We Keep Coding

C# Immutable counter for multiple fields

I have a fairly high throughput on a message counter (tens of thousands per second), and looking for an efficient way of getting the count without putting locks everywhere or ideally not locking on each message count when i am giving an update every 10 seconds.
Use of immutable counter object
I am using an immutable counter class:
public class Counter
{
public Counter(int quotes, int trades)
{
Quotes = quotes;
Trades = trades;
}
readonly public int Quotes;
readonly public int Trades;
// and some other counter fields snipped
}
And would update this on each message process loop:
class MyProcessor
{
System.Timers.Timer timer;
Counter counter = new Counter(0,0);
public MyProcessor()
{
// update ever 10 seconds
this.timer = new System.Timers.Timer(10000);
timer.Elapsed += (sender, e) => {
var quotesPerSecond = this.counter.Quotes / 10.0;
var tradesPerSecond = this.counter.Trades / 10.0;
this.Counter = new Counter(0,0);
});
}
public void ProcessMessages(Messages messages)
{
foreach(var message in messages) { /* */ }
var oldCounter = counter;
this.counter = new Counter(oldCounter.Quotes, oldCounter.Trades);
}
}
I have lots of counters (not all shown), so would mean a lot of individual Interlocked.Increment calls on individual counter fields.
The only other way I can think of is lock every single run of ProcessMessages (which will be extensive) and heavy for something which is a utility as opposed to critical where the program would crash.
Is it possible to use an immutable counter object in this fashion without hard interlocking/thread mechanisms when we only need to update once every 10 seconds?
Flag check idea to avoid locks
Could the timer thread set a flag for the ProcessMessages to check and if it sees it set, start the count from zero again, i.e.
/* snipped the MyProcessor class, same as before */
System.Timers.Timer timer;
Counter counter = new Counter(0,0);
ManualResetEvent reset = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public MyProcessor()
{
// update ever 10 seconds
this.timer = new System.Timers.Timer(10000);
timer.Elapsed += (sender, e) => {
var quotesPerSecond = this.counter.Quotes / 10.0;
var tradesPerSecond = this.counter.Trades / 10.0;
// log
this.reset.Set();
});
}
// this should be called every second with a heartbeat message posted to queue
public void ProcessMessages(Messages messages)
{
if (reset.WaitOne(0) == true)
{
this.counter = new Counter(this.counter.Quotes, this.counter.Trades, this.counter.Aggregates);
reset.Reset();
}
else
{
this.counter = new Counter(
this.counter.Quotes + message.Quotes.Count,
this.counter.Trades + message.Trades.Count);
}
}
/* end of MyProcessor class */
This would work, however the update "stalls" when the process messages comes to a halt (although the throughput is very high, it does pause for a number of hours at night ideally should show the actual rather than last value).
One way around this would be to post a heartbeat message to the MyProcessor.ProcessMessages() every second to force an internal update of the message counters and subsequent reset when the reset ManualResetEvent is set.

Here are three new methods for your Counter class. One for reading the latest value from a specific location, one for updating safely a specific location, and one for creating easily a new Counter based on an existing one:
public static Counter Read(ref Counter counter)
{
return Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref counter, null, null);
}
public static void Update(ref Counter counter, Func<Counter, Counter> updateFactory)
{
var counter1 = counter;
while (true)
{
var newCounter = updateFactory(counter1);
var counter2 = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref counter, newCounter, counter1);
if (counter2 == counter1) break;
counter1 = counter2;
}
}
public Counter Add(int quotesDelta, int tradesDelta)
{
return new Counter(Quotes + quotesDelta, Trades + tradesDelta);
}
Usage example:
Counter latest = Counter.Read(ref this.counter);
Counter.Update(ref this.counter, existing => existing.Add(1, 1));
Accessing the MyProcessor.counter field directly by multiple threads concurrently is not thread-safe, because it's neither volatile nor protected by a lock. The above methods are safe to use because they are accessing the field through interlocked operations.

I wanted to update everyone with what I had come up with, the counter updates were pushed within the thread itself.
Everything is driven by the DequeueThread loop, and specifically this.queue.ReceiveAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(UpdateFrequencySeconds)) function.
This will either return an item from the queue, process it and update the counters, or timeout and then update the counters - there are no other threads involved everything, including updating message rate, is done within the thread.
In summary, nothing runs in parallel (in terms of dequing the packet), it is fetching the items one at a time and processing it and the counters thereafter. Then finally looping back to process the next item in the queue.
This removes the need for synchronisation:
internal class Counter
{
public Counter(Action<int,int,int,int> updateCallback, double updateEvery)
{
this.updateCallback = updateCallback;
this.UpdateEvery = updateEvery;
}
public void Poll()
{
if (nextUpdate < DateTimeOffset.UtcNow)
{
// post the stats, and reset
this.updateCallback(this.quotes, this.trades, this.aggregates, this.statuses);
this.quotes = 0;
this.trades = 0;
this.aggregates = 0;
this.statuses = 0;
nextUpdate = DateTimeOffset.UtcNow.AddSeconds(this.UpdateEvery);
}
}
public void AddQuotes(int count) => this.quotes += count;
public void AddTrades(int count) => this.trades += count;
public void AddAggregates(int count) => this.aggregates += count;
public void AddStatuses(int count) => this.statuses += count;
private int quotes;
private int trades;
private int aggregates;
private int statuses;
private readonly Action<int,int,int,int> updateCallback;
public double UpdateEvery { get; private set; }
private DateTimeOffset nextUpdate;
}
public class DeserializeWorker
{
private readonly BufferBlock<byte[]> queue = new BufferBlock<byte[]>();
private readonly IPolygonDeserializer polygonDeserializer;
private readonly ILogger<DeserializeWorker> logger;
private readonly Counter counter;
const double UpdateFrequencySeconds = 5.0;
long maxBacklog = 0;
public DeserializeWorker(IPolygonDeserializer polygonDeserializer, ILogger<DeserializeWorker> logger)
{
this.polygonDeserializer = polygonDeserializer ?? throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(polygonDeserializer));
this.logger = logger;
this.counter = new Counter(ProcesCounterUpdateCallback, UpdateFrequencySeconds);
}
public void Add(byte[] data)
{
this.queue.Post(data);
}
public Task Run(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
return Task
.Factory
.StartNew(
async () => await DequeueThread(stoppingToken),
stoppingToken,
TaskCreationOptions.LongRunning,
TaskScheduler.Default)
.Unwrap();
}
private async Task DequeueThread(CancellationToken stoppingToken)
{
while (stoppingToken.IsCancellationRequested == false)
{
try
{
var item = await this.queue.ReceiveAsync(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(UpdateFrequencySeconds), stoppingToken);
await ProcessAsync(item);
}
catch (TimeoutException)
{
// this is ok, timeout expired
}
catch(TaskCanceledException)
{
break; // task cancelled, break from loop
}
catch (Exception e)
{
this.logger.LogError(e.ToString());
}
UpdateCounters();
}
await StopAsync();
}
protected async Task StopAsync()
{
this.queue.Complete();
await this.queue.Completion;
}
protected void ProcessStatuses(IEnumerable<Status> statuses)
{
Parallel.ForEach(statuses, (current) =>
{
if (current.Result != "success")
this.logger.LogInformation($"{current.Result}: {current.Message}");
});
}
protected void ProcessMessages<T>(IEnumerable<T> messages)
{
Parallel.ForEach(messages, (current) =>
{
// serialize by type T
// dispatch
});
}
async Task ProcessAsync(byte[] item)
{
try
{
var memoryStream = new MemoryStream(item);
var message = await this.polygonDeserializer.DeserializeAsync(memoryStream);
var messagesTask = Task.Run(() => ProcessStatuses(message.Statuses));
var quotesTask = Task.Run(() => ProcessMessages(message.Quotes));
var tradesTask = Task.Run(() => ProcessMessages(message.Trades));
var aggregatesTask = Task.Run(() => ProcessMessages(message.Aggregates));
this.counter.AddStatuses(message.Statuses.Count);
this.counter.AddQuotes(message.Quotes.Count);
this.counter.AddTrades(message.Trades.Count);
this.counter.AddAggregates(message.Aggregates.Count);
Task.WaitAll(messagesTask, quotesTask, aggregatesTask, tradesTask);
}
catch (Exception e)
{
this.logger.LogError(e.ToString());
}
}
void UpdateCounters()
{
var currentCount = this.queue.Count;
if (currentCount > this.maxBacklog)
this.maxBacklog = currentCount;
this.counter.Poll();
}
void ProcesCounterUpdateCallback(int quotes, int trades, int aggregates, int statuses)
{
var updateFrequency = this.counter.UpdateEvery;
logger.LogInformation(
$"Queue current {this.queue.Count} (max {this.maxBacklog }), {quotes / updateFrequency} quotes/sec, {trades / updateFrequency} trades/sec, {aggregates / updateFrequency} aggregates/sec, {statuses / updateFrequency} status/sec");
}
}

Threads monitoring a Queue<Actions>

I doing a small project to map a network (routers only) using SNMP. In order to speed things up, I´m trying to have a pool of threads responsible for doing the jobs I need, apart from the first job which is done by the main thread.
At this time I have two jobs, one takes a parameter the other doesn´t:
UpdateDeviceInfo(NetworkDevice nd)
UpdateLinks() *not defined yet
What I´m trying to achieve is to have those working threads waiting for a job to
appear on a Queue<Action> and wait while it is empty. The main thread will add the first job and then wait for all workers, which might add more jobs, to finish before starting adding the second job and wake up the sleeping threads.
My problem/questions are:
How to define the Queue<Actions> so that I can insert the methods and the parameters if any. If not possible I could make all functions accept the same parameter.
How to launch the working threads indefinitely. I not sure where should I create the for(;;).
This is my code so far:
public enum DatabaseState
{
Empty = 0,
Learning = 1,
Updating = 2,
Stable = 3,
Exiting = 4
};
public class NetworkDB
{
public Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice> database;
private Queue<Action<NetworkDevice>> jobs;
private string _community;
private string _ipaddress;
private Object _statelock = new Object();
private DatabaseState _state = DatabaseState.Empty;
private readonly int workers = 4;
private Object _threadswaitinglock = new Object();
private int _threadswaiting = 0;
public Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice> Database { get => database; set => database = value; }
public NetworkDB(string community, string ipaddress)
{
_community = community;
_ipaddress = ipaddress;
database = new Dictionary<string, NetworkDevice>();
jobs = new Queue<Action<NetworkDevice>>();
}
public void Start()
{
NetworkDevice nd = SNMP.GetDeviceInfo(new IpAddress(_ipaddress), _community);
if (nd.Status > NetworkDeviceStatus.Unknown)
{
database.Add(nd.Id, nd);
_state = DatabaseState.Learning;
nd.Update(this); // The first job is done by the main thread
for (int i = 0; i < workers; i++)
{
Thread t = new Thread(JobRemove);
t.Start();
}
lock (_statelock)
{
if (_state == DatabaseState.Learning)
{
Monitor.Wait(_statelock);
}
}
lock (_statelock)
{
if (_state == DatabaseState.Updating)
{
Monitor.Wait(_statelock);
}
}
foreach (KeyValuePair<string, NetworkDevice> n in database)
{
using (System.IO.StreamWriter file = new System.IO.StreamWriter(n.Value.Name + ".txt")
{
file.WriteLine(n);
}
}
}
}
public void JobInsert(Action<NetworkDevice> func, NetworkDevice nd)
{
lock (jobs)
{
jobs.Enqueue(item);
if (jobs.Count == 1)
{
// wake up any blocked dequeue
Monitor.Pulse(jobs);
}
}
}
public void JobRemove()
{
Action<NetworkDevice> item;
lock (jobs)
{
while (jobs.Count == 0)
{
lock (_threadswaitinglock)
{
_threadswaiting += 1;
if (_threadswaiting == workers)
Monitor.Pulse(_statelock);
}
Monitor.Wait(jobs);
}
lock (_threadswaitinglock)
{
_threadswaiting -= 1;
}
item = jobs.Dequeue();
item.Invoke();
}
}
public bool NetworkDeviceExists(NetworkDevice nd)
{
try
{
Monitor.Enter(database);
if (database.ContainsKey(nd.Id))
{
return true;
}
else
{
database.Add(nd.Id, nd);
Action<NetworkDevice> action = new Action<NetworkDevice>(UpdateDeviceInfo);
jobs.Enqueue(action);
return false;
}
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(database);
}
}
//Job1 - Learning -> Update device info
public void UpdateDeviceInfo(NetworkDevice nd)
{
nd.Update(this);
try
{
Monitor.Enter(database);
nd.Status = NetworkDeviceStatus.Self;
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(database);
}
}
//Job2 - Updating -> After Learning, create links between neighbours
private void UpdateLinks()
{
}
}

Your best bet seems like using a BlockingCollection instead of the Queue class. They behave effectively the same in terms of FIFO, but a BlockingCollection will let each of your threads block until an item can be taken by calling GetConsumingEnumerable or Take. Here is a complete example.
http://mikehadlow.blogspot.com/2012/11/using-blockingcollection-to-communicate.html?m=1
As for including the parameters, it seems like you could use closure to enclose the NetworkDevice itself and then just enqueue Action instead of Action<>

Threads conflict in some cases, in loop conditions

I am working on a project that uses Threads. In some cases, I have these problems:
Here is some piece of my code :
List<EmailAddress> lstEmailAddress = new List<EmailAddress>();
private void TimerCheckInternetConnection_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
lock (TicketLock)
{
if (UtilityManager.CheckForInternetConnection())
{
if (ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.UnknownDisconnect || ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.IsReady)
{
// Connect
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
lstEmailAddress[i].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[i].Login();
}
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
// some code
}));
});
}
}
}
}
and this is EmailAddress class :
class EmailAddress
{
private Imap4Client imap = new Imap4Client();
private object objectLock = new object();
public bool IsActive;
public string Address;
public string Password;
public string RecieveServerAddress;
public int RecieveServerPort;
public bool Login()
{
lock (objectLock)
{
try
{
imap.ConnectSsl(RecieveServerAddress, RecieveServerPort);
}
catch (Exception)
{
}
try
{
imap.Login(Address, Password);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
return false;
}
}
}
}
And my problem is this:
When I want to use Login procedure that belongs to EmailAddress Class, it has some conflict. As you can see, I used Lock but any thing changed.
For more details:
If I have 3 items in lstEmailAddress , the Login procedure has to be called 3 times by this code. but every time, the login procedure will work on same username and password. So all my emails cannot login correctly.
If I remove threadpool, it will be ok.

Your code is very confusing:
If you add the lock in your code, it will run synchroniously, only one thread at the time, which will lead to performance loss.
If you queue work via QueueUserWorkItem - it will run in other thread, and not inside TicketLock
You should incapsulate locks inside your class, and should not lock entire logic in your program.
You start work for a loop variable i, which is being closured for it's last value, which lead for a problem you state in last sentence.
lock object in Email class isn't static so it's being created for each instance, and doesn't actually lock anithing.
As you are using Invoke method, your code is being started from UI, and you need to pass the synchronization context. I suggest you to use TPL code for this, and do not directly work with ThreadPool
So I suggest you this solution:
List<EmailAddress> lstEmailAddress = new List<EmailAddress>();
private void TimerCheckInternetConnection_Tick(object sender, EventArgs e)
{
// remove this lock as we have another in Email class
//lock (TicketLock)
if (UtilityManager.CheckForInternetConnection())
{
if (ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.UnknownDisconnect
|| ApplicationRunStatus == Enum_ApplicationRunStatus.IsReady)
{
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
// use local variable to store index
int localIndex = i;
// Connect
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
// if you add a lock here, this will run synchroniosly,
// and you aren't really need the ThreadPool
//lock (TicketLock)
lstEmailAddress[localIndex].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[localIndex].Login();
this.BeginInvoke(new Action(() =>
{
// some code
}));
});
}
}
}
}
class EmailAddress
{
// if you have to login only for one user simultaneosly
// use static variables here, other wise simply remove the lock as it is useless
private static Imap4Client imap;
private static object objectLock;
// static constructor for only one initialization for a static fields
static EmailAddress()
{
objectLock = new object();
imap = new Imap4Client();
}
public bool IsActive;
public string Address;
public string Password;
public string RecieveServerAddress;
public int RecieveServerPort;
public bool Login()
{
// aquire a static lock
lock (objectLock)
{
try
{
imap.ConnectSsl(RecieveServerAddress, RecieveServerPort);
}
catch (Exception)
{
// STORE THE EXCEPTION!!!
// return as you haven't connected
return false;
}
try
{
imap.Login(Address, Password);
return true;
}
catch (Exception)
{
// STORE THE EXCEPTION!!!
return false;
}
}
}
}

Change your Code as and try . you code is queing item from lstEmailAddress where it will always go and hit last item from the list. change your code to inquie each item in threadpool. that should fix. it.
for (int i = 0; i < lstEmailAddress.Count; i++)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o) =>
{
lstEmailAddress[i].IsActive = lstEmailAddress[i].Login();
}
}

How to monitor/wait on array of objects?

I am using concurrent bag to store a set of objects. I want to implement something like
if(an object is present)
return it
else wait until one get free, if it does not get free in a specific time throw an exception.
if(object has been returned)
add to bag
I was thinking to use monitors but monitor can wait on a specific object. I want to wait till any of them is free. How can I implement it?

Extending the msdn example found here:
public class FiniteObjectPool<T>: IDisposable
{
System.Threading.AutoResetEvent m_Wait = new System.Threading.AutoResetEvent(false);
private ConcurrentBag<T> _objects;
public FiniteObjectPool()
{
_objects = new ConcurrentBag<T>();
}
public T GetObject()
{
T item;
while(!_objects.TryTake(out item))
{
m_Wait.WaitOne(); //an object was not available, wait until one is
}
return item;
}
public void PutObject(T item)
{
_objects.Add(item);
m_Wait.Set(); //signal a waiting thread that object may now be available
}
public void Dispose()
{
m_Wait.Dispose();
}
}
EDIT - example usage with 'Context' idiom wrapper
class Program
{
public class FiniteObjectPoolContext<T>: IDisposable
{
FiniteObjectPool<T> m_Pool = new FiniteObjectPool<T>();
public T Value { get; set; }
public FiniteObjectPoolContext(FiniteObjectPool<T> pool)
{
m_Pool = pool;
Value = pool.GetObject(); //take an object out - this will block if none is available
}
public void Dispose()
{
m_Pool.PutObject(Value); //put the object back because this context is finished
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
FiniteObjectPool<int> pool = new FiniteObjectPool<int>();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
pool.PutObject(i);
}
List<Task> tasks = new List<Task>();
for (int i = 0; i < 20; i++)
{
int id = i;
tasks.Add(Task.Run(() =>
{
Console.WriteLine("Running task " + id);
using (var con = new FiniteObjectPoolContext<int>(pool))
{
Console.WriteLine("Task " + id + " got object from pool: " + con.Value);
System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(5000);
Console.WriteLine("Task " + id + " is finished with pool object: " + con.Value);
}
}));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks.ToArray());
Console.WriteLine("DONE");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
Notice the latency injected by the thread synchronization mechanisms.

Try Semaphores for the operations that you want to do. .NET has two implementations for Semaphores. Semaphore and SemaphoreSlim, both can be used to implement many threads trying to access a pool of resources.

Getting Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception

Getting Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception
Code:
public static string GetValue(List<StateBag> stateBagList, string name)
{
string retValue = string.Empty;
if (stateBagList != null)
{
foreach (StateBag stateBag in stateBagList)
{
if (stateBag.Name.Equals(name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
retValue = stateBag.Value;
}
}
}
return retValue;
}
getting this exception some time times not every time at this place.
stacktrace:
at System.ThrowHelper.ThrowInvalidOperationException(ExceptionResource
resource)
at System.Collections.Generic.List`1.Enumerator.MoveNextRare()
at System.Collections.Generic.List`1.Enumerator.MoveNext()
at Tavisca.TravelNxt.Shared.Entities.StateBag.GetValue(List`1 stateBagList, String name)
#no one i have tried for following code but still getting exception
code:
class StateBag
{
public string Name;
public string Value;
}
class Program
{
static List<StateBag> _concurrent = new List<StateBag>();
static void Main()
{
var sw = new Stopwatch();
try
{
sw.Start();
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(A));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(B));
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
thread1.Join();
thread2.Join();
sw.Stop();
}
catch (Exception ex)
{
}
Console.WriteLine("Average: {0}", sw.ElapsedTicks);
Console.ReadKey();
}
private static Object thisLock = new Object();
public static string GetValue(List<StateBag> stateBagList, string name)
{
string retValue = string.Empty;
if (stateBagList != null)
{
lock (thisLock)
{
foreach (StateBag stateBag in stateBagList)
{
if (stateBag.Name.Equals(name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
retValue = stateBag.Value;
}
}
}
}
return retValue;
}
static void A()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5000; i++)
{
_concurrent.Add(new StateBag() { Name = "name" + i, Value = i.ToString() });
}
}
static void B()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5000; i++)
{
var t = GetValue(_concurrent, "name" + i);
}
}
}

Getting Collection was modified; enumeration operation may not execute. exception
Reason: This exception occurs when the enumeration that you are looping through is modified in same thread or some other thread.
Now, in the code that you have provided there isnn't any such scenario. Which means that you might be calling this in a multi-threaded environment and collection is modified in some other thread.
Solution: Implement locking on your enumeration so that only one thread gets access at a time. Something like this should do it.
private static Object thisLock = new Object();
public static string GetValue(List<StateBag> stateBagList, string name)
{
string retValue = string.Empty;
if (stateBagList != null)
{
lock(thisLock)
{
foreach (StateBag stateBag in stateBagList)
{
if (stateBag.Name.Equals(name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase))
{
retValue = stateBag.Value;
}
}
}
}
return retValue;
}

Although locking is the right way to go for fixing the original implementation, there might be a better approach altogether which will involve a lot less code and potential bugs.
The following demo console app uses ConcurrentDictionary instead of List, and is fully threadsafe without the need for your own locking logic.
It also offers better performance, as a dictionary lookup is much faster than serially searching a list:
class StateBag
{
public string Name;
public string Value;
}
class Program
{
public static string GetValue(ConcurrentDictionary<string, StateBag> stateBagDict, string name)
{
StateBag match;
return stateBagDict.TryGetValue(name.ToUpperInvariant(), out match) ?
match.Value : string.Empty;
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
var stateBagDict = new ConcurrentDictionary<string, StateBag>();
var stateBag1 = new StateBag { Name = "Test1", Value = "Value1" };
var stateBag2 = new StateBag { Name = "Test2", Value = "Value2" };
stateBagDict[stateBag1.Name.ToUpperInvariant()] = stateBag1;
stateBagDict[stateBag2.Name.ToUpperInvariant()] = stateBag2;
var result = GetValue(stateBagDict, "test1");
Console.WriteLine(result);
}
}

This is happening because some other thread in your application is modifying the stateBagList. There are 2 thing you can do... either use locking around your code block where you refer the stateBagList or you can make a deep copy of stateBagList in GetValues method and then use the new list in your for loop.

As already suggested you need to place a lock around the enumeration.
However that action is only effective if you also lock around the statements that are modifying the collection.
static void A()
{
for (int i = 0; i < 5000; i++)
{
lock(thisLock)
{
_concurrent.Add(new StateBag() { Name = "name" + i, Value = i.ToString() });
}
}
}
Otherwise all you are doing is ensuring that only one thread can enumerate the collection at a time. A single thread or multiple other threads could still be modifying the collection while this single enumeration takes place.
I'd also recommend the following link:
http://www.albahari.com/threading/part2.aspx#_Thread_Safety_and_NET_Framework_Types
Other tips:
It is possible to lock on the collection itself like so:
lock(_concurrent) { //statements}
And the GetValue method can be simplified like so:
public static string GetValue(List<StateBag> stateBagList, string name)
{
if (stateBagList != null)
{
lock (thisLock)
{
return stateBagList.FirstOrDefault
(x => x.Name.Equals(name, StringComparison.InvariantCultureIgnoreCase));
}
}
}
return string.Empty;
}

Replace List with SynchronizedCollection. It is thread-safe collection class.
It does this via locking so that you essentially have a List where every access is wrapped in a lock statement.