According to article class below is not thread safe:
I have code which gets into lock while according to my understanding has different synchronization content:
[Synchronization]
public class Deadlock : ContextBoundObject
{
public DeadLock Other;
public void Demo() { Thread.Sleep (1000); Other.Hello(); }
void Hello() { Console.WriteLine ("hello"); }
}
public class Test
{
static void Main()
{
Deadlock dead1 = new Deadlock();
Deadlock dead2 = new Deadlock();
dead1.Other = dead2;
dead2.Other = dead1;
new Thread (dead1.Demo).Start();
dead2.Demo();
}
}
It does and it is fine. But I decided to play with synchronization attributes by setting:
[Synchronization(SynchronizationAttribute.SUPPORTED)]
SUPPORTED means :
Joins the existing synchronization context if instantiated from
another synchronized object, otherwise remains unsynchronized
Since console application has no synchronization content I expect both object will have no synchronization object and should not get into deadlock. But I still have deadlock. Why?
Further have removed [Synchronization] attribute at all. Still have deadlock. What influence makes [Synchronization] attribute to object?
Here you are creating circular dependency between thread , that might lead you to stackoverflow exception , as you are not catching excpetion here you are might not able to view it. I suggest you make use of UnObservedExcpetion handler that will give you excpetion or try to handle excpetion in that same function by putting try, catch block.
To avoid this kind of situation you better make use of AutoResetEvent. below is sample code for the same.
public class MyThreadTest
{
static readonly AutoResetEvent thread1Step = new AutoResetEvent(false);
static readonly AutoResetEvent thread2Step = new AutoResetEvent(true);
void DisplayThread1()
{
while (true)
{
thread2Step.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Display Thread 1");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
thread1Step.Set();
}
}
void DisplayThread2()
{
while (true)
{
thread1Step.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Display Thread 2");
Thread.Sleep(1000);
thread2Step.Set();
}
}
void CreateThreads()
{
// construct two threads for our demonstration;
Thread thread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DisplayThread1));
Thread thread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(DisplayThread2));
// start them
thread1.Start();
thread2.Start();
}
public static void Main()
{
MyThreadTest StartMultiThreads = new MyThreadTest();
StartMultiThreads.CreateThreads();
}
}
Related
I have the below code and certainly I have a deadlock using Threads, but why not happens with tasks?
private static object lockObject1 = new object();
private static object lockObject2 = new object();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
Console.Title = "Deadlocks";
//Using tasks.
Task ourTask1 = new Task(SingleMethod_A);
ourTask1.Start();
Task ourTask2 = new Task(SingleMethod_B);
ourTask2.Start();
//Using threads.
//Thread ourThread1 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(SingleMethod_A));
//Thread ourThread2 = new Thread(new ThreadStart(SingleMethod_B));
//ourThread1.Start();
//ourThread2.Start();
Console.WriteLine("Deadlock");
}
public static void SingleMethod_A()
{
lock (lockObject1)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock (lockObject2)
{
Console.WriteLine("not possible.");
}
}
}
public static void SingleMethod_B()
{
lock (lockObject2)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
lock (lockObject1)
{
Console.WriteLine("not possible.");
}
}
}
Tasks can certainly dead lock. It is also important to keep in mind that Tasks aren't threads - they may run on one from the thread pool.
Why you aren't seeing it is because your case is a trivial example and .Start doesn't have to use separate threads. Try changing your calls to start to Task.Run(action) instead to see the deadlock:
Task.Run(() => SingleMethod_A());
Task.Run(() => SingleMethod_B());
Is this possible to lock method for one thread and force another to go futher rather than waiting until first thread finish? Can this problem be resolved with static thread or some proper pattern with one instance of mendtioned below service.
For presentation purposes, it can be done with static boolen like below.
public class SomeService
{
private readonly IRepository _repo;
public SomeService(IRepository repo)
{
_repo = repo;
}
private Thread threadOne;
public static bool isLocked { get; set; }
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if(!isLocked)
{
threadOne = new Thread(SomeMethod);
isLocked = true;
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
while(true)
{
lots of time
}
...
isLocked = false;
}
}
I want to avoid situation when user clicked, by accident, two times to start and accidentailly second thread starts immediatelly after first finished.
You can use lock :)
object locker = new object();
void MethodToLockForAThread()
{
lock(locker)
{
//put method body here
}
}
Now the result will be that when this method is called by a thread (any thread) it puts something like flag at the beginning of lock: "STOP! You are not allowed to go any further, you must wait!" Like red light on crossroads.
When thread that called this method first, levaes the scope, then at the beginning of the scope this "red light" changes into green.
If you want to not call the method when it is already called by another thread, the only way to do this is by using bool value. For example:
object locker = new object();
bool canAccess = true;
void MethodToLockForAThread()
{
if(!canAccess)
return;
lock(locker)
{
if(!canAccess)
return;
canAccess = false;
//put method body here
canAccess = true;
}
}
Other check of canAccess in lock scope is because of what has been told on comments. No it's really thread safe. This is kind of protection that is advisible in thread safe singleton.
EDIT
After some discussion with mjwills I have to change my mind and turn more into Monitor.TryEnter. You can use it like that:
object locker = new object();
void ThreadMethod()
{
if(Monitor.TryEnter(locker, TimeSpan.FromMiliseconds(1))
{
try
{
//do the thread code
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(locker);
}
} else
return; //means that the lock has not been aquired
}
Now, lock could not be aquired because of some exception or because some other thread has already acuired it. In second parameter you can pass the time that a thread will wait to acquire a lock. I gave here short time because you don't want the other thread to do the job, when first is doing it.
So this solution seems the best.
When the other thread could not acquire the lock, it will go further instead of waiting (well it will wait for 1 milisecond).
Since lock is a language-specific wrapper around Monitor class, you need Monitor.TryEnter:
public class SomeService
{
private readonly object lockObject = new object();
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if (Monitor.TryEnter(lockObject))
{
// start new thread
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
try
{
// ...
}
finally
{
Monitor.Exit(lockObject);
}
}
}
You can use a AutoResetEvent instead of your isLocked flag.
AutoResetEvent autoResetEvent = new AutoResetEvent(true);
public void StartSomeMethod()
{
if(autoResetEvent.WaitOne(0))
{
//start thread
}
}
public void SomeMethod()
{
try
{
//Do your work
}
finally
{
autoResetEvent.Set();
}
}
I have multi-threaded application, where different threads may want to perform an operation. I tried to use Mutex to make sure, that thread does not start an operation if it is already running.
System.Threading.Mutex mutex;
bool isRunning = System.Threading.Mutex.TryOpenExisting(name, out mutex);
if (!isRunning)
{
RunMethod();
}
within method I created mutex, and try to release it at the end:
var mutex = new Mutex(true, name);
try{
//do stuff, it takes some time
}
finally
{
//TODO: I want to get rid of Mutex here
}
How do I get rid of mutex? Because even after I called mutex.ReleaseMutex() and mutex.Close(), it still exists and can be found. How can I inform that operation is currently running or finished?
Is there another way to do this?
Same, like CodingGorilla said, using events is easier.
I hope I understand your question well.
This example shows some events techniques:
Waiting for a thread has been started.
The use of waiting on multiple events (WaitHandle.WaitAny())
How to terminate a thread, safe.
Testing an event state without waiting (.WaitOne(0))
Here is an example:
public class MultiThreadedExample : IDisposable
{
private Thread _thread;
private ManualResetEvent _terminatingEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private ManualResetEvent _runningEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private ManualResetEvent _threadStartedEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public MultiThreadedExample()
{
_thread = new Thread(MyThreadMethod);
_thread.Start();
_threadStartedEvent.WaitOne();
}
private void MyThreadMethod()
{
_threadStartedEvent.Set();
var events = new WaitHandle[] { _terminatingEvent, _runningEvent };
while (WaitHandle.WaitAny(events) != 0) // <- WaitAny returns index within the array of the event that was Set.
{
try
{
// do work......
}
finally
{
// reset the event. so it can be triggered again.
_runningEvent.Reset();
}
}
}
public bool TryStartWork()
{
// .Set() will return if the event was set.
return _runningEvent.Set();
}
public bool IsRunning
{
get { return _runningEvent.WaitOne(0); }
}
public void Dispose()
{
// break the whileloop
_terminatingEvent.Set();
// wait for the thread to terminate.
_thread.Join();
}
}
I have a service running some different tasks in a loop until the service is stopped.
However one of these tasks i calling a web service and this call can take several minutes to complete. I want to be able to stop the service instantly, 'cancelling' the web service call without calling Thread.Abort because that causes some strange behavior even if the only thing the thread is doing is calling this web service method.
How can i cancel or break from a synchronous method call (if it's even possible)?
Or should I try a different approach?
I have tried to use the AutoResetEvent and then calling Thread.Abort which is working fine in the below code sample, but when implementing this solution in the actual service I get some unexpected behavior probably because of what's going on in the external libraries I'm using.
AutoResetEvent and Thread.Abort:
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
MainProgram p = new MainProgram();
p.Start();
var key = Console.ReadKey();
if (key.Key == ConsoleKey.Q)
p.Stop();
}
}
class MainProgram
{
private Thread workerThread;
private Thread webServiceCallerThread;
private volatile bool doWork;
public void Start()
{
workerThread = new Thread(() => DoWork());
doWork = true;
workerThread.Start();
}
public void Stop()
{
doWork = false;
webServiceCallerThread.Abort();
}
private void DoWork()
{
try
{
while (doWork)
{
AutoResetEvent are = new AutoResetEvent(false);
WebServiceCaller caller = new WebServiceCaller(are);
webServiceCallerThread = new Thread(() => caller.TimeConsumingMethod());
webServiceCallerThread.Start();
// Wait for the WebServiceCaller.TimeConsumingMethod to finish
WaitHandle.WaitAll(new[] { are });
// If doWork has been signalled to stop
if (!doWork)
break;
// All good - continue
Console.WriteLine(caller.Result);
}
}
catch (Exception e)
{
Console.Write(e);
}
}
}
class WebServiceCaller
{
private AutoResetEvent ev;
private int result;
public int Result
{
get { return result; }
}
public WebServiceCaller(AutoResetEvent ev)
{
this.ev = ev;
}
public void TimeConsumingMethod()
{
try
{
// Simulates a method running for 1 minute
Thread.Sleep(60000);
result = 1;
ev.Set();
}
catch (ThreadAbortException e)
{
ev.Set();
result = -1;
Console.WriteLine(e);
}
}
}
Can someone suggest a solution to this issue?
Try this
public void Start()
{
workerThread = new Thread(() => DoWork());
doWork = true;
workerThread.IsBackground = true;
workerThread.Start();
}
A thread is either a background thread or a foreground thread.
Background threads are identical to foreground threads, except that
background threads do not prevent a process from terminating. Once all
foreground threads belonging to a process have terminated, the common
language runtime ends the process. Any remaining background threads
are stopped and do not complete.
For more details see http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/system.threading.thread.isbackground.aspx
The solution is really this simple: Don't make calls that block for several minutes unless you want to block for several minutes. If there is no way to do a particular thing without blocking, potentially for several minutes, complain loudly to whoever wrote the code that imposes that painful requirement (or fix it yourself, if possible).
Once you've made the call, it's too late. You're committed. If the function you are calling doesn't provide a safe way to abort it, then there's no safe way.
As all you want to do is make one an asynchonrous web service call at a time and on each response make another call you can dispense with the worker thread and simply make an aynchronous call, register a callback and make another async call from the callback:
class Program
{
private static WebServiceCaller.TCMDelegate _wscDelegate;
private static readonly WebServiceCaller _wsCaller = new WebServiceCaller();
static void Main(string[] args)
{
_wscDelegate = _wsCaller.TimeConsumingMethod;
MakeWSCallAsync();
Console.WriteLine("Enter Q to quit");
while (Console.ReadLine().ToUpper().Trim()!="Q"){}
}
public static void MakeWSCallAsync()
{
_wscDelegate.BeginInvoke(OnWSCallComplete, null);
}
public static void OnWSCallComplete(IAsyncResult ar)
{
Console.WriteLine("Result {0}", _wscDelegate.EndInvoke(ar));
MakeWSCallAsync();
}
}
class WebServiceCaller
{
public delegate int TCMDelegate();
public int TimeConsumingMethod()
{
try
{
// Simulates a method running for 1 minute
Thread.Sleep(1000);
return 1;
}
catch (ThreadAbortException e)
{
return -1;
}
}
}
No blocking (well, the console thread is blocking on ReadLine()) and no windows kernal mode sync objects (AutoResetEvent) which are expensive.
Shouldn't the Log method block?
namespace Sandbox {
class Program {
static void Main(string[] args) {
var log = new Logger();
lock (log) {
log.Log("Hello World!");
}
}
}
public class Logger {
public void Log(string message) {
lock (this) {
Console.WriteLine(message);
}
}
}
}
The same thread is acquiring the same lock twice. This works because .NET supports so-called recursive locks (aka reentrant mutexes).
If a resource is locked by a thread, that thread is allowed in, even if it already owns a lock on it. The same is true for this
Object obj = new Object();
lock(obj) {
lock(obj) {
foo();
}
}
Would lock out if you couldn't get through by virtue of being the same thread.
Simple - you are running in a single thread.