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".
Related
Consider two threads run simultaneously. A is reading and B is writing. When A is reading, in the middle of code ,CPU time for A finishes then B thread continues.
Is there any way to don't give back CPU until A finishes, but B can start or continue?
You need to understand that you have almost no control over when CPU is given back and to whom it is given. The operating system does that. To have control on that, you'd need to be the operating system. The only things you can usually do are:
start a thread
set thread priority, so some threads are may more likely get time than others
put a thread to sleep, immediatelly and ask the operating system to wake it up upon some condition, maybe with some timeout (waiting time limit)
as a special case, or a typical use case, the second point is often also provided with a shorthand:
put a thread to sleep, immediatelly for a specified amount of time
By "sleep" I mean that this thread is paused and will not get any CPU time, even if all CPUs are idle, unless the thread is woken up by the OS due to some condition.
Furthermore, in a typical case, there is no "thread A and thread B that switch CPU time between them", but there is "lots of threads from various processes and the operating system itself, and you two threads". This means that when your thread A loses the CPU, most probably it will not be the thread B that gets the time now. Some other thread from somewhere else will get it, and at some future point of time, maybe your thread A or maybe thread B will get it back.
This means that there is very little you can be sure. You can be sure that your threads are
either dead
or sleeping
or proceeding 'forward' in a hard to determine order
If you need to ensure that some threads are synchronized, you must .. not start them simultaneously, or put them sleep in precise moments and wake them up in precise order.
You've just said in comments:
You know, if in the middle of A CPU time finishes, data that has been retrieved is not complete
This means that you need to ensure that thread B does not try to touch the data before thread A finishes writing it. But also, if you think about it, you need to ensure that thread A doesn't start writing next data if the thread B is now reading previous data.
This means synchronization. This means that threads A and B must wait if the other thread is touching the data. This means that they need to be put to sleep and woken up when the other thread finishes.
In C#, the easiest way to do that is to use lock(x) keyword. When a thread enters a lock() section, it proceeds only if it is able to get the lock. If not, it is put to sleep. It can't get the lock if any other thread was faster and got it before. However, a thread releases the lock when it ends its job. Upon that time, one of the sleeping threads is woken up and given the lock.
lock(fooo) { // <- this line means 'acquire the lock or sleep'
iam.doing(myjob);
very.important(things);
thatshouldnt.be.interrupted();
byother(threads);
} // <- this line means 'release the lock'
So, when a thread gets through the lock(fooo){ line, you can't be sure it won't be interrupted. Oh, surely it will be. OS will switch the threads back and forth to other processes, and so on. But you can be sure that no other threads of your app will be inside the code block. If they tried to get inside while your thread got that lock, they'd imediatelly fall asleep in the first lock line. One of them be will be later woken up when your thread gets out of that code.
There's one more thing. lock() keyword requires a parameter. I wrote foo there. You need to pass there something that will act as the lock. It can be any object, even plain object:
private object thelock = new object();
private void dosomething()
{
lock(thelock)
{
foobarize(thebaz);
}
}
however you must ensure that all threads try to use the same lock instance. Writing a code like
private void dosomething()
{
object thelock = new object();
lock(thelock)
{
foobarize(thebaz);
}
}
is a nonsense since every potential thread executing that lines will try lockin upon their own new object instance and will see it as "free" (it's new, just created, noone took it earlier) and will immediatelly get into the protected code block.
Now you wrote about using ConcurrentQueue. This class provides safely mechanisms against concurrency. You can be sure that adding or reading or removing items from that queue is already safe. This collection makes it safe. You don't need to add synchronization to add or remove items safely. It's safe. If you observe any ill effects, then most probably you have tried putting an item into that collection and then you were modifying that item. Concurrent collection will not guard you against that. It can only make sure that add/remove/etc are safe. But it has no knowledge or control on what you do to the items:
In short, if some thread B tries to read items from the collection, then in thread A this is NOT safe:
concurrentcoll.Add(item);
item.x = 5;
item.foobarize();
but this is safe:
item.x = 5;
item.foobarize();
concurrentcoll.Add(item);
// and do not touch the Item anymore here.
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>.
Currently, I'm learning for a multithreading exam. I read the good threading article of albahari. I've got a question at the monitor usage - why is here used a loop in place of an if?
lock (_locker)
{
while (!_go) //why while and not if?
Monitor.Wait (_locker); // _lock is released
// lock is regained
...
}
I think, that an if would be sufficient.
I'm afraid, that I don't understand the article completely.
//Edit
Example-Code:
class SimpleWaitPulse
{
static readonly object _locker = new object();
static bool _go;
static void Main()
{ // The new thread will block
new Thread (Work).Start(); // because _go==false.
Console.ReadLine(); // Wait for user to hit Enter
lock (_locker) // Let's now wake up the thread by
{ // setting _go=true and pulsing.
_go = true;
Monitor.Pulse (_locker);
}
}
static void Work()
{
lock (_locker)
while (!_go)
Monitor.Wait (_locker); // Lock is released while we’re waiting
Console.WriteLine ("Woken!!!");
}
}
It just depends on the situation. In this case the code is just waiting for _go to be true.
Every time _locker is pulsed it will check to see if _go has been set to true. If _go is still false, it will wait for the next pulse.
If an if was used instead of a while, it would only wait once (or not at all if _go was already true), and would then continue on after a pulse, regardless of the new state of _go.
So how you use Monitor.Wait() depends entirely on your specific needs.
It really just depends on the situation. But first, we need to clarify how Monitors work. When a thread proceeds to signal a thread through Monitor.Pulse(), there is usually no guarantee that the signaled thread will actually run next. This means that it is possible for other threads to run before the signaled thread and change the condition under which it was okay for the signaled thread to proceed. This means that the signaled thread still needs to check if is safe for it to proceed after being woken up (ie the while loop). However, certain rare synchronization problems allow you to make the assumption that once a thread has been signaled to wake up (ie Monitor.Pulse()), no other thread has the ability to change the condition under which it is safe to proceed (ie. the if condition).
I wrote an article that might help here: Wait and Pulse demystified
There's more going on than is immediately obvious.
I've got a question at the monitor usage - why is here used a loop in
place of an if?
There is a well known rule when working with Pulse and Wait that states that when in doubt prefer while over an if. Clearly, either one will work in this case, but in almost every other situation while is required. In fact, there are very few (if any) scenarios where using a while loop would produce an incorrect result. That is the basis for this general rule. The author used a while loop because he was trying to stick with the tried-and-true pattern. He even provides the template in the same article. Here is it is:
lock (_locker)
while ( <blocking-condition> )
Monitor.Wait (_locker);
The simplest way to write correct code with Monitor.Wait is to assume the system will regard it as "advisory", and assume that the system may arbitrarily wake any waiting thread any time it can acquire the lock, without regard for whether Pulse has been called. The system usually won't do so, of course, but if a program is using Wait and Pulse properly, its correctness should not be affected by having Wait calls arbitrarily exit early for no reason. Essentially, one should regard Wait as a means of telling the system "Continuing execution past here will be a waste of time unless or until someone else calls Pulse".
I have developed a generic producer-consumer queue which pulses by Monitor in the following way:
the enqueue :
public void EnqueueTask(T task)
{
_workerQueue.Enqueue(task);
Monitor.Pulse(_locker);
}
the dequeue:
private T Dequeue()
{
T dequeueItem;
if (_workerQueue.Count > 0)
{
_workerQueue.TryDequeue(out dequeueItem);
if(dequeueItem!=null)
return dequeueItem;
}
while (_workerQueue.Count == 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(_locker);
}
_workerQueue.TryDequeue(out dequeueItem);
return dequeueItem;
}
the wait section produces the following SynchronizationLockException :
"object synchronization method was called from an unsynchronized block of code"
do i need to synch it? why ? Is it better to use ManualResetEvents or the Slim version of .NET 4.0?
Yes, the current thread needs to "own" the monitor in order to call either Wait or Pulse, as documented. (So you'll need to lock for Pulse as well.) I don't know the details for why it's required, but it's the same in Java. I've usually found I'd want to do that anyway though, to make the calling code clean.
Note that Wait releases the monitor itself, then waits for the Pulse, then reacquires the monitor before returning.
As for using ManualResetEvent or AutoResetEvent instead - you could, but personally I prefer using the Monitor methods unless I need some of the other features of wait handles (such as atomically waiting for any/all of multiple handles).
From the MSDN description of Monitor.Wait():
Releases the lock on an object and blocks the current thread until it reacquires the lock.
The 'releases the lock' part is the problem, the object isn't locked. You are treating the _locker object as though it is a WaitHandle. Doing your own locking design that's provably correct is a form of black magic that's best left to our medicine man, Jeffrey Richter and Joe Duffy. But I'll give this one a shot:
public class BlockingQueue<T> {
private Queue<T> queue = new Queue<T>();
public void Enqueue(T obj) {
lock (queue) {
queue.Enqueue(obj);
Monitor.Pulse(queue);
}
}
public T Dequeue() {
T obj;
lock (queue) {
while (queue.Count == 0) {
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
obj = queue.Dequeue();
}
return obj;
}
}
In most any practical producer/consumer scenario you will want to throttle the producer so it cannot fill the queue unbounded. Check Duffy's BoundedBuffer design for an example. If you can afford to move to .NET 4.0 then you definitely want to take advantage of its ConcurrentQueue class, it has lots more black magic with low-overhead locking and spin-waiting.
The proper way to view Monitor.Wait and Monitor.Pulse/PulseAll is not as providing a means of waiting, but rather (for Wait) as a means of letting the system know that the code is in a waiting loop which can't exit until something of interest changes, and (for Pulse/PulseAll) as a means of letting the system know that code has just changed something that might cause satisfy the exit condition some other thread's waiting loop. One should be able to replace all occurrences of Wait with Sleep(0) and still have code work correctly (even if much less efficiently, as a result of spending CPU time repeatedly testing conditions that haven't changed).
For this mechanism to work, it is necessary to avoid the possibility of the following sequence:
The code in the wait loop tests the condition when it isn't satisfied.
The code in another thread changes the condition so that it is satisfied.
The code in that other thread pulses the lock (which nobody is yet waiting on).
The code in the wait loop performs a Wait since its condition wasn't satisfied.
The Wait method requires that the waiting thread have a lock, since that's the only way it can be sure that the condition it's waiting upon won't change between the time it's tested and the time the code performs the Wait. The Pulse method requires a lock because that's the only way it can be sure that if another thread has "committed" itself to performing a Wait, the Pulse won't occur until after the other thread actually does so. Note that using Wait within a lock doesn't guarantee that it's being used correctly, but there's no way that using Wait outside a lock could possibly be correct.
The Wait/Pulse design actually works reasonably well if both sides cooperate. The biggest weaknesses of the design, IMHO, are (1) there's no mechanism for a thread to wait until any of a number of objects is pulsed; (2) even if one is "shutting down" an object such that all future wait loops should exit immediately (probably by checking an exit flag), the only way to ensure that any Wait to which a thread has committed itself will get a Pulse is to acquire the lock, possibly waiting indefinitely for it to become available.
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>.