Develop Reference

How do I use Interlocked.Add() correctly?

From the documentation here: "The methods of this class help protect against errors that can occur when the scheduler switches contexts while a thread is updating a variable that can be accessed by other threads..."
Also, an answer to this question states "INTERLOCKED METHODS ARE CONCURRENTLY SAFE ON ANY NUMBER OF COREs OR CPUs" which seems pretty clear.
Based on the above I thought Interlocked.Add() would be sufficient for multiple threads to do addition on a variable. Apparently I'm wrong or I'm using the method incorrectly. In the runnable code below I expect Downloader.ActiveRequestCount to be zero when Run() completes. If I do not lock around the call to Interlocked.Add I get a random non-zero result. What is the correct usage of Interlocked.Add()?
class Program
{
private Downloader downloader { get; set; }
static void Main(string[] args)
{
new Program().Run().Wait();
}
public async Task Run()
{
downloader = new Downloader();
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>(100);
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
tasks.Add(Task.Run(Download));
await Task.WhenAll(tasks);
Console.Clear();
//expected:0, actual when lock is not used:random number i.e. 51,115
Console.WriteLine($"ActiveRequestCount is : {downloader.ActiveRequestCount}");
Console.ReadLine();
}
private async Task Download()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
await downloader.Download();
}
}
public class Downloader :INotifyPropertyChanged
{
private object locker = new object();
private int _ActiveRequestCount;
public int ActiveRequestCount { get => _ActiveRequestCount; private set => _ActiveRequestCount = value; }
public async Task<string> Download()
{
string result = string.Empty;
try
{
IncrementActiveRequestCount(1);
result = await Task.FromResult("boo");
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
Console.WriteLine("oops");
}
finally
{
IncrementActiveRequestCount(-1);
}
return result;
}
public void IncrementActiveRequestCount(int value)
{
//lock (locker) // is this redundant
//{
_ActiveRequestCount = Interlocked.Add(ref _ActiveRequestCount, value);
//}
RaisePropertyChanged(nameof(ActiveRequestCount));
}
#region INotifyPropertyChanged implementation
public event PropertyChangedEventHandler PropertyChanged;
public void RaisePropertyChanged([CallerMemberNameAttribute] string propertyName = "") => PropertyChanged?.Invoke(this, new PropertyChangedEventArgs(propertyName));
#endregion
}

Replace
_ActiveRequestCount = Interlocked.Add(ref _ActiveRequestCount, value);
with
Interlocked.Add(ref _ActiveRequestCount, value);
Interlocked.Add is thread-safe and takes a ref parameter, so that it can do the assignment safely. You additionally perform an (unnecessary) unsafe assignment (=). Just remove it.

c# Threading Lock and Monitor

I'm currently running into a problem with multithreading and accessing a static list. A static list holds all items with several properties. The items are identified with a Guid. A main work thread changes some properties for any item in the static list. The child threads all have their own Guid, with this Guid they read their own item in the static list. And after a specific event they remove their assigned element from the static list.
To get to the source I have broken down my code to the essential methods and classes. The work thread has the following simplified code
public void RunWork()
{
Random random = new Random();
Int32 index = -1;
while (!Kill)
{
Thread.Sleep(1);
if (MainWindow.Clients != null)
{
index = random.Next(0, MainWindow.Clients.Count);
MainWindow.Clients[index].State = MainWindow.RandomString(9);
}
}
}
Each child thread has the following simplified code
public void RunChild()
{
Random random = new Random();
while (!Kill)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
if (MainWindow.Clients.Any(x => x.Id == Id))
{
this.State = MainWindow.Clients.First(x => x.Id == Id).State;
}
Thread.Sleep(random.Next(50));
if (random.Next(100) % 90 == 0)
{
Kill = true;
MainWindow.Clients.RemoveAll(x => x.Id == Id);
}
}
}
If a child removes itself from the MainWindow.Clients list the work thread throws a exception, that the index it is trying to access does not exist.
I have added lock statments around every access of MainWindow.Clients but this does not prevent the work thread from accessing a deleted item. I have also tried Monitor.Enter(MainWindow.Clients) and Monitor.Exit(MainWindow.Clients) but with the same result as with lock.
The static list MainWindow.Clients is created before any thread runs and never gets recreated or disposed.
If the lock statement is set around this block of code in the RunWork() method
lock (MainWindow.Clients)
{
Thread.Sleep(1);
if (MainWindow.Clients != null)
{
index = random.Next(0, MainWindow.Clients.Count);
MainWindow.Clients[index].State = MainWindow.RandomString(9);
}
}
Why does it not block the child threads from changing the list between the lines
where the random index is set and the list gets accessed?
Update 1:
The following code still throws a IndexOutOfRangeException at MainWindow.Clients[index].State = MainWindow.RandomString(9);:
public void RunWork()
{
Random random = new Random();
Int32 index = -1;
while (!Kill)
{
Thread.Sleep(1);
if (MainWindow.Clients != null)
{
lock (MainWindow.Clients)
{
index = random.Next(0, MainWindow.Clients.Count);
MainWindow.Clients[index].State = MainWindow.RandomString(9);
}
}
}
}
public void RunChild()
{
Random random = new Random();
while (!Kill)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
if (MainWindow.Clients.Any(x => x.Id == Id))
{
this.State = MainWindow.Clients.First(x => x.Id == Id).State;
}
Thread.Sleep(random.Next(50));
if (random.Next(100) % 90 == 0)
{
Kill = true;
lock (MainWindow.Clients)
{
MainWindow.Clients.RemoveAll(x => x.Id == Id);
}
}
}
}
Update 2: Here is the complete code for the quick sample application
Update 3: I have edited my code and wrapped all accesses of MainWindow.Clients with lock statements. But still the threads access the variable while it is locked:

I'm not sure what exactly you are trying to achieve, but I've written something that might help you find the correct solution. Sorry for the lack of correctness - tight schedule ;-)
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Linq;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConcurrentCollectionTest
{
internal class Client
{
public string State
{
get; set;
}
public string Name
{
get;
internal set;
}
}
internal class MainWindow
{
private ConcurrentDictionary<int, Client> _dict = new ConcurrentDictionary<int, Client>();
public IDictionary<int, Client> Clients
{
get
{
return _dict;
}
}
}
internal class Program
{
private static bool killAll = false;
private static MainWindow mainWindow = new MainWindow();
private static int id = -100;
private static string state = "Initial";
private static Random random = new Random();
private static object lockObject = new object();
internal static string RandomString(int v)
{
int k = random.Next(0, v);
return k.ToString();
}
public static void RunChild()
{
Debug.WriteLine($"child running {Thread.CurrentThread.Name}");
bool killThis = false;
while (!killThis && !killAll)
{
Thread.Sleep(100);
Client client = null;
if (mainWindow.Clients.TryGetValue(id, out client))
{
state = client.State;
}
Thread.Sleep(random.Next(50));
if (random.Next(100) % 90 == 0)
{
Debug.WriteLine($"killing {Thread.CurrentThread.Name}");
killThis = true;
lock (lockObject)
{
mainWindow.Clients.Remove(id);
}
}
}
}
public static void RunWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("RunWork");
Random random = new Random();
Int32 index = -1;
while (!killAll)
{
if (!mainWindow.Clients.Any())
{
killAll = true;
break;
}
Thread.Sleep(100);
// edit: still need lock here as count can change in between
Client client = null;
lock (lockObject)
{
index = random.Next(0, mainWindow.Clients.Count);
client = mainWindow.Clients[index];
}
Debug.WriteLine($"Changing {client.Name}");
client.State = RandomString(9);
}
Console.WriteLine("Worker killed");
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.WriteLine("Starting. Enter id or kill");
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
mainWindow.Clients.Add(i, new Client
{
Name = $"Client {i:000}",
State = "Unknown"
});
}
var worker = new Thread(RunWork);
worker.Start();
var threadList = new List<Thread>();
threadList.Add(worker);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
var thread = new Thread(RunChild)
{
Name = $"Child {i:00}"
};
threadList.Add(thread);
thread.Start();
}
while (!killAll)
{
var str = Console.ReadLine();
if (str.Equals("kill", StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
killAll = true;
break;
}
int enteredId = -1;
if (int.TryParse(str, out enteredId))
{
id = enteredId;
}
}
foreach (var thread in threadList)
{
thread.Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("all dead");
}
}
}

Read-write synchronization class implementation

I am writing a read-write synchronization class, and would like some advice on what I to do next. For some reason, it sometimes allows a Read to happen in the middle of a Write, and I cannot find the reason.
This is what I want from this class:
Reads not allowed at the same time as writes.
Multiples reads can happen at the same time.
Only one write can happen at a time.
When a write is needed, all already executing reads continue,
no new reads are allowed, when all reads finish the write executes.
I know that .Net framework has a class to do this... but what I want is to understand and to reproduce something like that. I'm not reinventing the wheel, I am trying to understand it by making my own wheel... happens that my wheel is kinda squared a bit.
What I have currently is this:
public class ReadWriteSync
{
private ManualResetEvent read = new ManualResetEvent(true);
private volatile int readingBlocks = 0;
private AutoResetEvent write = new AutoResetEvent(true);
private object locker = new object();
public IDisposable ReadLock()
{
lock (this.locker)
{
this.write.Reset();
Interlocked.Increment(ref this.readingBlocks);
this.read.WaitOne();
}
return new Disposer(() =>
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref this.readingBlocks) == 0)
this.write.Set();
});
}
public IDisposable WriteLock()
{
lock (this.locker)
{
this.read.Reset();
this.write.WaitOne();
}
return new Disposer(() =>
{
this.read.Set();
if (this.readingBlocks == 0)
this.write.Set();
});
}
class Disposer : IDisposable
{
Action disposer;
public Disposer(Action disposer) { this.disposer = disposer; }
public void Dispose() { this.disposer(); }
}
}
This is my test program... when something goes wrong it prints the lines in red.
class Program
{
static ReadWriteSync sync = new ReadWriteSync();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.BackgroundColor = ConsoleColor.DarkGray;
Console.ForegroundColor = ConsoleColor.Gray;
Console.Clear();
Task readTask1 = new Task(() => DoReads("A", 20));
Task readTask2 = new Task(() => DoReads("B", 30));
Task readTask3 = new Task(() => DoReads("C", 40));
Task readTask4 = new Task(() => DoReads("D", 50));
Task writeTask1 = new Task(() => DoWrites("E", 500));
Task writeTask2 = new Task(() => DoWrites("F", 200));
readTask1.Start();
readTask2.Start();
readTask3.Start();
readTask4.Start();
writeTask1.Start();
writeTask2.Start();
Task.WaitAll(
readTask1, readTask2, readTask3, readTask4,
writeTask1, writeTask2);
}
static volatile bool reading;
static volatile bool writing;
static void DoWrites(string name, int interval)
{
for (int i = 1; i < int.MaxValue; i += 2)
{
using (sync.WriteLock())
{
Console.ForegroundColor = (writing || reading) ? ConsoleColor.Red : ConsoleColor.Gray;
writing = true;
Console.WriteLine("WRITE {1}-{0} BEGIN", i, name);
Thread.Sleep(interval);
Console.WriteLine("WRITE {1}-{0} END", i, name);
writing = false;
}
Thread.Sleep(interval);
}
}
static void DoReads(string name, int interval)
{
for (int i = 0; i < int.MaxValue; i += 2)
{
using (sync.ReadLock())
{
Console.ForegroundColor = (writing) ? ConsoleColor.Red : ConsoleColor.Gray;
reading = true;
Console.WriteLine("READ {1}-{0} BEGIN", i, name);
Thread.Sleep(interval * 3);
Console.WriteLine("READ {1}-{0} END", i, name);
reading = false;
}
Thread.Sleep(interval);
}
}
}
What is wrong with all this... any advice on how to do it correctly?

The primary issue that I see is that you are trying to make reset events encompass both the meanings of a read/write and the handling of their current state, without synchronizing in a consistent manner.
Here's an example of how the inconsistent synchronization may bite you in your specific code.
A write is disposing and a read is coming in.
The read acquires the lock
The write sets the read ManualResetEvent (MRE)
The write checks the current read count, finding 0
The read resets the write AutoResetEvent (ARE)
The read increments the read count
The read finds its MRE has been set and begins to read
All is fine so far, but the write hasn't finished yet...
A second write comes in and acquires the lock
The second write resets the read MRE
The first write finishes by setting the write ARE
The second write finds its ARE has been set and begins to write
When thinking about multiple threads, unless you are within a lock of some sort, you must take the view that all other data is wildly fluctuating and cannot be trusted.
A naive implementation of this may split out the queueing logic from the state logic and synchronize appropriately.
public class ReadWrite
{
private static int readerCount = 0;
private static int writerCount = 0;
private int pendingReaderCount = 0;
private int pendingWriterCount = 0;
private readonly object decision = new object();
private class WakeLock:IDisposable
{
private readonly object wakeLock;
public WakeLock(object wakeLock) { this.wakeLock = wakeLock; }
public virtual void Dispose() { lock(this.wakeLock) Monitor.PulseAll(this.wakeLock); }
}
private class ReadLock:WakeLock
{
public ReadLock(object wakeLock) : base(wakeLock) { Interlocked.Increment(ref readerCount); }
public override void Dispose()
{
Interlocked.Decrement(ref readerCount);
base.Dispose();
}
}
private class WriteLock:WakeLock
{
public WriteLock(object wakeLock) : base(wakeLock) { Interlocked.Increment(ref writerCount); }
public override void Dispose()
{
Interlocked.Decrement(ref writerCount);
base.Dispose();
}
}
public IDisposable TakeReadLock()
{
lock(decision)
{
pendingReaderCount++;
while (pendingWriterCount > 0 || Thread.VolatileRead(ref writerCount) > 0)
Monitor.Wait(decision);
pendingReaderCount--;
return new ReadLock(this.decision);
}
}
public IDisposable TakeWriteLock()
{
lock(decision)
{
pendingWriterCount++;
while (Thread.VolatileRead(ref readerCount) > 0 || Thread.VolatileRead(ref writerCount) > 0)
Monitor.Wait(decision);
pendingWriterCount--;
return new WriteLock(this.decision);
}
}
}

Troubleshoting while realising robin round

I'm trying to create a Sheduler (for fun) but it fails. Strange is that when i'm debugging in step-over style, my programm works fine, but when i'm removing all breakpoints it freezes after printing last value. So question: why does it freezes? Second: i'm using Thread.Resume and Thread.Suspend, but they are marked as obsolete. How can i avoid it?
Code is below:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication143
{
internal class Program
{
private static void Main()
{
var rrs = new RobinRoundSheduler(2, () =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < 2; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} {1}", i,
Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
}
}) {TimeForTask = new TimeSpan(1)};
rrs.Start();
Console.ReadKey();
}
}
internal class RobinRoundSheduler
{
private readonly LinkedList<Thread> _threads;
public TimeSpan TimeForTask { get; set; }
public RobinRoundSheduler(int taskCount, ThreadStart start)
{
TimeForTask = TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1);
_threads = new LinkedList<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < taskCount; i++)
{
_threads.AddLast(new Thread(start));
}
}
public void Start()
{
while (_threads.Count > 0)
{
var list = new List<Thread>();
foreach (var thread in _threads)
{
lock (thread)
{
if (thread.ThreadState == ThreadState.Unstarted)
thread.Start();
else
thread.Resume();
}
thread.Join(TimeForTask);
lock (thread)
{
if (thread.ThreadState == ThreadState.Stopped || thread.ThreadState == ThreadState.Aborted)
list.Add(thread);
else
{
thread.Suspend();
}
}
}
list.ForEach(thread => _threads.Remove(thread));
}
}
}
}
it seems having a deadlock problem due to Thread.Suspend() method but i dunno another alternative to suspend a thread withoud adding checks for ManualResetEvents in calling methods. But i want to call method knows nothing about multithreading.

Mutithreading with sequence

I have a main task that is spawning threads to do some work. When the work is completed it will write to the console.
My problem is that some of the threads that are created later will finish faster than those created earlier. However I need the writing to the console to be done in the same exact sequence as the thread was created.
So if a thread had completed its task, while some earlier threads had not, it has to wait till those earlier threads complete too.
public class DoRead
{
public DoRead()
{
}
private void StartReading()
{
int i = 1;
while (i < 10000)
{
Runner r = new Runner(i, "Work" + i.ToString());
r.StartThread();
i += 1;
}
}
}
internal class Runner : System.IDisposable
{
int _count;
string _work = "";
public Runner(int Count, string Work)
{
_count = Count;
_work = Work;
}
public void StartThread()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(runThreadInPool), this);
}
public static void runThreadInPool(object obj)
{
((Runner)obj).run();
}
public void run()
{
try
{
Random r = new Random();
int num = r.Next(1000, 2000);
DateTime end = DateTime.Now.AddMilliseconds(num);
while (end > DateTime.Now)
{
}
Console.WriteLine(_count.ToString() + " : Done!");
}
catch
{
}
finally
{
_work = null;
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
this._work = null;
}
}

There may be a simpler way to do this than I used, (I'm used to .Net 4.0).
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication5
{
class Program
{
public static readonly int numOfTasks = 100;
public static int numTasksLeft = numOfTasks;
public static readonly object TaskDecrementLock = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
DoRead dr = new DoRead();
dr.StartReading();
int tmpNumTasks = numTasksLeft;
while ( tmpNumTasks > 0 )
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
tmpNumTasks = numTasksLeft;
}
List<string> strings = new List<string>();
lock( DoRead.locker )
{
for (int i = 1; i <= Program.numOfTasks; i++)
{
strings.Add( DoRead.dicto[i] );
}
}
foreach (string s in strings)
{
Console.WriteLine(s);
}
Console.ReadLine();
}
public class DoRead
{
public static readonly object locker = new object();
public static Dictionary<int, string> dicto = new Dictionary<int, string>();
public DoRead()
{
}
public void StartReading()
{
int i = 1;
while (i <= Program.numOfTasks )
{
Runner r = new Runner(i, "Work" + i.ToString());
r.StartThread();
i += 1;
}
}
}
internal class Runner : System.IDisposable
{
int _count;
string _work = "";
public Runner(int Count, string Work)
{
_count = Count;
_work = Work;
}
public void StartThread()
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(new WaitCallback(runThreadInPool), this);
}
public static void runThreadInPool(object obj)
{
Runner theRunner = ((Runner)obj);
string theString = theRunner.run();
lock (DoRead.locker)
{
DoRead.dicto.Add( theRunner._count, theString);
}
lock (Program.TaskDecrementLock)
{
Program.numTasksLeft--;
}
}
public string run()
{
try
{
Random r = new Random();
int num = r.Next(1000, 2000);
Thread.Sleep(num);
string theString = _count.ToString() + " : Done!";
return theString;
}
catch
{
}
finally
{
_work = null;
}
return "";
}
public void Dispose()
{
this._work = null;
}
}
}
}
Basically, I store the string you want printed from each task into a dictionary where the index is the task#. (I use a lock to make accessing the dictionary safe).
Next, so that the main program waits until all the background threads are done, I used another locked access to a NumTasksLeft variable.
I added stuff into the callback for the Runner.
It is bad practice to use busy loops, so I changed it to a Thread.Sleep( num ) statement.
Just change numOfTasks to 10000 to match your example.
I pull the return strings out of the dictionary in order, and then print it to the screen.
I'm sure you could refactor this to move or otherwise deal with the global variables, but this works.
Also, you might have noticed I didn't use the lock in the command
tmpNumTasks = numTasksLeft;
That's threadsafe, since numTasksLeft is an int which is read atomically on 32-bit computers and higher.

I don't know much on C#, but the whole idea of multi-threading is that you have multiple thread executing independently and you can never know which one will finish earlier (and you shouldn't expect earlier thread to end earlier).
One workaround is, instead writing out the finish message in the processing thread, have the processing thread setup a flag somewhere (probably a list with no of elements = no of thread spawned), and have a separate thread print out the finish message base on the flags in that list, and report up to the position that previous flag is consecutively "finished".
Honestly I don't feel that reasonable for you to print finish message like this anyway. I think changing the design is way better to have such meaningless "feature".

Typically, such requirements are met with an incrementing sequence number, much as you have already done.
Usually, the output from the processing threads is fed through a filter object that contains a list, (or dictionary), of all out-of-order result objects, 'holding them back' until all results with a lower seqeuence-number have come in. Again, similar to what you have already done.
What is not necessary is any kind of sleep() loop. The work threads themselves can operate the filter object, (which would beed a lock), or the work threads can producer-consumer-queue the results to an 'output thread' that operates the out-of-order filter.
This scheme works fine with pooled work threads, ie. those without continual create/terminate/destroy overhead.