We Keep Coding

Is using two lock statements one after another thread safe?

I've been learning about multi-thread programming and working on the dining philosophers problem. I'm trying to cause a deadlock without sleeping any threads. Here is the code snippet that I'm using:
public class Program
{
const int NumberOfPhilosophers = 5;
const int NumberOfForks = 5;
const int EatingTimeInMs = 20;
static object[] forks = new object[NumberOfForks];
static Thread[] philosopherEatingThreads = new Thread[NumberOfPhilosophers];
public static void Main(string[] args)
{
for (int i = 0; i < NumberOfForks; i++)
{
forks[i] = new object();
}
for (int i = 0; i < NumberOfPhilosophers; i++)
{
int philosopherIndex = i;
philosopherEatingThreads[i] = new Thread(() => { DoWork(philosopherIndex); })
{
Name = philosopherIndex.ToString()
};
philosopherEatingThreads[philosopherIndex].Start();
}
}
public static void DoWork(int philosopherIndex)
{
int fork1Index = philosopherIndex;
int fork2Index = (philosopherIndex + 1 ) % NumberOfForks;
var fork1 = forks[fork1Index];
var fork2 = forks[fork2Index];
lock (fork1)
{
lock (fork2)
{
Thread.Sleep(EatingTimeInMs);
}
}
}
}
I wasn't able to see any deadlocks after trying a couple of times. I know that not experiencing a deadlock does not mean that this code is thread-safe.
For example, when I change the lock statement and add latency I cause deadlock.
lock (fork1)
{
Thread.Sleep(10);
lock (fork2)
{
Thread.Sleep(EatingTimeInMs);
}
}
I have two questions:
Is using two lock statements one after another an atomic operation?
If using Thread.Sleep() causes a deadlock in a code snippet, does that mean that the code snippet is not thread-safe?
Thank you!

c# lock not working as expected

This class uses lock and Interlocked.
Both increaseCount.with_lock.Run(); and increaseCount.with_interlock.Run(); prints between 96-100.
I am expecting both of them to print always 100. What did I make mistake?
public static class increaseCount {
public static int counter = 0;
public static readonly object myLock = new object();
public static class with_lock {
public static void Run() {
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
Console.WriteLine(counter); //should print 100
}
static void f() {
lock(myLock) {
counter++;
}
}
}
public static class with_interlock {
public static void Run() {
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for(int i = 0; i < 100; i++) {
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
Console.WriteLine(counter);//should print 100
}
static void f() {
Interlocked.Add(ref counter, 1);
}
}
}

In both cases, you start up your threads but you don't wait for them to complete so you don't reach the 100 before you print the result and the app closes.
If after you start all thread you would wait for all these threads to complete with Thread.Join you would always get the correct result:
List<Thread> pool = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
{
pool.Add(new Thread(f));
}
Parallel.ForEach(pool, x => x.Start());
foreach (var thread in pool)
{
thread.Join();
}
Console.WriteLine(counter);
Note: This seems like a test of some kind, but you should know that blocking multiple threads on a single lock is a huge waste of resources.

I believe it's because your Parallel.Foreach call simply calls start on all the threads in pool but they haven't necessarily completed by the time the loops finished and the Console.WriteLine is called. If you were to insert a Thread.Sleep(5000); // 5s sleep or similar before the Console.WriteLine it would likely always print out what you expect.

Your code is fine. The only problem is your expectation. Basically, not all 100 threads get to run untill the counter is displayed. Try putting a Thread.Sleep(1000) before the Console.WriteLine(counter) and you shall see what I mean.
Edit: wrongly posted as a comment the first time.

How to block new threads until all threads are created and started

I am building a small application simulating a horse race in order to gain some basic skill in working with threads.
My code contains this loop:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
horsesThreads[i].Start(100);
}
In order to keep the race 'fair', I've been looking for a way to make all newly created threads wait until the rest of the new threads are set, and only then launch all of them to start running their methods (Please note that I understand that technically the threads can't be launched at the 'same time')
So basically, I am looking for something like this:
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(horsesTypes[i].Race);
}
Monitor.LaunchThreads(horsesThreads);

Threading does not promise fairness or deterministic results, so it's not a good way to simulate a race.
Having said that, there are some sync objects that might do what you ask. I think the Barrier class (Fx 4+) is what you want.

The Barrier class is designed to support this.
Here's an example:
using System;
using System.Threading;
namespace Demo
{
class Program
{
private void run()
{
int numberOfHorses = 12;
// Use a barrier with a participant count that is one more than the
// the number of threads. The extra one is for the main thread,
// which is used to signal the start of the race.
using (Barrier barrier = new Barrier(numberOfHorses + 1))
{
var horsesThreads = new Thread[numberOfHorses];
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfHorses; i++)
{
int horseNumber = i;
horsesThreads[i] = new Thread(() => runRace(horseNumber, barrier));
horsesThreads[i].Start();
}
Console.WriteLine("Press <RETURN> to start the race!");
Console.ReadLine();
// Signals the start of the race. None of the threads that called
// SignalAndWait() will return from the call until *all* the
// participants have signalled the barrier.
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Race started!");
Console.ReadLine();
}
}
private static void runRace(int horseNumber, Barrier barrier)
{
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " is waiting to start.");
barrier.SignalAndWait();
Console.WriteLine("Horse " + horseNumber + " has started.");
}
private static void Main()
{
new Program().run();
}
}
}
[EDIT] I just noticed that Henk already mentioned Barrier, but I'll leave this answer here because it has some sample code.

I'd be looking at a ManualResetEvent as a gate; inside the Thread, decrement a counter; if it is still non-zero, wait on the gate; otherwise, open the gate. Basically:
using System;
using System.Threading;
class Program
{
static void Main()
{
ManualResetEvent gate = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int numberOfThreads = 10, pending = numberOfThreads;
Thread[] threads = new Thread[numberOfThreads];
ParameterizedThreadStart work = name =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0} approaches the tape", name);
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref pending) == 0)
{
Console.WriteLine("And they're off!");
gate.Set();
}
else gate.WaitOne();
Race();
Console.WriteLine("{0} crosses the line", name);
};
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i] = new Thread(work);
threads[i].Start(i);
}
for (int i = 0; i < numberOfThreads; i++)
{
threads[i].Join();
}
Console.WriteLine("all done");
}
static readonly Random rand = new Random();
static void Race()
{
int time;
lock (rand)
{
time = rand.Next(500,1000);
}
Thread.Sleep(time);
}
}

How wait all thread

I have code, that create 5 threads. I need wait, until all threads finished their work, and after return value. How can I do this?
public static int num=-1;
public int GetValue()
{
Thread t=null;
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
t.Start();
}
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
return num;
}
public void PasswdThread(int i)
{
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
num=r.Next(1000);
}
}
Of course this is not a real code. The actual code is much more complicated, so I simplified it.
P.S. Look carefully. I am not use Task, so I can't use method Wait() or WaitAll(). Also I can't use Join(), because Join wait one thread. If they start wait thread, which already finished they work, the will wait infinity.

Make an array of thread like below and call WaitAll function
List<Thread> threads = new List<Thread>();
Thread thread = null;
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
t.Start();
threads.add(t);
}
Thread.WaitAll(thread);
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
return num;

create a ManualResetEvent handle for each your thread, and then call WaitHandle.WaitAll(handles) in your main thread.
static WaitHandle[] handles = new WaitHandle[5];
`
public void PasswdThread(int i)
{
handles[i] = new ManualResetEvent(false);
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
num=r.Next(1000);
}
handles[i].Set();
}
Get more information on http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/z6w25xa6.aspx

I think you can use Thread.WaitAll(thread_array) or in other case you can also use Thread.Sleep(100)
In Thread.sleep, 100 is number of milliseconds. So in this case thread would sleep for 100 milliseconds.
And in Thread.WaitAll - thread_Array is array of threads that you wanna wait.

As this question is effectively a duplicate, please see this answer, (code copied below, all credit to Reed Copsey.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
int numThreads = 10;
ManualResetEvent resetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int toProcess = numThreads;
// Start workers.
for (int i = 0; i < numThreads; i++)
{
new Thread(delegate()
{
Console.WriteLine(Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
// If we're the last thread, signal
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref toProcess) == 0)
resetEvent.Set();
}).Start();
}
// Wait for workers.
resetEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Finished.");
}
}
Aside
Also note that your PasswdThread code will not produce random numbers. The Random object should be declared statically, outside of your method, to produce random numbers.
Additionally you never use the int i parameter of that method.

I would use TPL for this, imo it's the most up to date technique for handling this sort of synchronization. Given the real life code is probably more complex, I'll rework the example slightly:
public int GetValue()
{
List<Task<int>> tasks = new List<Task<int>>();
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
tasks.Add(PasswdThread(i));
}
Task.WaitAll(tasks);
// You can now query all the tasks:
foreach (int result in tasks.Select(t => t.Result))
{
if (result == 100) // Do something to pick the desired result...
{
return result;
}
}
return -1;
}
public Task<int> PasswdThread(int i)
{
return Task.Factory.StartNew(() => {
Thread.Sleep(1000);
Random r=new Random();
int n=r.Next(10);
if (n==5)
{
return r.Next(1000);
}
return 0;
});
}

Thread t=null;
List<Thread> lst = new List<Thread();
for (int i = 0; i <=5; i++)
{
t = new Thread(() => PasswdThread(i));
lst.Add(t);
t.Start();
}
//how wait all thread, and than return value?
foreach(var item in lst)
{
while(item.IsAlive)
{
Thread.Sleep(5);
}
}
return num;

For loop in many threads

How can I run each call for loop in another thread, but continuation of ExternalMethod should wait to ending of last working thread from for loop (and synchronize) ?
ExternalMethod()
{
//some calculations
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
SomeMethod(i);
}
//continuation ExternalMethod
}

One approach would be to use a ManualResetEvent.
Consider the following code (note that this should not be taken as a working example, stuck on OSX so don't have VS nor a C# compiler to hand to check this over):
static ManualResetEvent mre = new ManualResetEvent(false);
static int DoneCount = 0;
static int DoneRequired = 9;
void ExternalMethod() {
mre.Reset();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++) {
new Thread(new ThreadStart(ThreadVoid)).Start();
}
mre.WaitOne();
}
void ThreadVoid() {
Interlocked.Increment(ref DoneCount);
if (DoneCount == DoneRequired) {
mre.Set();
}
}
IMPORTANT - This possibly isn't the best way to do it, just an example of using ManualResetEvent, and it will suit your needs perfectly fine.
If you're on .NET 4.0 you can use a Parallel.For loop - explained here.

System.Threading.Tasks.Parallel.For(0, 10, (i) => SomeMethod(i));

One approach is to use a CountdownEvent.
ExternalMethod()
{
//some calculations
var finished = new CountdownEvent(1);
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int capture = i; // This is needed to capture the loop variable correctly.
finished.AddCount();
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
(state) =>
{
try
{
SomeMethod(capture);
}
finally
{
finished.Signal();
}
}, null);
}
finished.Signal();
finished.Wait();
//continuation ExternalMethod
}
If CountdownEvent is not available then here is an alternate approach.
ExternalMethod()
{
//some calculations
var finished = new ManualResetEvent(false);
int pending = 1;
for (int i = 0; i < 10; i++)
{
int capture = i; // This is needed to capture the loop variable correctly.
Interlocked.Increment(ref pending);
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(
(state) =>
{
try
{
SomeMethod(capture);
}
finally
{
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref pending) == 0) finished.Set();
}
}, null);
}
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref pending) == 0) finished.Set();
finished.WaitOne();
//continuation ExternalMethod
}
Note that in both examples the for loop itself is treating as a parallel work item (it is on a separate thread from the other work items afterall) to avoid a really subtle race condition that might occur if the first work item signals the event before the next work item is queued.

For .NET 3.5, maybe something like this:
Thread[] threads = new Thread[10];
for (int x = 0; x < 10; x++)
{
threads[x] = new Thread(new ParameterizedThreadStart(ThreadFun));
threads[x].Start(x);
}
foreach (Thread thread in threads) thread.Join();
It may seem counterintuitive to use the Join() method, but since you are effectively doing a WaitAll-type pattern, it doesn't matter what order the joins are executed.