Develop Reference

How do I guarantee execution of code only if and when optional main thread task and worker threads are finished?

Background:
I have an application I am developing that deals with a large number of addons for another application. One if its primary uses is to safely modify file records in files with fewer records so that they may be treated as one file (almost as if it is combing the files together into one set of records. To do this safely it keeps track of vital information about those files and changes made to them so that those changes can be undone if they don't work as expected.
When my application starts, it analyzes those files and keeps essential properties in a cache (to reduce load times). If a file is missing from the cache, the most important stuff is retrieved and then a background worker must process the file for more information. If a file that was previously modified has been updated with a new version of the file, the UI must confirm this with the user and its modification data removed. All of this information, including information on its modification is stored in the cache.
My Problem:
My problem is that neither of these processes are guaranteed to run (the confirmation window or the background file processor). If either of them run, then the cache must be updated by the main thread. I don't know enough about worker threads, and which thread runs the BackgroundWorker.RunWorkerCompleted event handler in order to effectively decide how to approach guaranteeing that the cache updater is run after either (or both) processes are completed.
To sum up: if either process is run, they both must finish and (potentially) wait for the other to be completed before running the cache update code. How can I do this?
ADJUNCT INFO (My current intervention that doesn't seem to work very well):
I have a line in the RunWorkerCompleted handler that waits until the form reference is null before continuing and exiting but maybe this was a mistake as it sometimes locks my program up.
SpinWait.SpinUntil(() => overwriteForm == null);
I haven't included any more code because I anticipate that this is more of a conceptual question than a code one. However, if necessary, I can supply code if it helps.

I think CountDownTask is what you need
using System;
using System.Threading;
public class Program
{
public class AtomicInteger
{
protected int value = 0;
public AtomicInteger(int value)
{
this.value = value;
}
public int DecrementAndGet()
{
int answer = Interlocked.Decrement(ref value);
return answer;
}
}
public interface Runnable
{
void Run();
}
public class CountDownTask
{
private AtomicInteger count;
private Runnable task;
private Object lk = new Object();
private volatile bool runnable;
private bool cancelled;
public CountDownTask(Int32 count, Runnable task)
{
this.count = new AtomicInteger(count);
this.task = task;
this.runnable = false;
this.cancelled = false;
}
public void CountDown()
{
if (count.DecrementAndGet() == 0)
{
lock (lk)
{
runnable = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
}
public void Await()
{
lock (lk)
{
while (!runnable)
{
Monitor.Wait(lk);
}
if (cancelled)
{
Console.WriteLine("Sorry! I was cancelled");
}
else {
task.Run();
}
}
}
public void Cancel()
{
lock (lk)
{
runnable = true;
cancelled = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
}
public class HelloWorldTask : Runnable
{
public void Run()
{
Console.WriteLine("Hello World, I'm last one");
}
}
public static void Main()
{
Thread.CurrentThread.Name = "Main";
Console.WriteLine("Current Thread: " + Thread.CurrentThread.Name);
CountDownTask countDownTask = new CountDownTask(3, new HelloWorldTask());
Thread worker1 = new Thread(() => {
Console.WriteLine("Worker 1 run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
});
Thread worker2 = new Thread(() => {
Console.WriteLine("Worker 2 run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
});
Thread lastThread = new Thread(() => countDownTask.Await());
lastThread.Start();
worker1.Start();
worker2.Start();
//countDownTask.Cancel();
Console.WriteLine("Main Thread Run");
countDownTask.CountDown();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
let me explain (but you can refer Java CountDownLatch)
1. To ensure a task must run after another tasks, we need create a Wait function to wait for they done, so I used
while(!runnable) {
Monitor.Wait(lk);
}
2. When there is a task done, we need count down, and if count down to zero (it means all of the tasks was done) we will need notify to blocked thread to wake up and process task
if(count.decrementAndGet() == 0) {
lock(lk) {
runnable = true;
Monitor.Pulse(lk);
}
}
Let read more about volatile, thanks

While dung ta van's "CountDownTask" answer isn't quite what I needed, it heavily inspired the solution below (see it for more info). Basically all I did was add some extra functionality and most importantly: made it so that each task "vote" on the outcome (true or false). Thanks dung ta van!
To be fair, dung ta van's solution DOES work to guarantee execution which as it turns out isn't quite what I needed. My solution adds the ability to make that execution conditional.
This was my solution which worked:
public enum PendingBool
{
Unknown = -1,
False,
True
}
public interface IRunnableTask
{
void Run();
}
public class AtomicInteger
{
int integer;
public int Value { get { return integer; } }
public AtomicInteger(int value) { integer = value; }
public int Decrement() { return Interlocked.Decrement(ref integer); }
public static implicit operator int(AtomicInteger ai) { return ai.integer; }
}
public class TaskElectionEventArgs
{
public bool VoteResult { get; private set; }
public TaskElectionEventArgs(bool vote) { VoteResult = vote; }
}
public delegate void VoteEventHandler(object sender, TaskElectionEventArgs e);
public class SingleVoteTask
{
private AtomicInteger votesLeft;
private IRunnableTask task;
private volatile bool runTask = false;
private object _lock = new object();
public event VoteEventHandler VoteCast;
public event VoteEventHandler TaskCompleted;
public bool IsWaiting { get { return votesLeft.Value > 0; } }
public PendingBool Result
{
get
{
if (votesLeft > 0)
return PendingBool.Unknown;
else if (runTask)
return PendingBool.True;
else
return PendingBool.False;
}
}
public SingleVoteTask(int numberOfVotes, IRunnableTask taskToRun)
{
votesLeft = new AtomicInteger(numberOfVotes);
task = taskToRun;
}
public void CastVote(bool vote)
{
votesLeft.Decrement();
runTask |= vote;
VoteCast?.Invoke(this, new TaskElectionEventArgs(vote));
if (votesLeft == 0)
lock (_lock)
{
Monitor.Pulse(_lock);
}
}
public void Await()
{
lock(_lock)
{
while (votesLeft > 0)
Monitor.Wait(_lock);
if (runTask)
task.Run();
TaskCompleted?.Invoke(this, new TaskElectionEventArgs(runTask));
}
}
}
Implementing the above solution was as simple as creating the SingleVoteTask in the UI thread and then having each thread affecting the outcome cast a vote.

Using thread.sleep in lock section C#

I create an example about thread,
I know that use lock could avoid thread suspending at critical section, but I have two questions.
1.Why my program get stuck if I use Thread.Sleep?
In this example, I add sleep to two thread.
Because I wish the console output more slowly, so I can easily see if there's anything wrong.
But if I use Thread.Sleep() then this program will get stuck!
2.What situation should I use Thread.Sleep?
Thanks for your kind response, have a nice day.
class MyThreadExample
{
private static int count1 = 0;
private static int count2 = 0;
Thread t1;
Thread t2;
public MyThreadExample() {
t1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(increment));
t2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(checkequal));
}
public static void Main() {
MyThreadExample mt = new MyThreadExample();
mt.t1.Start();
mt.t2.Start();
}
void increment()
{
lock (this)
{
while (true)
{
count1++; count2++;
//Thread.Sleep(0); stuck when use Sleep!
}
}
}
void checkequal()
{
lock (this)
{
while (true)
{
if (count1 == count2)
Console.WriteLine("Synchronize");
else
Console.WriteLine("unSynchronize");
// Thread.Sleep(0);
}
}
}
}

Please take a look at these following codes. Never use lock(this), instead use lock(syncObj) because you have better control over it. Lock only the critical section (ex.: only variable) and dont lock the whole while loop. In method Main, add something to wait at the end "Console.Read()", otherwise, your application is dead. This one works with or without Thread.Sleep. In your code above, your thread will enter "Increment" or "Checkequal" and the lock will never release. Thats why, it works only on Increment or Checkequal and never both.
internal class MyThreadExample
{
private static int m_Count1;
private static int m_Count2;
private readonly object m_SyncObj = new object();
private readonly Thread m_T1;
private readonly Thread m_T2;
public MyThreadExample()
{
m_T1 = new Thread(Increment) {IsBackground = true};
m_T2 = new Thread(Checkequal) {IsBackground = true};
}
public static void Main()
{
var mt = new MyThreadExample();
mt.m_T1.Start();
mt.m_T2.Start();
Console.Read();
}
private void Increment()
{
while (true)
{
lock (m_SyncObj)
{
m_Count1++;
m_Count2++;
}
Thread.Sleep(1000); //stuck when use Sleep!
}
}
private void Checkequal()
{
while (true)
{
lock (m_SyncObj)
{
Console.WriteLine(m_Count1 == m_Count2 ? "Synchronize" : "unSynchronize");
}
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
}
Thread is a little bit old style. If you are a beginner of .NET and using .NET 4.5 or above, then use Task. Much better. All new multithreading in .NET are based on Task, like async await:
public static void Main()
{
var mt = new MyThreadExample();
Task.Run(() => { mt.Increment(); });
Task.Run(() => { mt.Checkequal(); });
Console.Read();
}

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.

Sample code to illustrate a deadlock by using lock(this)

I've read several articles and posts that say that lock(this), lock(typeof(MyType)), lock("a string") are all bad practice because another thread could lock on the same key and cause a deadlock. In order to understand this problem, I was trying to create some sample code to illustrate the deadlock but have been unable to wrap my head around this.
Can someone write a concise bit of code that illustrates this classic problem? Please keep it short, I can digest code in smaller chunks only.
Edit:
I think lassevk sums it up well; that the real problem is that you have lost control over your locks. Once that happens, you cannot control the order the locks are called, and you are allowing a potential deadlock situation.
lock(this), lock(typeof(MyType)), etc all are situations where you have chosen a lock that is impossible to control.

A deadlock will only occur if you have more than one lock. You need a situation where both threads hold a resource that the other needs (which means there has to be a least two resources, and the two threads have to attempt to acquire them in a different order)
So a simple example:
// thread 1
lock(typeof(int)) {
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock(typeof(float)) {
Console.WriteLine("Thread 1 got both locks");
}
}
// thread 2
lock(typeof(float)) {
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock(typeof(int)) {
Console.WriteLine("Thread 2 got both locks");
}
}
Assuming both threads are started within a second of each others, they will both have time to grab the first lock before anyone gets to the inner lock. Without the Sleep() call, one of the threads would most likely have time to get and release both locks before the other thread even got started.

The idea is that you should never lock on something you cannot control who has access to.
Type objects are singletons visible to every .net piece of code and you cannot control who locks on your "this" object from the outside.
Same thing is for strings: since strings are immutable, the framework keeps just one instance of "hard coded" strings and puts them in a pool (the string is said to be interned), if you write two times in your code the string "hello", you will always get the same abject.
Consider the following example: you wrote just Thread1 in your super private call, while Thread2 is called by some library you are using in a background thread...
void Thread1()
{
lock (typeof(int))
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock (typeof(long))
// do something
}
}
void Thread2()
{
lock (typeof(long))
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock (typeof(int))
// do something
}
}

Sure, here you go.
Note that the common example for a deadlock is when you acquire multiple locks, and two or more threads end up waiting for each other.
For instance, two threads that locks like this:
Thread 1 Thread 2
Lock "A" Lock "B"
Lock "B" Lock "A" <-- both threads will stop dead here
waiting for the lock to be come
available.
However, in this example I didn't bother with that, I just let one thread lock indefinitely. You really don't want to loose control over your locks, so while this is a contrived example, the fact that the background thread can completely block the main thread like this, is bad.
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication7
{
public class Program
{
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
LockableClass lockable = new LockableClass();
new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(BackgroundMethod)).Start(lockable);
Thread.Sleep(500);
Console.Out.WriteLine("calling Reset");
lockable.Reset();
}
private static void BackgroundMethod(Object lockable)
{
lock (lockable)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine("background thread got lock now");
Thread.Sleep(Timeout.Infinite);
}
}
}
public class LockableClass
{
public Int32 Value1 { get; set; }
public Int32 Value2 { get; set; }
public void Reset()
{
Console.Out.WriteLine("attempting to lock on object");
lock (this)
{
Console.Out.WriteLine("main thread got lock now");
Value1 = 0;
Value2 = 0;
}
}
}
}

This is pretty standard bad-ness. Grabing the locks out of order and then sleeping with the lock. Two bad things to do. :)
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace DeadLock
{
public class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var ddt = new DontDoThat();
ddt.Go();
}
}
public class DontDoThat
{
private int _badSharedState = 0;
private readonly object _lock1 = new object();
private readonly object _lock2 = new object();
public void Go()
{
new Thread(BadGuy1).Start();
new Thread(BadGuy2).Start();
Console.WriteLine("Leaving Go!");
}
public void BadGuy1()
{
lock (_lock1)
{
Thread.Sleep(100); // yeild with the lock is bad
lock (_lock2)
{
_badSharedState++;
Console.Write("From Bad Guy #1: {0})", _badSharedState );
}
}
}
public void BadGuy2()
{
lock (_lock2)
{
lock (_lock1)
{
_badSharedState++;
Console.Write("From Bad Guy #2: {0})", _badSharedState);
}
}
}
}
}

The problem is that lock("a string") is locking on a singleton. This means that other objects that use the same lock could be an infinite wait.
for example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace ThreadLock
{
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
lock ("my lock")
{
ManualResetEvent evt = new ManualResetEvent(false);
WorkerObject worker = new WorkerObject(evt);
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(worker.Work));
t.Start();
evt.WaitOne();
}
}
}
class WorkerObject
{
private ManualResetEvent _evt;
public WorkerObject(ManualResetEvent evt)
{
_evt = evt;
}
public void Work()
{
lock ("my lock")
{
Console.WriteLine("worked.");
_evt.Set();
}
}
}
}
In this case, the calling code creates a lock on a string then makes a worker object. The worker object in Work() locks on the same string, which is a singleton in C#. It ends up in deadlock because the caller owns the lock and is waiting for a signal which will never come.

class Character
{
public Character Other;
public string Name;
private object locker = new object();
public Character(string name)
{
Name = name;
}
public void Go()
{
lock (locker)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Console.WriteLine("go in {0}", Name);
Other.Go();
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Character a = new Character("A");
Character b = new Character("B");
a.Other = b;
b.Other = a;
new Thread(a.Go).Start();
b.Go();
Console.ReadLine();
}
}

Is there a synchronization class that guarantee FIFO order in C#?

What is it and how to use?
I need that as I have a timer that inserts into DB every second, and I have a shared resource between timer handler and the main thread.
I want to gurantee that if the timer handler takes more than one second in the insertion the waited threads should be executed in order.
This is a sample code for my timer handler:
private void InsertBasicVaraibles(object param)
{
try
{
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
}
But currently the mutex does not guarantee any order.

You'll need to write your own class to do this, I found this example (pasted because it looks as though the site's domain has lapsed):
using System.Threading;
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private object innerLock;
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLock()
{
innerLock = new Object();
}
public void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(innerLock);
}
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(innerLock);
}
}
Example of usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
Source via archive.org

Just reading Joe Duffy's "Concurrent Programming on Windows" it sounds like you'll usually get FIFO behaviour from .NET monitors, but there are some situations where that won't occur.
Page 273 of the book says: "Because monitors use kernel objects internally, they exhibit the same roughly-FIFO behavior that the OS synchronization mechanisms also exhibit (described in the previous chapter). Monitors are unfair, so if another thread sneaks in and acquires the lock before an awakened waiting thread tries to acquire the lock, the sneaky thread is permitted to acquire the lock."
I can't immediately find the section referenced "in the previous chapter" but it does note that locks have been made deliberately unfair in recent editions of Windows to improve scalability and reduce lock convoys.
Do you definitely need your lock to be FIFO? Maybe there's a different way to approach the problem. I don't know of any locks in .NET which are guaranteed to be FIFO.

You should re-design your system to not rely on the execution order of the threads. For example, rather than have your threads make a DB call that might take more than one second, have your threads place the command they would execute into a data structure like a queue (or a heap if there is something that says "this one should be before another one"). Then, in spare time, drain the queue and do your db inserts one at a time in the proper order.

There is no guaranteed order on any built-in synchronisation objects: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ms684266(VS.85).aspx
If you want a guaranteed order you'll have to try and build something yourself, note though that it's not as easy as it might sound, especially when multiple threads reach the synchronisation point at (close to) the same time. To some extent the order they will be released will always be 'random' since you cannot predict in which order the point is reached, so does it really matter?

Actually the answers are good, but I solved the problem by removing the timer and run the method (timer-handler previously) into background thread as follows
private void InsertBasicVaraibles()
{
int functionStopwatch = 0;
while(true)
{
try
{
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount;
DataTablesMutex.WaitOne();//mutex for my shared resources
//insert into DB
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
//Handle
}
finally
{
DataTablesMutex.ReleaseMutex();
}
//simulate the timer tick value
functionStopwatch = Environment.TickCount - functionStopwatch;
int diff = INSERTION_PERIOD - functionStopwatch;
int sleep = diff >= 0 ? diff:0;
Thread.Sleep(sleep);
}
}

Follow up on Matthew Brindley's answer.
If converting code from
lock (LocalConnection.locker) {...}
then you could either do a IDisposable or do what I did:
public static void Locking(Action action) {
Lock();
try {
action();
} finally {
Unlock();
}
}
LocalConnection.Locking( () => {...});
I decided against IDisposable because it would creates a new invisible object on every call.
As to reentrancy issue I modified the code to this:
public sealed class QueuedLock {
private object innerLock = new object();
private volatile int ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int ticketToRide = 1;
ThreadLocal<int> reenter = new ThreadLocal<int>();
public void Enter() {
reenter.Value++;
if ( reenter.Value > 1 )
return;
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketsCount );
Monitor.Enter( innerLock );
while ( true ) {
if ( myTicket == ticketToRide ) {
return;
} else {
Monitor.Wait( innerLock );
}
}
}
public void Exit() {
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
reenter.Value--;
if ( reenter.Value > 0 )
return;
Interlocked.Increment( ref ticketToRide );
Monitor.PulseAll( innerLock );
Monitor.Exit( innerLock );
}
}

In case anyone needs Matt's solution in F#
type internal QueuedLock() =
let innerLock = Object()
let ticketsCount = ref 0
let ticketToRide = ref 1
member __.Enter () =
let myTicket = Interlocked.Increment ticketsCount
Monitor.Enter innerLock
while myTicket <> Volatile.Read ticketToRide do
Monitor.Wait innerLock |> ignore
member __.Exit () =
Interlocked.Increment ticketToRide |> ignore
Monitor.PulseAll innerLock
Monitor.Exit innerLock

Elaborating on Matt Brindley's great answer so that it works with the using statement:
public sealed class QueuedLockProvider
{
private readonly object _innerLock;
private volatile int _ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile int _ticketToRide = 1;
public QueuedLockProvider()
{
_innerLock = new object();
}
public Lock GetLock()
{
return new Lock(this);
}
private void Enter()
{
int myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == _ticketToRide)
{
return;
}
else
{
Monitor.Wait(_innerLock);
}
}
}
private void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref _ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(_innerLock);
}
public class Lock : IDisposable
{
private readonly QueuedLockProvider _lockProvider;
internal Lock(QueuedLockProvider lockProvider)
{
_lockProvider = lockProvider;
_lockProvider.Enter();
}
public void Dispose()
{
_lockProvider.Exit();
}
}
}
Now use it like this:
QueuedLockProvider _myLockProvider = new QueuedLockProvider();
// ...
using(_myLockProvider.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized
// in correct order
}

NOTE: The examples provided are susceptible to Deadlocks.
Example:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter();
fubc2()
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
void func2()
{
try
{
queuedLock.Enter(); //<<<< DEADLOCK
}
finally
{
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
Re. optional solution (inc. an optional IDisposable usage):
public sealed class QueuedLock
{
private class SyncObject : IDisposable
{
private Action m_action = null;
public SyncObject(Action action)
{
m_action = action;
}
public void Dispose()
{
lock (this)
{
var action = m_action;
m_action = null;
action?.Invoke();
}
}
}
private readonly object m_innerLock = new Object();
private volatile uint m_ticketsCount = 0;
private volatile uint m_ticketToRide = 1;
public bool Enter()
{
if (Monitor.IsEntered(m_innerLock))
return false;
uint myTicket = Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketsCount);
Monitor.Enter(m_innerLock);
while (true)
{
if (myTicket == m_ticketToRide)
return true;
Monitor.Wait(m_innerLock);
}
}
public void Exit()
{
Interlocked.Increment(ref m_ticketToRide);
Monitor.PulseAll(m_innerLock);
Monitor.Exit(m_innerLock);
}
public IDisposable GetLock()
{
if (Enter())
return new SyncObject(Exit);
return new SyncObject(null);
}
}
Usage:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
bool isLockAquire = false;
try
{
isLockAquire = queuedLock.Enter();
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
finally
{
if (isLockAquire)
queuedLock.Exit();
}
}
or:
QueuedLock queuedLock = new QueuedLock();
void func1()
{
using (queuedLock.GetLock())
{
// here code which needs to be synchronized in correct order
}
}