I noticed that System.Threading.Thread implements a finalizer but not IDisposable. The recommended practice is to always implement IDisposable when a finalizer is implemented. Jeffrey Richter wrote that the guideline is "very important and should always be followed without exception".
So why doesn't Thread implement IDisposable? It seem like implementing IDisposable would be a non-breaking change that would allow deterministic cleanup of Thread's finalizable resources.
And a related question: since thread is finalizable, do I have to hold references to running Threads to prevent them from being finalized during execution?
What would disposing of a Thread object do? The "resource" in this case has its own natural clean-up - the thread finishing. Note that also the sense of ownership is missing... within the executing thread, you can always use Thread.CurrentThread, so only that thread would really able to claim any sort of ownership.
Basically I think Thread is a slightly unusual case - there's a lifetime to the underlying resource, but it isn't something that ought to be cleaned up explicitly.
That's probably because you can't dispose of a thread. Instead you can ask it to die using Abort() or alike.
This is kind of a design question, so anyone who was not involved in building this aspect of .NET can only speculate. That being said, this blog post makes a good point:
...implementing IDisposable would not make any difference, at least in the current implementation of Thread. I increased the number of threads being created and the handle count goes down at some point so there is some mechanism for closing them
Threads do naturally clean up after themselves, so they are not a resource that needs to be managed in the typical sense.
Related
Edits - Renamed to finalizer per answer
I am trying to do a few things in a finalizer, and the program terminates before I'm done. To simulate, I made the following test, which prints up to 20
Does this mean .NET finalizer "timeout" after 2 seconds?
~MyClass()
{
// do some cleaup
int i = 0;
while (true)
{
Console.WriteLine(i++);
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
For context, I have some background threads (Task objects) that's I'd like to terminate gracefully. I'm just testing to see how long it takes to do it from the finalizer.
What's a better design pattern for doing this? Perhaps have a "Shutdown" method that I have to make sure is called when closing a form? I know finalizers are meant for cleanup of unmanaged memory, but it seems nice to stop all my threads since I know it will be called.
Maybe I just let the threads terminate abruptly and not worry about it?
First, I should note that "destructors" are now more commonly referred to as "finalizers", as the former term implies these special methods work like destructors in C++, but they really don't. So you might have better luck searching if you use the newer term.
To your question, yes, there is evidence that .NET has a time limit on finalizers during shutdown - common quotes say one finalizer taking more than 2 seconds, or all finalizers taking 40 seconds - will cause the runtime to give up and just shutdown without continuing to let finalizers run.
I would recommend looking into implementing IDisposable to handle cleanup deterministically. C# has syntax sugar - the using statement - to help make this easier on the consumer's side.
How much work should be done in a Dispose method? In constructors I've always taken the stance that you should only do what is absolutely necessary to instantiate the object. This being the case I've also always taken the approach that you should ONLY be cleaning up open resources when disposing. Closing files, freeing memory, disposing of child disposable object, etc. You shouldn't be doing lengthy processes like touching files, accessing databases and such in the Dispose method.
Am I wrong? Are those action's OK as long as you are handling any possible exceptions so they don't bubble out of the method? I just don't think doing a lot in Dispose is a good idea. I would like to know what the community thinks.
Am I wrong?
No, you are right. In general the Dispose method is used to clean the unmanaged resources that your class might have allocated.
But that's difficult to generalize. There are cases where the Dispose method is simply used to ensure that some operation executes. For example in ASP.NET MVC there's the Html.BeginForm helper which is used like that:
using (Html.BeginForm())
{
}
and all that the Dispose method does is render a closing </form> tag. So as you can see people could be creative with the pattern and it is very difficult to draw conclusions without a specific scenario.
But in the most common situations it's used to release unmanaged resources.
"It depends". What kind of database/file access are we talking about? Say for example that your disposable object is some sort of logger and you use it in the following pattern
using(Logger logger = new Logger())
{
foo.PerformTask();
}
I think it would be perfectly acceptable for logger to write out "Log started" in the constructor "Log Completed" in Dispose.
How much work should be done in a Dispose method?
This depends, are you implementing the IDispose interface just for the convenience of a 'using' statement, or are you implementing the full IDisposable pattern? In the later case of a full disposable pattern it is still acceptable to perform more complex actions provided that you're 'disposing' parameter is true (i.e. you are not in GC).
When you are defining a finalizer that calls the Dispose method there really is not too much to be concerned about. Similar uses/abuses of the IDisposable interface mentioned already be others (i.e. using (Html.BeginForm())) are capable of performing any action. Often this can greatly reduce code complexity and prevent coders from accidentally forgetting to perform some closing action. One down (or up) side to this is that code executes a little differently inside a finally block.
In constructors I've always taken the stance that you should only do what is absolutely necessary to instantiate the object.
Objects, IMHO, should be valid post construction. So if you have a lot of work to do to construct something so be it. Don't think of the workload involved, think of the consumer of you're object and it's usability. Post-construction Initialize() methods suck ;)
This being the case I've also always taken the approach that you should ONLY be cleaning up open resources when disposing. Closing files, freeing memory, disposing of child disposable object, etc. You shouldn't be doing lengthy processes like touching files, accessing databases and such in the Dispose method.
Actually let's break this down a bit...
Disposing from the GC call to the Finalizer
When you implement the IDisposable pattern (not the interface, the pattern, finalizer and all) you are essentially saying that your object has an unmanaged resource that nobody else knows about. That means you have PInvoked a call to Win32's CreateFile, or maybe you called Marshal.AllocHGlobal or something like that. Essentially you likely have an IntPtr instance member you need to do something with to prevent a memory leak. These are the ONLY types of things that should be done when the disposing parameter is false (i.e. called from the finalizer on the GC thread).
Generally you DO NOT call the Dispose method on children. You should not expect any child object to be valid. Simply touching a member of the child object can accidentally 'revive' or resurrect it.
So when you are writing code that executes in a Dispose method called from the Finalizer you have to be careful. You are executing on the GC thread while the rest of your application waits for you. You should perform as few operations as possible to release the unmanaged memory/resource and quit. Never throw an exception and if you are calling an API that may throw you should catch any exception raised. Propagating exceptions back to the GC will prematurely abort the finalizer thread and the remaining objects to be finalized will not have a chance to clean up.
Disposing from the IDisposable.Dispose() method
As I’ve already said, using the Dispose method is safe enough and can safely accommodate any amount of code/process. This is where you would free unmanaged resources, call the dispose method of child objects, flush and close files, etc. Most of the Dispose methods I’ve written do not have an associated Finalizer and therefore do not follow the IDisposable pattern, yet they implement IDisposable just for the convenience of the using statement.
Am I wrong? Are those action's OK as long as you are handling any possible exceptions so they don't bubble out of the method? I just don't think doing a lot in Dispose is a good idea. I would like to know what the community thinks.
You are absolutely right when the dispose method in question is used from a finalizer. You’re assertions about what you should and should not do in a Dispose method should actually be reworded to apply to anything called by a Finalizer. The fact that this is generally done in a method called Dispose is a matter of convention, the IDisposable pattern, but these issues could easily exist in other methods used by the Finalizer.
If an object does something to the state of some outside entities in a way which makes them more useful to that but less useful to everyone else, the Dispose method of the object should do whatever is necessary to restore outside those entities to more generally-useful state. If one wishes to avoid having an object do too much work in Dispose, one should design the object so as never leave any outside entities in a state which would be onerous to clean up.
BTW, Microsoft likes to use the term "unmanaged resources", and gives examples, but never really offers a good definition. I would suggest that an object holds an "unmanaged resource" if an outside entity is altering its behavior on behalf of that object, in a fashion which is detrimental to other objects or entities, and if that outside entity will continue to alter its behavior until the object stops it from doing so.
You should lean toward the conclusion you have already come to. However there are situations where you need to ensure that services are stopped and that could include things like messages being logged for the service shutdown, or saving the current runtime state to data store. This type of disposal usually only applies to things that have a lifestyle that is application scope, meaning they exist the whole time the application is running. So there are situations outside of the expected norm. As is the case with every rule you should follow when writing code.
I have an object that has a BackgroundWorker thread (purely a queue of Action delegates). i.e., it's the common, simple single-producer single-consumer scenario.
When the single producer is collected, I would like it to enqueue a Terminate action to the BackgroundWorker thread.
It almost sounds easy - use a finalizer - but that breaks the "don't touch a managed resource in a finalizer" rule.
So how do I ensure the thread terminates cleanly once it has no more work to do?
Answers I'd rather not take:
IDisposable: This would require a massive breaking change to the base class, but I accept it is perhaps required (this always seems to be a problem with the IDisposable pattern..)
ThreadPool: These are long running actions that must be run in order. So I would consider a dedicated thread to be the logical choice.
WeakReference: I just thought of this one. Perhaps it is the correct way to do this (?). Basically the Thread keeps a WeakReference back to the owning object, and periodically wakes itself to check if that WeakReference is still alive, when it dies it enqueues a Terminate. Not exactly elegant - I don't like the "periodically wakes itself" bit - but is this the best solution?
IDisposable or something similar sounds like the best approach to me - explicitly say when you've finished producing, rather than triggering that from garbage collection.
Fundamentally it sounds like the problem isn't terminating the worker thread - it's indicating that you've finished producing. I do understand that that can be tricky in some situations, but if at all possible it'll make your life more predictable if you can do that explicitly.
I have a few basic questions about the Dispose Pattern in C#.
In the following code snippet, which seems to be a standard way of implementing the dispose pattern, you’ll notice that managed resources are not handled if disposing is false. How/when are they handled? Does the GC come along and handle the managed resources later? But if that’s the case, what does the GG.SuppressFinalize(this) call do? Can someone give me an example of disposing of managed resources? Unhooking events comes to mind. Anything else? The way the pattern is written, it seems they would get disposed (later) if you did nothing in the “if (disposing)” section. Comments?
protected virtual void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (!disposed)
{
if (disposing)
{
// Dispose managed resources.
}
// There are no unmanaged resources to release, but
// if we add them, they need to be released here.
}
disposed = true;
// If it is available, make the call to the
// base class's Dispose(Boolean) method
base.Dispose(disposing);
}
// implements IDisposable
public void Dispose()
{
Dispose(true);
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
Is it true what I read about locks in Dispose(bool) in this thread, How do I implement the dispose pattern in c# when wrapping an Interop COM Object?? It says, “Meta-meta comment - as well as that, it's important that you never acquire locks or use locking during your unmanaged cleanup.” Why is that? Does it apply to unmanaged resources as well?
Finally, does on ever implement a finalizer (~MyClass() in C#) without implementing IDisposable? I believe I read somewhere that finalizers and IDisposable are not necessary (or desirable) if there are no unmanaged resources. However, I do see the use of a finalizer without IDisposable in some examples (see: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/cs/idisposable.aspx as one example)
Thanks,
Dave
This way of implementing the IDisposable pattern is a fail-safe way: In case a client forgets to call Dispose, the finalizer called by the runtime will call Dispose(false) later (Note that this part is missing in your sample).
In the latter case, i.e. when Dispose is called by the finalizer, managed resources will already have been cleaned up because otherwise the object in question would not have been eligible for garbage collection.
But if that’s the case, what does the GC.SuppressFinalize(this) call do?
Running the finalizer comes with additional costs. Therefore it should be avoided if possible. Calling GC.SuppressFinalize(this) will skip running the finalizer and therefore the object can be garbage collected more efficiently.
In general one should avoid relying on finalizers as there is no guarantee that a finalizer will run. Some of the problems with finalizers are described by Raymond Chen in the following post:
When do I need to use GC.KeepAlive?
Nobody got to the last two questions (btw: ask only one per thread). Using a lock in Dispose() is pretty lethal to the finalizer thread. There's no upper-bound on how long the lock might be held, your program will crash after two seconds when the CLR notices that the finalizer thread got stuck. Moreover, it is just a bug. You should never call Dispose() when another thread might still have a reference to the object.
Yes, implementing a finalizer without implementing IDisposable is not unheard of. Any COM object wrapper (RCW) does that. So does the Thread class. This was done because it just isn't practical to call Dispose(). In the case of a COM wrapper because it is just not possible to keep track of all reference counts. In case of Thread because having to Join() the thread so that you could call Dispose() defeats the purpose of having a thread.
Pay attention to Jon Hanna's post. Implementing your own finalizer is indeed wrong 99.99% of the time. You've got the SafeHandle classes to wrap unmanaged resources. You'd need something pretty obscure to not be wrappable by them.
The pattern described above was a matter of dealing eloquently with the overlapping concerns of disposal and finalisation.
When we are disposing, we want to:
Dispose all disposable member objects.
Dispose the base object.
Release unmanaged resources.
When finalising we want to:
Release unmanaged resources.
Added to this are the following concerns:
Disposal should be safe to call multiple times. It should not be an error to call x.Dispose();x.Dispose();
Finalisation adds a burden to garbage collection. If we avoid it if we can, specifically if we have already released unmanaged resources, we want to suppress finalisation as it is no longer needed.
Accessing finalised objects is fraught. If an object is being finalised, then any finalisable members (which would also be dealing with the same concerns as our class) may or may not have already been finalised and will certainly be on the finalisation queue. As these objects will likely also be managed disposable objects, and as disposing them will release their unmanaged resources, we do not want to dispose of them in such a case.
The code you give will (once you add in the finaliser that calls Dispose(false) manage these concerns. In the case of Dispose() being called it will clean up both managed and unmanaged members and suppress finalisation, while also guarding against multiple calls (it is not however thread-safe in this regard). In the case of the finaliser being called, it will clean up unmanaged members.
However, this pattern is only required by the anti-pattern of combining managed and unmanaged concerns in the same class. A much better approach is to handle all unmanaged resources through a class which is concerned only with that resource, whether SafeHandle or a separate class of your own. Then you will have one of two patterns, of which the latter will be rare:
public class HasManagedMembers : IDisposable
{
/* more stuff here */
public void Dispose()
{
//if really necessary, block multiple calls by storing a boolean, but generally this won't be needed.
someMember.Dispose(); /*etc.*/
}
}
This has no finaliser and doesn't need one.
public class HasUnmanagedResource : IDisposable
{
IntPtr _someRawHandle;
/* real code using _someRawHandle*/
private void CleanUp()
{
/* code to clean up the handle */
}
public void Dispose()
{
CleanUp();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
~HasUnmanagedResource()
{
CleanUp();
}
}
This version, which will be much rarer (not even happening in most projects) has the disposal deal solely with dealing with the sole unmanaged resource, for which the class is a wrapper, and the finaliser doing the same if disposal didn't happen.
Since SafeHandle allows for the second pattern to be handled for you, you shouldn't really need it at all. In any case, the first example I give will handle the vast majority of cases where you need to implement IDisposable. The pattern given in your example should only be used for backwards compatibility, such as when you derive from a class that uses it.
...you’ll notice that managed resources are not handled if disposing is false. How/when are they handled?
You didn't include it in your sample, but often the type will have a destructor which will call Dispose(false). Thus, when disposing is false, you "know" that you're in a finalizer call, and thus should *not* access any managed resources, because they might have already been finalized.
The GC finalization process only ensures that finalizers are invoked, not the order that they're invoked in.
what does the GG.SuppressFinalize(this) call do?
It prevents the GC from adding your object to the finalization queue and eventually calling object.Finalize() (i.e. your destructor). It's a performance optimization, nothing more.
The way the pattern is written, it seems they would get disposed (later) if you did nothing in the “if (disposing)” section
Maybe; it depends upon how the type is written. A major point to the IDisposable idiom is for "deterministic finalizaion" -- saying "I want your resources freed now" and having it mean something. If you "ignore" the disposing=true block and don't "forward" the Dispose() call, one of two things will happen:
If the type has a finalizer, the finalizer for the object may eventually be invoked sometime "later".
If the type doesn't have a finalizer, the managed resource will "leak," as Dispose() will never be invoked on them.
it's important that you never acquire locks or use locking during your unmanaged cleanup.” Why is that? Does it apply to unmanaged resources as well?
It's a sanity issue -- YOUR sanity. The simpler your cleanup code, the better, and it's always a good idea to not throw exceptions from Dispose(). Using locks can result in exceptions or deadlocks, either of which are good ways to ruin your day. :-)
does on ever implement a finalizer (~MyClass() in C#) without implementing IDisposable
One could, but it would be considered bad style.
The normal way for objects to be disposed is by calling it's Dispose() method. When done that way, the SuppressFinalize call removes the object from the finalizer queue, turning it into a regular managed object that can easily be garbage collected.
The finalizer is only used when the code fails to dispose the object properly. Then the finalizer calls Dispose(false) so that the object can at least try to clean up unmanaged resources. As any managed objects that the object references may already have been garbage collected at this stage, the object should not try to clean up them.
Instead of trying to learn about disposition via the pattern, you might want to flip things around and try learning why the pattern is implemented this way based on CLR fundamentals and the intended usage of the IDisposable interface. There's a very good introduction to this that should answer all your questions (and a few you didn't think to ask) at http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/magazine/cc163392.aspx.
If your class will hold unmanaged resources directly, or if it might ever be inherited by a descendant class that will do so, Microsoft's dispose pattern will provide a good way to tie together the finalizer and disposer. If there's no realistic possibility that either your class or its descendants will ever hold unmanaged resources directly, you should delete the template code and simply implement Dispose directly. Given that Microsoft has strongly recommended that unmanaged resources be wrapped in classes whose sole purpose is to hold them(*) (and has classes like SafeHandle for precisely that purpose) there's really no need for the template code anymore.
(*) Garbage collection in .net is a multi-step process; first the system determines which objects aren't referenced anywhere; then it makes a list of Finalize'able objects which aren't referenced anywhere. The list, and all objects on it, will be re-declared "live", which will mean all objects referred to by them will also be live. At that point, the system will perform an actual garbage collection; it then will run all the finalizers on the list. If an object holds, e.g. a direct handle to a font resource (unmanaged) as well as references to ten other objects which in turn hold direct or indirect references to a hundred more objects, then because of the unmanaged resource the object will need a finalizer. When the object comes due for collection, neither it nor the 100+ objects to which it holds direct or indirect references will be eligible for collection until the pass after its finalizer runs.
If instead of holding a direct handle to the font resource, the object held a reference to an object which holds the font resource (and nothing else), the latter object would need a finalizer, but the former one would not (since it doesn't hold a direct reference to the unmanaged resource. Only one object (the one which held the finalizer), rather than 100+, would have to survive the first garbage collection.
I understand the main function of the lock key word from MSDN
lock Statement (C# Reference)
The lock keyword marks a statement
block as a critical section by
obtaining the mutual-exclusion lock
for a given object, executing a
statement, and then releasing the
lock.
When should the lock be used?
For instance it makes sense with multi-threaded applications because it protects the data. But is it necessary when the application does not spin off any other threads?
Is there performance issues with using lock?
I have just inherited an application that is using lock everywhere, and it is single threaded and I want to know should I leave them in, are they even necessary?
Please note this is more of a general knowledge question, the application speed is fine, I want to know if that is a good design pattern to follow in the future or should this be avoided unless absolutely needed.
When should the lock be used?
A lock should be used to protect shared resources in multithreaded code. Not for anything else.
But is it necessary when the application does not spin off any other threads?
Absolutely not. It's just a time waster. However do be sure that you're not implicitly using system threads. For example if you use asynchronous I/O you may receive callbacks from a random thread, not your original thread.
Is there performance issues with using lock?
Yes. They're not very big in a single-threaded application, but why make calls you don't need?
...if that is a good design pattern to follow in the future[?]
Locking everything willy-nilly is a terrible design pattern. If your code is cluttered with random locking and then you do decide to use a background thread for some work, you're likely to run into deadlocks. Sharing a resource between multiple threads requires careful design, and the more you can isolate the tricky part, the better.
All the answers here seem right: locks' usefulness is to block threads from acessing locked code concurrently. However, there are many subtleties in this field, one of which is that locked blocks of code are automatically marked as critical regions by the Common Language Runtime.
The effect of code being marked as critical is that, if the entire region cannot be entirely executed, the runtime may consider that your entire Application Domain is potentially jeopardized and, therefore, unload it from memory. To quote MSDN:
For example, consider a task that attempts to allocate memory while holding a lock. If the memory allocation fails, aborting the current task is not sufficient to ensure stability of the AppDomain, because there can be other tasks in the domain waiting for the same lock. If the current task is terminated, other tasks could be deadlocked.
Therefore, even though your application is single-threaded, this may be a hazard for you. Consider that one method in a locked block throws an exception that is eventually not handled within the block. Even if the exception is dealt as it bubbles up through the call stack, your critical region of code didn't finish normally. And who knows how the CLR will react?
For more info, read this article on the perils of Thread.Abort().
Bear in mind that there might be reasons why your application is not as single-threaded as you think. Async I/O in .NET may well call-back on a pool thread, for example, as do some of the various timer classes (not the Windows Forms Timer, though).
Generally speaking if your application is single threaded, you're not going to get much use out of the lock statement. Not knowing your application exactly, I don't know if they're useful or not - but I suspect not. Further, if you're application is using lock everywhere I don't know that I would feel all that confident about it working in a multi-threaded environment anyways - did the original developer actually know how to develop multi-threaded code, or did they just add lock statements everywhere in the vague hope that that would do the trick?
lock should be used around the code that modifies shared state, state that is modified by other threads concurrently, and those other treads must take the same lock.
A lock is actually a memory access serializer, the threads (that take the lock) will wait on the lock to enter until the current thread exits the lock, so memory access is serialized.
To answer you question lock is not needed in a single threaded application, and it does have performance side effects. because locks in C# are based on kernel sync objects and every lock you take creates a transition to kernel mode from user mode.
If you're interested in multithreading performance a good place to start is MSDN threading guidelines
You can have performance issues with locking variables, but normally, you'd construct your code to minimize the lengths of time that are spent inside a 'locked' block of code.
As far as removing the locks. It'll depend on what exactly the code is doing. Even though it's single threaded, if your object is implemented as a Singleton, it's possible that you'll have multiple clients using an instance of it (in memory, on a server) at the same time..
Yes, there will be some performance penalty when using lock but it is generally neglible enough to not matter.
Using locks (or any other mutual-exclusion statement or construct) is generally only needed in multi-threaded scenarios where multiple threads (either of your own making or from your caller) have the opportunity to interact with the object and change the underlying state or data maintained. For example, if you have a collection that can be accessed by multiple threads you don't want one thread changing the contents of that collection by removing an item while another thread is trying to read it.
Lock(token) is only used to mark one or more blocks of code that should not run simultaneously in multiple threads. If your application is single-threaded, it's protecting against a condition that can't exist.
And locking does invoke a performance hit, adding instructions to check for simultaneous access before code is executed. It should only be used where necessary.
See the question about 'Mutex' in C#. And then look at these two questions regarding use of the 'lock(Object)' statement specifically.
There is no point in having locks in the app if there is only one thread and yes, it is a performance hit although it does take a fair number of calls for that hit to stack up into something significant.