We Keep Coding

Chance of hitting the same function at the same time by two Threads/Tasks

Assuming the following case:
public HashTable map = new HashTable();
public void Cache(String fileName) {
if (!map.ContainsKey(fileName))
{
map.Add(fileName, new Object());
_Cache(fileName);
}
}
}
private void _Cache(String fileName) {
lock (map[fileName])
{
if (File Already Cached)
return;
else {
cache file
}
}
}
When having the following consumers:
Task.Run(()=> {
Cache("A");
});
Task.Run(()=> {
Cache("A");
});
Would it be possible in any ways that the Cache method would throw a Duplicate key exception meaning that both tasks would hit the map.add method and try to add the same key??
Edit:
Would using the following data structure solve this concurrency problem?
public class HashMap<Key, Value>
{
private HashSet<Key> Keys = new HashSet<Key>();
private List<Value> Values = new List<Value>();
public int Count => Keys.Count;
public Boolean Add(Key key, Value value) {
int oldCount = Keys.Count;
Keys.Add(key);
if (oldCount != Keys.Count) {
Values.Add(value);
return true;
}
return false;
}
}

Yes, of course it would be possible. Consider the following fragment:
if (!map.ContainsKey(fileName))
{
map.Add(fileName, new Object());
Thread 1 may execute if (!map.ContainsKey(fileName)) and find that the map does not contain the key, so it will proceed to add it, but before it gets the chance to add it, Thread 2 may also execute if (!map.ContainsKey(fileName)), at which point it will also find that the map does not contain the key, so it will also proceed to add it. Of course, that will fail.
EDIT (after clarifications)
So, the problem seems to be how to keep the main map locked for as little as possible, and how to prevent cached objects from being initialized twice.
This is a complex problem, so I cannot give you a ready-to-run answer that will work, (especially since I do not currently even have a C# development environment handy,) but generally speaking, I think that you should proceed as follows:
Fully guard your map with lock().
Keep your map locked as little as possible; when an object is not found to be in the map, add an empty object to the map and exit the lock immediately. This will ensure that this map will not become a point of contention for all requests coming in to the web server.
After the check-if-present-and-add-if-not fragment, you are holding an object which is guaranteed to be in the map. However, this object may and may not be initialized at this point. That's fine. We will take care of that next.
Repeat the lock-and-check idiom, this time with the cached object: every single incoming request interested in that specific object will need to lock it, check whether it is initialized, and if not, initialize it. Of course, only the first request will suffer the penalty of initialization. Also, any requests that arrive before the object has been fully initialized will have to wait on their lock until the object is initialized. But that's all very fine, that's exactly what you want.

Parallelize / Multi-Thread a singleton object method call

Code Details:
// Singleton class CollectionObject
public class CollectionObject
{
private static CollectionObject instance = null;
// GetInstance() is not called from multiple threads
public static CollectionObject GetInstance()
{
if (CollectionObject.instance == null)
CollectionObject.instance = new CollectionObject();
return CollectionObject.instance;
}
// Dictionary object contains Service ID (int) as key and Service object as the value
// Dictionary is filled up during initiation, before the method call ReadServiceMatrix detailed underneath
public Dictionary<int, Service> serviceCollectionDictionary = new Dictionary<int,Service>();
public Service GetServiceByIDFromDictionary(int servID)
{
if (this.serviceCollectionDictionary.ContainsKey(servID))
return this.serviceCollectionDictionary[servID];
else
return null;
}
}
DataTable serviceMatrix = new DataTable();
// Fill serviceMatrix data table from the database
private int ReadServiceMatrix()
{
// Access the Singleton class object
CollectionObject collectionObject = CollectionObject.GetInstance();
// Parallel processing of the data table rows
Parallel.ForEach<DataRow>(serviceMatrix.AsEnumerable(), row =>
{
//Access Service ID from the Data table
string servIDStr = row["ServID"].ToString().Trim();
// Access other column details for each row of the data table
string currLocIDStr = row["CurrLocId"].ToString().Trim();
string CurrLocLoadFlagStr = row["CurrLocLoadFlag"].ToString().Trim();
string nextLocIDStr = row["NextLocId"].ToString().Trim();
string nextLocBreakFlagStr = row["NextLocBreakFlag"].ToString().Trim();
string seqStr = row["Seq"].ToString().Trim();
int servID = Int32.Parse(servIDStr);
int currLocID = Int32.Parse(currLocIDStr);
int nextLocID = Int32.Parse(nextLocIDStr);
bool nextLocBreakFlag = Int32.Parse(nextLocBreakFlagStr) > 0 ? true : false;
bool currLocBreakFlag = Int32.Parse(CurrLocLoadFlagStr) > 0 ? true : false;
int seq = Int32.Parse(seqStr);
// Method call leading to the issue (definition in Collection Object class)
// Fetch service object using the Service ID from the DB
Service service = collectionObject.GetServiceByIDFromDictionary(servID);
// Call a Service class method
service.InitLanes.Add(new Service.LaneNode(currLoc.SequentialID, currLocBreakFlag, nextLoc.SequentialID, nextLocBreakFlag, seq));
}
Issue that happens is:
In the code above for all the Service objects in the dictionary, the subsequent method call is not made, leading to issues in further processing. It has to o with fetching the Service object from the dictionary in parallel mode
The db an dictionary contains all the Ids /Service objects, but my understanding is when processing in Parallel mode for the Singleton class, few of the objects are skipped leading to the issue.
In my understanding the service id passed and service object created is local to a thread, so there shouldn't be an issue that I am facing. This kind of issue is only possible, when for a given method call one thread replace service id value of another thread by its, thus both end up with Service object and few are thus skipped, which is strange in my view until and unless I do not understand the Multi threading in this case correctly
Currently I am able to run the same code in non threaded mode by using the foreach loop instead of Parallel.ForEach / Parallel.Invoke
Please review and let me know your view or any pointer that can help me resolve the issue

In my understanding the service id passed and service object created
is local to a thread
Your understanding is incorrect, if two threads request the same service id the two threads will be both working on the same singular object. If you wanted separate objects you would need to put some kind of new Service() call in GetServiceByIDFromDictionary instead of a dictionary of existing values.
Because multiple threads could be using the same service objects I think your problem lies from the fact that service.InitLanes.Add is likely not thread safe.
The easiest fix is to just lock on that single step
//...SNIP...
Service service = collectionObject.GetServiceByIDFromDictionary(servID);
// Call a Service class method, only let one thread do it for this specific service instance,
// other threads locking on other instances will not block, only other threads using the same instance will block
lock(service)
{
service.InitLanes.Add(new Service.LaneNode(currLoc.SequentialID, currLocBreakFlag, nextLoc.SequentialID, nextLocBreakFlag, seq));
}
}
This assumes that this Parallel.Foreach is the only location collectionObject.GetServiceByIDFromDictionary is used concurrently. If it is not, any other locations that could potentially be calling any methods on returned services must also lock on service.
However if Service is under your control and you can somehow modify service.InitLanes.Add to be thread safe (perhaps change InitLanes out with a thread safe collection from the System.Collections.Concurrent namespace) that would be a better solution than locking.

1.Implementing singleton always think about using of it in mulithreaded way. Always use multithreaded singleton pattern variant, one of them - lazy singleton. Use Lazy singleton using System.Lazy with appropriate LazyThreadSafeMode consturctor argument:
public class LazySingleton3
{
// static holder for instance, need to use lambda to enter code here
//construct since constructor private
private static readonly Lazy<LazySingleton3> _instance
= new Lazy<LazySingleton3>(() => new LazySingleton3(),
LazyThreadSafeMode.PublicationOnly);
// private to prevent direct instantiation.
private LazySingleton3()
{
}
// accessor for instance
public static LazySingleton3 Instance
{
get
{
return _instance.Value;
}
}
}
Read about it here
2.Use lock-ing of your service variable in parallel loop body
// Method call leading to the issue (definition in Collection Object class)
// Fetch service object using the Service ID from the DB
Service service = collectionObject.GetServiceByIDFromDictionary(servID);
lock (service)
{
// Call a Service class method
service.InitLanes.Add(new Service.LaneNode(currLoc.SequentialID,
currLocBreakFlag, nextLoc.SequentialID,
nextLocBreakFlag, seq));
}
3.Consider to use multithreading here. Using lock-ing code make your code not so perfomant as synchronous. So make sure you multithreaded/paralelised code gives you advantages
4.Use appropriate concurrent collections instead of reinventing wheel - System.Collections.Concurrent Namespace

LINQ To SQL Thread Safety

I want to ask whether the following code is thread safe:
Consider that Save1 and Save2 will be executed concurrently. Is there any problem with the thread safety of the datacontext?
public class Test1()
{
private void Save1()
{
using(TestLinqToSQL obj = new TestLinqToSQL())
{
obj.SaveRecord(new Client (){Id = 1, Name = "John Doe");
}
}
private void Save2()
{
using(TestLinqToSQL obj = new TestLinqToSQL())
{
obj.SaveRecord(new Client (){Id = 2, Name = "Mike Tyson");
}
}
}
public class TestLinqToSQL : IDisposable
{
public void SaveRecord(Client newClient)
{
using(ClientDatacontext cont = new ClientDatacontext())
{
cont.InsertRecord(newClient);
}
}
}
Thanks in advance

In this case, no it is not a problem as each thread will get a separate DataContext instance since each method results in a new one being created. You would have a problem if the DataContext was shared between threads as the instance methods are not thread safe see MSDN

Thread safe doesn't really mean anything without context. You need to be much more detailed about what you would consider acceptable and unacceptable. In your specific case, because you have a separate data context for each method, you don't need to worry about one of the inserts being "in the middle of" another insert, or in some other way causing one of them to fail entirely as a result of unsynchronized access to a shared resource (that would potentially be a problem if the data context was shared between threads).
However, the order of the inserts is entirely indeterminate. If the order of those operations matters then it's "not thread safe".
Additionally, if you were performing multiple operations that comprised a "transaction" it may or may not be "thread safe' depending on how you define thread safe. If each method were inserting 5 items you couldn't be sure that all five inserts were either before or after the other method's inserts (unless you explicitly added a lock to ensure that).

C# usage of lock() statements and caching of data

I have a number of static List's in my application, which are used to store data from my database and are used when looking up information:
public static IList<string> Names;
I also have some methods to refresh this data from the database:
public static void GetNames()
{
SQLEngine sql = new SQLEngine(ConnectionString);
lock (Names)
{
Names = sql.GetDataTable("SELECT * FROM Names").ToList<string>();
}
}
I initially didnt have the lock() in place, however i noticed very occasionally, the requesting thread couldnt find the information in the list. Now, I am assuming that if the requesting thread tries to access the Names list, it cant until it has been fully updated.
Is this the correct methodology and usage of the lock() statement?
As a sidenote, i noticed on MSDN that one shouldnt use lock() on public variables. Could someone please elaborate in my particular scenario?

lock is only useful if all places intended to be synchronized also apply the lock. So every time you access Names you would be required to lock. At the moment, that only stops 2 threads swapping Names at the same time, which frankly isn't a problem here anyway, as reference swaps are atomic anyway.
Another problem; presumably Names starts off null? You can't lock a null. Equally, you shouldn't lock on something that may change reference. If you want to synchronize, a common approach is something like:
// do not use for your scenario - see below
private static readonly object lockObj = new object();
then lock(lockObj) instead of your data.
With regards to not locking things that are visible externally; yes. That is because some other code could randomly choose to lock on it, which could cause unexpected blocking, and quite possibly deadlocks.
The other big risk is that some of your code obtains the names, and then does a sort/add/remove/clear/etc - anything that mutates the data. Personally, I would be using a read-only list here. In fact, with a read-only list, all you have is a reference swap; since that is atomic, you don't need any locking:
public static IList<string> Names { get; private set; }
public static void UpdateNames() {
List<string> tmp = SomeSqlQuery();
Names = tmp.AsReadOnly();
}
And finally: public fields are very very rarely a good idea. Hence the property above. This will be inlined by the JIT, so it is not a penalty.

No, it's not correct since anyone can use the Names property directly.
public class SomeClass
{
private List<string> _names;
private object _namesLock = new object();
public IEnumerable<string> Names
{
get
{
if (_names == null)
{
lock (_namesLock )
{
if (_names == null)
_names = GetNames();
}
}
return _names;
}
}
public void UpdateNames()
{
lock (_namesLock)
GetNames();
}
private void GetNames()
{
SQLEngine sql = new SQLEngine(ConnectionString);
_names = sql.GetDataTable("SELECT * FROM Names").ToList<string>();
}
}
Try to avoid static methods. At least use a singleton.
The check, lock, check is faster than a lock, check since the write will only occur once.
Assigning a property on usage is called lazy loading.
The _namesLock is required since you can't lock on null.

From the oode you have shown, the first time GetNames() is called the Names property is null. I don't known what a lock on a null object would do. I would add a variable to lock on.
static object namesLock = new object();
Then in GetNames()
lock (namesLock)
{
if (Names == null)
Names = ...;
}
We do the if test inside of the lock() to stop race conditions. I'm assuming that the caller of GetNames() also does the same test.

Preventing Subsequent Invoke requirements within cross-thread invokes

I've got a cross thread invoke going on, and the invoke works fine, however I have found that all subsequent function calls need to be invoked aswell, otherwise it throws exceptions, how do I go about either modifiying my invoke command, or through some other solution, fix this?
This is my current invoker:
foreach (chat_window oc in open_chats)
{
if (oc.Name == friend)
{
string updmsg = msg.Substring(msg.IndexOf('\n')).Trim();
string[] argNames = new string[2];
argNames[0] = friend;
argNames[1] = updmsg;
Type t = oc.GetType();
t.InvokeMember("updateChat",
System.Reflection.BindingFlags.InvokeMethod, null, oc, argNames);
}
}
Thanks in advance, Psy

I assmue that chat_window is some WinForms object derived from Control?
If so then you probably want to use Control.Invoke/Control.BeginInvoke in order to marshall the call back to the UI thread.
oc.Invoke(oc.updateChat, argNames);