) {
thread.Join();
}
Debug.WriteLine("Sum of results: " + results.Sum());
Oh yeah, and don't use Random like that, I was just trying to write a minimal, easily understandable example. It ends up not really being random if you create new Random instances too close in time, since the seed is based on the clock.

In the following code snippet, the main thread calls Join() which causes it to wait for all spawned threads to finish:
static void Main()
{
Thread regularThread = new Thread(ThreadMethod);
regularThread.Start();
Thread regularThread2 = new Thread(ThreadMethod2);
regularThread2.Start();
// Wait for spawned threads to end.
regularThread.Join();
Console.WriteLine("regularThread returned.");
regularThread2.Join();
Console.WriteLine("regularThread2 returned.");
}
Note that if you also spun up a thread from the thread pool (using QueueUserWorkItem for instance), Join would not wait for that background thread. You would need to implement some other mechanism such as using an AutoResetEvent.
For an excellent introduction to threading, I recommend reading Joe Albahari's free Threading in C#

This is very simple program to demonstrate usage of Thread Join.Please follow my comments for better understanding.Write this program as it is.
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadSample
{
class Program
{
static Thread thread1, thread2;
static int sum=0;
static void Main(string[] args)
{
start();
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static void Sample() { sum = sum + 1; }
private static void Sample2() { sum = sum + 10; }
private static void start()
{
thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Sample));
thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(Sample2));
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
// thread1.Join();
// thread2.Join();
Console.WriteLine(sum);
Console.WriteLine();
}
}
}
1.First time run as it is (with comments) : Then result will be 0(initial value) or 1(when thread 1 finished) or 10 (Or thread finished)
2.Run with removing comment thread1.Join() : Result should be always more than 1.because thread1.Join() fired and thread 1 should be finished before get the sum.
3.Run with removing all coments :Result should be always 11

Join is used mainly when you need to wait that a thread (or a bunch of them) will terminate before proceding with your code.
For this reason is also particular useful when you need to collect result from a thread execution.
As per the Arafangion comment below, it's also important to join threads if you need to do some cleaning/housekeeping code after having created a thread.

Join will make sure that the treads above line is executed before executing lines below.

Another example, when your worker thread let's say reads from an input stream while the read method can run forever and you want to somehow avoid this - by applying timeout using another watchdog thread:
// worker thread
var worker = new Thread(() => {
Trace.WriteLine("Reading from stream");
// here is the critical area of thread, where the real stuff happens
// Sleep is just an example, simulating any real operation
Thread.Sleep(10000);
Trace.WriteLine("Reading finished");
}) { Name = "Worker" };
Trace.WriteLine("Starting worker thread...");
worker.Start();
// watchdog thread
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) => {
var timeOut = 5000;
if (!worker.Join(timeOut))
{
Trace.WriteLine("Killing worker thread after " + timeOut + " milliseconds!");
worker.Abort();
}
});

Adding a delay of 300ms in method "Sample" and a delay of 400ms in "Sample2" from devopsEMK's post would make it easier to understand.
By doing so you can observe that by removing the comment from "thread1.Join();" line, the main thread waits for the "thread1" to complete and only after moves on.

Aborting a .NET thread

I am creating a thread A and in that thread creating a new thread B.
So how is the thread hierarchy? Thread B is child of Thread A? Or the threads are created as peers?
I want to abort the parent thread A which in turn kills/aborts its child threads.
How is that possible in C#?

Threads should ideally never be aborted. It simply isn't safe. Consider this as a way of putting down an already sick process. Otherwise, avoid like the plague.
The more correct way of doing this is to have something that the code can periodically check, and itself decide to exit.

An example of stopping threads the polite way:
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace Treading
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Main program starts");
Thread firstThread = new Thread(A);
ThreadStateMessage messageToA = new ThreadStateMessage(){YouShouldStopNow = false};
firstThread.Start(messageToA);
Thread.Sleep(50); //Let other threads do their thing for 0.05 seconds
Console.WriteLine("Sending stop signal from main program!");
messageToA.YouShouldStopNow = true;
firstThread.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Main program ends - press any key to exit");
Console.Read();//
}
private class ThreadStateMessage
{
public bool YouShouldStopNow = false; //this assignment is not really needed, since default value is false
}
public static void A(object param)
{
ThreadStateMessage myMessage = (ThreadStateMessage)param;
Console.WriteLine("Hello from A");
ThreadStateMessage messageToB = new ThreadStateMessage();
Thread secondThread = new Thread(B);
secondThread.Start(messageToB);
while (!myMessage.YouShouldStopNow)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
Console.WriteLine("A is still running");
}
Console.WriteLine("Sending stop signal from A!");
messageToB.YouShouldStopNow = true;
secondThread.Join();
Console.WriteLine("Goodbye from A");
}
public static void B(object param)
{
ThreadStateMessage myMessage = (ThreadStateMessage)param;
Console.WriteLine("Hello from B");
while(!myMessage.YouShouldStopNow)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
Console.WriteLine("B is still running");
}
Console.WriteLine("Goodbye from B");
}
}
}
Using Thread.Abort(); causes an exception to be thrown if your thread is in a waiting state of any kind. This is sort of annoying to handle, since there are quite a number of ways that a thread can be waiting. As others have said, you should generally avoid doing it.

Thread.Abort will do what you want, but it is not recommended to abort thread, better choose is to think a way for finishing threads correctly by Thread synchronization mechanism

Here's yet another way to politely signal a thread to die:
Note that this fashion favors finite state automatons where the slave periodically checks for permission to live, then performs a task if allowed. Tasks are not interrupted and are 'atomic'. This works great with simple loops or with command queues. Also this makes sure the thread doesn't spin 100% cpu by giving the slave thread a rest period, set this one to 0 if you don't want any rest in your slave.
var dieEvent = new AutoResetEvent(false);
int slaveRestPeriod = 20;// let's not hog the CPU with an endless loop
var master = new Thread(() =>
{
doStuffAMasterDoes(); // long running operation
dieEvent.Set(); // kill the slave
});
var slave = new Thread(() =>
{
while (!dieEvent.WaitOne(restPeriod))
{
doStuffASlaveDoes();
}
});
slave.Start();
master.Start();

Threads are created as peers, obtain a handle to Thread A and then call ThreadA.Abort()
to forcefully end it. It's better to check a boolean in the thread and if it evaluates to false exit the thread.
public class MyClass
{
public static Thread ThreadA;
public static Thread ThreadB;
private void RunThings()
{
ThreadA = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadAWork));
ThreadB = new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadBWork));
ThreadA.Start();
ThreadB.Start();
}
static void ThreadAWork()
{
// do some stuff
// thread A will close now, all work is done.
}
static void ThreadBWork()
{
// do some stuff
ThreadA.Abort(); // close thread A
// thread B will close now, all work is done.
}
}

C# : Monitor - Wait,Pulse,PulseAll

I am having hard time in understanding Wait(), Pulse(), PulseAll(). Will all of them avoid deadlock? I would appreciate if you explain how to use them?

Short version:
lock(obj) {...}
is short-hand for Monitor.Enter / Monitor.Exit (with exception handling etc). If nobody else has the lock, you can get it (and run your code) - otherwise your thread is blocked until the lock is aquired (by another thread releasing it).
Deadlock typically happens when either A: two threads lock things in different orders:
thread 1: lock(objA) { lock (objB) { ... } }
thread 2: lock(objB) { lock (objA) { ... } }
(here, if they each acquire the first lock, neither can ever get the second, since neither thread can exit to release their lock)
This scenario can be minimised by always locking in the same order; and you can recover (to a degree) by using Monitor.TryEnter (instead of Monitor.Enter/lock) and specifying a timeout.
or B: you can block yourself with things like winforms when thread-switching while holding a lock:
lock(obj) { // on worker
this.Invoke((MethodInvoker) delegate { // switch to UI
lock(obj) { // oopsiee!
...
}
});
}
The deadlock appears obvious above, but it isn't so obvious when you have spaghetti code; possible answers: don't thread-switch while holding locks, or use BeginInvoke so that you can at least exit the lock (letting the UI play).
Wait/Pulse/PulseAll are different; they are for signalling. I use this in this answer to signal so that:
Dequeue: if you try to dequeue data when the queue is empty, it waits for another thread to add data, which wakes up the blocked thread
Enqueue: if you try and enqueue data when the queue is full, it waits for another thread to remove data, which wakes up the blocked thread
Pulse only wakes up one thread - but I'm not brainy enough to prove that the next thread is always the one I want, so I tend to use PulseAll, and simply re-verify the conditions before continuing; as an example:
while (queue.Count >= maxSize)
{
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
With this approach, I can safely add other meanings of Pulse, without my existing code assuming that "I woke up, therefore there is data" - which is handy when (in the same example) I later needed to add a Close() method.

Simple recipe for use of Monitor.Wait and Monitor.Pulse. It consists of a worker, a boss, and a phone they use to communicate:
object phone = new object();
A "Worker" thread:
lock(phone) // Sort of "Turn the phone on while at work"
{
while(true)
{
Monitor.Wait(phone); // Wait for a signal from the boss
DoWork();
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal boss we are done
}
}
A "Boss" thread:
PrepareWork();
lock(phone) // Grab the phone when I have something ready for the worker
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
Monitor.Wait(phone); // Wait for the work to be done
}
More complex examples follow...
A "Worker with something else to do":
lock(phone)
{
while(true)
{
if(Monitor.Wait(phone,1000)) // Wait for one second at most
{
DoWork();
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal boss we are done
}
else
DoSomethingElse();
}
}
An "Impatient Boss":
PrepareWork();
lock(phone)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
if(Monitor.Wait(phone,1000)) // Wait for one second at most
Console.Writeline("Good work!");
}

No, they don't protect you from deadlocks. They are just more flexible tools for thread synchronization. Here is a very good explanation how to use them and very important pattern of usage - without this pattern you will break all the things:
http://www.albahari.com/threading/part4.aspx

Something that total threw me here is that Pulse just gives a "heads up" to a thread in a Wait. The Waiting thread will not continue until the thread that did the Pulse gives up the lock and the waiting thread successfully wins it.
lock(phone) // Grab the phone
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker
Monitor.Wait(phone); // ****** The lock on phone has been given up! ******
}
or
lock(phone) // Grab the phone when I have something ready for the worker
{
Monitor.PulseAll(phone); // Signal worker there is work to do
DoMoreWork();
} // ****** The lock on phone has been given up! ******
In both cases it's not until "the lock on phone has been given up" that another thread can get it.
There might be other threads waiting for that lock from Monitor.Wait(phone) or lock(phone). Only the one that wins the lock will get to continue.

They are tools for synchronizing and signaling between threads. As such they do nothing to prevent deadlocks, but if used correctly they can be used to synchronize and communicate between threads.
Unfortunately most of the work needed to write correct multithreaded code is currently the developers' responsibility in C# (and many other languages). Take a look at how F#, Haskell and Clojure handles this for an entirely different approach.

Unfortunately, none of Wait(), Pulse() or PulseAll() have the magical property which you are wishing for - which is that by using this API you will automatically avoid deadlock.
Consider the following code
object incomingMessages = new object(); //signal object
LoopOnMessages()
{
lock(incomingMessages)
{
Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
}
if (canGrabMessage()) handleMessage();
// loop
}
ReceiveMessagesAndSignalWaiters()
{
awaitMessages();
copyMessagesToReadyArea();
lock(incomingMessages) {
Monitor.PulseAll(incomingMessages); //or Monitor.Pulse
}
awaitReadyAreaHasFreeSpace();
}
This code will deadlock! Maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow. Most likely when your code is placed under stress because suddenly it has become popular or important, and you are being called to fix an urgent issue.
Why?
Eventually the following will happen:
All consumer threads are doing some work
Messages arrive, the ready area can't hold any more messages, and PulseAll() is called.
No consumer gets woken up, because none are waiting
All consumer threads call Wait() [DEADLOCK]
This particular example assumes that producer thread is never going to call PulseAll() again because it has no more space to put messages in. But there are many, many broken variations on this code possible. People will try to make it more robust by changing a line such as making Monitor.Wait(); into
if (!canGrabMessage()) Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
Unfortunately, that still isn't enough to fix it. To fix it you also need to change the locking scope where Monitor.PulseAll() is called:
LoopOnMessages()
{
lock(incomingMessages)
{
if (!canGrabMessage()) Monitor.Wait(incomingMessages);
}
if (canGrabMessage()) handleMessage();
// loop
}
ReceiveMessagesAndSignalWaiters()
{
awaitMessagesArrive();
lock(incomingMessages)
{
copyMessagesToReadyArea();
Monitor.PulseAll(incomingMessages); //or Monitor.Pulse
}
awaitReadyAreaHasFreeSpace();
}
The key point is that in the fixed code, the locks restrict the possible sequences of events:
A consumer threads does its work and loops
That thread acquires the lock
And thanks to locking it is now true that either:
a. Messages haven't yet arrived in the ready area, and it releases the lock by calling Wait() BEFORE the message receiver thread can acquire the lock and copy more messages into the ready area, or
b. Messages have already arrived in the ready area and it receives the messages INSTEAD OF calling Wait(). (And while it is making this decision it is impossible for the message receiver thread to e.g. acquire the lock and copy more messages into the ready area.)
As a result the problem of the original code now never occurs:
3. When PulseEvent() is called No consumer gets woken up, because none are waiting
Now observe that in this code you have to get the locking scope exactly right. (If, indeed I got it right!)
And also, since you must use the lock (or Monitor.Enter() etc.) in order to use Monitor.PulseAll() or Monitor.Wait() in a deadlock-free fashion, you still have to worry about possibility of other deadlocks which happen because of that locking.
Bottom line: these APIs are also easy to screw up and deadlock with, i.e. quite dangerous

This is a simple example of monitor use :
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
namespace ConsoleApp4
{
class Program
{
public static int[] X = new int[30];
static readonly object _object = new object();
public static int count=0;
public static void PutNumbers(int numbersS, int numbersE)
{
for (int i = numbersS; i < numbersE; i++)
{
Monitor.Enter(_object);
try
{
if(count<30)
{
X[count] = i;
count++;
Console.WriteLine("Punt in " + count + "nd: "+i);
Monitor.Pulse(_object);
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_object);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_object);
}
}
}
public static void RemoveNumbers(int numbersS)
{
for (int i = 0; i < numbersS; i++)
{
Monitor.Enter(_object);
try
{
if (count > 0)
{
X[count] = 0;
int x = count;
count--;
Console.WriteLine("Removed " + x + " element");
Monitor.Pulse(_object);
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_object);
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(_object);
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Thread W1 = new Thread(() => PutNumbers(10,50));
Thread W2 = new Thread(() => PutNumbers(1, 10));
Thread R1 = new Thread(() => RemoveNumbers(30));
Thread R2 = new Thread(() => RemoveNumbers(20));
W1.Start();
R1.Start();
W2.Start();
R2.Start();
W1.Join();
R1.Join();
W2.Join();
R2.Join();
}
}
}