Develop Reference

How do I perform both a read and a write of a boolean in one atomic operation?

Let's say I have a method that gets called by multiple threads
public class MultiThreadClass
{
public void Gogogo()
{
// method implementation
}
private volatile bool running;
}
in Gogogo(), I want to check if running is true, and if so, return from the method. However, if it is false, I want to set it to true and continue the method. The solution I see is to do the following:
public class MultiThreadClass
{
public void Gogogo()
{
lock (this.locker)
{
if (this.running)
{
return;
}
this.running = true;
}
// rest of method
this.running = false;
}
private volatile bool running;
private readonly object locker = new object();
}
Is there another way to do this? I've found out that if I leave out the lock, running could be false for 2 different threads, set to true, and the rest of the method would execute on both threads simultaneously.
I guess my goal is to have the rest of my method execute on a single thread (I don't care which one) and not get executed by the other threads, even if all of them (2-4 in this case) call Gogogo() simultaneously.
I could also lock on the entire method, but would the method run slower then? It needs to run as fast as possible, but part of it on only one thread at a time.
(Details: I have a dicionary of ConcurrentQueue's which contain "results" which have "job names". I am trying to dequeue one result per key in the dictionary (one result per job name) and call this a "complete result" which is sent by an event to subscribers. The results are sent via an event to the class, and that event is raised from multiple threads (one per job name; each job raises a "result ready" event on it's own thread)

You can use Interlocked.CompareExchange if you change your bool to an int:
private volatile int running = 0;
if(Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref running, 1, 0) == 0)
{
//running changed from false to true
}

I think Interlocked.Exchange should do the trick.

You can use Interlocked to handle this case without a lock, if you really want to:
public class MultiThreadClass
{
public void Gogogo()
{
if (Interlocked.Exchange(ref running, 1) == 0)
{
//Do stuff
running = 0;
}
}
private volatile int running = 0;
}
That said, unless there is a really high contention rate (which I would not expect) then your code should be entirely adequate. Using Interlocked also suffers a bit in the readability department due to not having bool overloads for their methods.

You need to use Monitor class instead of boolean flag. Use Monitor.TryEnter:
public void Gogogo()
{
if Monitor.TryEnter(this.locker)
{
try
{
// Do stuff
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(this.locker);
}
}
}

Caching Objects with Expensive Build & Allowing Updates

I am working on a caching manager for a MVC web application. For this app, I have some very large objects that are costly to build. During the application lifetime, I may need to create several of these objects, based upon user requests. When built, the user will be working with the data in the objects, resulting in many read actions. On occasion, I will need to update some minor data points in the cached object (create & replace would take too much time).
Below is a cache manager class that I have created to help me in this. Beyond basic thread safety, my goals were to:
Allow multiple reads against a object, but lock all reads to that object upon an
update request
Ensure that the object is only ever created 1 time if
it does not already exist (keep in mind that its a long build
action).
Allow the cache to store many objects, and maintain a lock
per object (rather than one lock for all objects).
public class CacheManager
{
private static readonly ObjectCache Cache = MemoryCache.Default;
private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<string, ReaderWriterLockSlim>
Locks = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, ReaderWriterLockSlim>();
private const int CacheLengthInHours = 1;
public object AddOrGetExisting(string key, Func<object> factoryMethod)
{
Locks.GetOrAdd(key, new ReaderWriterLockSlim());
var policy = new CacheItemPolicy
{
AbsoluteExpiration = DateTimeOffset.Now.AddHours(CacheLengthInHours)
};
return Cache.AddOrGetExisting
(key, new Lazy<object>(factoryMethod), policy);
}
public object Get(string key)
{
var targetLock = AcquireLockObject(key);
if (targetLock != null)
{
targetLock.EnterReadLock();
try
{
var cacheItem = Cache.GetCacheItem(key);
if(cacheItem!= null)
return cacheItem.Value;
}
finally
{
targetLock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
return null;
}
public void Update<T>(string key, Func<T, object> updateMethod)
{
var targetLock = AcquireLockObject(key);
var targetItem = (Lazy<object>) Get(key);
if (targetLock == null || key == null) return;
targetLock.EnterWriteLock();
try
{
updateMethod((T)targetItem.Value);
}
finally
{
targetLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
private ReaderWriterLockSlim AcquireLockObject(string key)
{
return Locks.ContainsKey(key) ? Locks[key] : null;
}
}
Am I accomplishing my goals while remaining thread safe? Do you all see a better way to achieve my goals?
Thanks!
UPDATE: So the bottom line here was that I was really trying to do too much in 1 area. For some reason, I was convinced that managing the Get / Update operations in the same class that managed the cache was a good idea. After looking at Groo's solution & rethinking the issue, I was able to do a good amount of refactoring which removed this issue I was facing.

Well, I don't think this class does what you need.
Allow multiple reads against the object, but lock all reads upon an update request
You may lock all reads to the cache manager, but you are not locking reads (nor updates) to the actual cached instance.
Ensure that the object is only ever created 1 time if it does not already exist (keep in mind that its a long build action).
I don't think you ensured that. You are not locking anything while adding the object to the dictionary (and, furthermore, you are adding a lazy constructor, so you don't even know when the object is going to be instantiated).
Edit: This part holds, the only thing I would change is to make Get return a Lazy<object>. While writing my program, I forgot to cast it and calling ToString on the return value returned `"Value not created".
Allow the cache to store many objects, and maintain a lock per object (rather than one lock for all objects).
That's the same as point 1: you are locking the dictionary, not the access to the object. And your update delegate has a strange signature (it accepts a typed generic parameter, and returns an object which is never used). This means you are really modifying the object's properties, and these changes are immediately visible to any part of your program holding a reference to that object.
How to resolve this
If your object is mutable (and I presume it is), there is no way to ensure transactional consistency unless each of your properties also acquires a lock on each read access. A way to simplify this is to make it immutable (that why these are so popular for multithreading).
Alternatively, you may consider breaking this large object into smaller pieces and caching each piece separately, making them immutable if needed.
[Edit] Added a race condition example:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
CacheManager cache = new CacheManager();
cache.AddOrGetExisting("item", () => new Test());
// let one thread modify the item
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s =>
{
Thread.Sleep(250);
cache.Update<Test>("item", i =>
{
i.First = "CHANGED";
Thread.Sleep(500);
i.Second = "CHANGED";
return i;
});
});
// let one thread just read the item and print it
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(s =>
{
var item = ((Lazy<object>)cache.Get("item")).Value;
Log(item.ToString());
Thread.Sleep(500);
Log(item.ToString());
});
Console.Read();
}
class Test
{
private string _first = "Initial value";
public string First
{
get { return _first; }
set { _first = value; Log("First", value); }
}
private string _second = "Initial value";
public string Second
{
get { return _second; }
set { _second = value; Log("Second", value); }
}
public override string ToString()
{
return string.Format("--> PRINTING: First: [{0}], Second: [{1}]", First, Second);
}
}
private static void Log(string message)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}: {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, message);
}
private static void Log(string property, string value)
{
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0}: {1} property was changed to [{2}]", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, property, value);
}
}
Something like this should happen:
t = 0ms : thread A gets the item and prints the initial value
t = 250ms: thread B modifies the first property
t = 500ms: thread A prints the INCONSISTENT value (only the first prop. changed)
t = 750ms: thread B modifies the second property

Double check locking of class member in C#

Is it correct to use double check locking with not static fields?
class Foo
{
private SomeType member;
private readonly object memeberSync = new object();
public SomeType Memeber
{
get
{
if(member == null)
{
lock(memeberSync)
{
if(member == null)
{
member = new SomeType();
}
}
}
return object;
}
}
}

Is it correct to use double check locking with not static fields?
Yes, nothing wrong with your code to use double checking with lock to get thread-safe and lazy loading. If you are using from .NET 4, it would be suggested using Lazy class, this approach get the same result with thread-safe and lazy loading but it also makes your code simpler, more readable.
class Foo
{
private readonly Lazy<SomeType> _member =
new Lazy<SomeType>(() => new SomeType());
public SomeType Member
{
get { return _member.Value; }
}
}

The outer check gives a performance boost in that, once member is initialised, you don't have to obtain the lock every time you access the property. If you're accessing the property frequently from multiple threads, the performance hit of the lock could be quite noticeable.
The inner check is necessary to prevent race conditions: without that, it would be possible for two threads to process the outer if statement, and then both would initialise member.
Strictly speaking, the outer if isn't necessary, but it's considered good practise and (in a heavily-threaded application) the performance benefit would be noticeable.

It is a practice recommended by some because your lock may not apply until another lock is released.
In this case two threads access the getter at the same time, the first one gets the lock and the second waits.
Once the first is finished, the second thread now has the lock.
In cases where this is possible, you should check to see if the variable has already been created by another thread before the current thread acquired lock.

Singleton pattern on persistent in-memory cache

Using what I judged was the best of all worlds on the Implementing the Singleton Pattern in C# amazing article, I have been using with success the following class to persist user-defined data in memory (for the very rarely modified data):
public class Params
{
static readonly Params Instance = new Params();
Params()
{
}
public static Params InMemory
{
get
{
return Instance;
}
}
private IEnumerable<Localization> _localizations;
public IEnumerable<Localization> Localizations
{
get
{
return _localizations ?? (_localizations = new Repository<Localization>().Get());
}
}
public int ChunkSize
{
get
{
// Loc uses the Localizations impl
LC.Loc("params.chunksize").To<int>();
}
}
public void RebuildLocalizations()
{
_localizations = null;
}
// other similar values coming from the DB and staying in-memory,
// and their refresh methods
}
My usage would look something like this:
var allLocs = Params.InMemory.Localizations; //etc
Whenever I update the database, the RefreshLocalizations gets called, so only part of my in-memory store is rebuilt. I have a single production environment out of about 10 that seems to be misbehaving when the RefreshLocalizations gets called, not refreshing at all, but this is also seems to be intermittent and very odd altogether.
My current suspicions goes towards the singleton, which I think does the job great and all the unit tests prove that the singleton mechanism, the refresh mechanism and the RAM performance all work as expected.
That said, I am down to these possibilities:
This customer is lying when he says their environment is not using loading balance, which is a setting I am not expecting the in-memory stuff to work properly (right?)
There is some non-standard pool configuration in their IIS which I am testing against (maybe in a Web Garden setting?)
The singleton is failing somehow, but not sure how.
Any suggestions?
.NET 3.5 so not much parallel juice available, and not ready to use the Reactive Extensions for now
Edit1: as per the suggestions, would the getter look something like:
public IEnumerable<Localization> Localizations
{
get
{
lock(_localizations) {
return _localizations ?? (_localizations = new Repository<Localization>().Get());
}
}
}

To expand on my comment, here is how you might make the Localizations property thread safe:
public class Params
{
private object _lock = new object();
private IEnumerable<Localization> _localizations;
public IEnumerable<Localization> Localizations
{
get
{
lock (_lock) {
if ( _localizations == null ) {
_localizations = new Repository<Localization>().Get();
}
return _localizations;
}
}
}
public void RebuildLocalizations()
{
lock(_lock) {
_localizations = null;
}
}
// other similar values coming from the DB and staying in-memory,
// and their refresh methods
}

There is no point in creating a thread safe singleton, if your properties are not going to be thread safe.
You should either lock around assignment of the _localization field, or instantiate in your singleton's constructor (preferred). Any suggestion which applies to singleton instantiation applies to this lazy-instantiated property.
The same thing further applies to all properties (and their properties) of Localization. If this is a Singleton, it means that any thread can access it any time, and simply locking the getter will again do nothing.
For example, consider this case:
Thread 1 Thread 2
// both threads access the singleton, but you are "safe" because you locked
1. var loc1 = Params.Localizations; var loc2 = Params.Localizations;
// do stuff // thread 2 calls the same property...
2. var value = loc1.ChunkSize; var chunk = LC.Loc("params.chunksize");
// invalidate // ...there is a slight pause here...
3. loc1.RebuildLocalizations();
// ...and gets the wrong value
4. var value = chunk.To();
If you are only reading these values, then it might not matter, but you can see how you can easily get in trouble with this approach.
Remember that with threading, you never know if a different thread will execute something between two instructions. Only simple 32-bit assignments are atomic, nothing else.
This means that, in this line here:
return LC.Loc("params.chunksize").To<int>();
is, as far as threading is concerned, equivalent to:
var loc = LC.Loc("params.chunksize");
Thread.Sleep(1); // anything can happen here :-(
return loc.To<int>();
Any thread can jump in between Loc and To.

Threadsafe Lazy Class

I have class Lazy which lazily evaluates an expression:
public sealed class Lazy<T>
{
Func<T> getValue;
T value;
public Lazy(Func<T> f)
{
getValue = () =>
{
lock (getValue)
{
value = f();
getValue = () => value;
}
return value;
};
}
public T Force()
{
return getValue();
}
}
Basically, I'm trying to avoid the overhead of locking objects after they've been evaluated, so I replace getValue with another function on invocation.
It apparently works in my testing, but I have no way of knowing if it'll blow up in production.
Is my class threadsafe? If not, what can be done to guarantee thread safety?

Can’t you just omit re-evaluating the function completely by either using a flag or a guard value for the real value? I.e.:
public sealed class Lazy<T>
{
Func<T> f;
T value;
volatile bool computed = false;
void GetValue() { lock(LockObject) { value = f(); computed = true; } }
public Lazy(Func<T> f)
{
this.f = f;
}
public T Force()
{
if (!computed) GetValue();
return value;
}
}

Your code has a few issues:
You need one object to do the locking on. Don't lock on a variable that gets changed - locks always deal with objects, so if getValue is changed, multiple threads might enter the locked section at once.
If multiple threads are waiting for the lock, all of them will evaluate the function f() after each other. You'd have to check inside the lock that the function wasn't evaluated already.
You might need a memory barrier even after fixing the above issues to ensure that the delegate gets replaced only after the new value was stored to memory.
However, I'd use the flag approach from Konrad Rudolph instead (just ensure you don't forget the "volatile" required for that). That way you don't need to invoke a delegate whenever the value is retrieved (delegate calls are quite fast; but not they're not as fast as simply checking a bool).

I'm not entirely sure what you're trying to do with this code, but I just published an article on The Code Project on building a sort of "lazy" class that automatically, asynchronously calls a worker function and stores its value.

This looks more like a caching mechanism than a "lazy evaluation". In addition, do not change the value of a locking reference within the lock block. Use a temporary variable to lock on.
The wait you have it right now would work in a large number of cases, but if you were to have two different threads try to evaluate the expression in this order:
Thread 1
Thread 2
Thread 1 completes
Thread 2 would never complete, because Thread 1 would be releasing a lock on a different reference than was used to acquire the lock (more precisely, he'd be releasing a nonexistent lock, since the newly-created reference was never locked to begin with), and not releasing the original lock, which is blocking Thread 2.
While I'm not entirely certain what this would do (aside from perform a synchronized evaluation of the expression and caching of the result), this should make it safer:
public sealed class Lazy<T>
{
Func<T> getValue;
T value;
object lockValue = new object();
public Lazy(Func<T> f)
{
getValue = () =>
{
lock (lockValue)
{
value = f();
getValue = () => value;
}
return value;
};
}
public T Force()
{
return getValue();
}
}