We Keep Coding

C# await on a List<T> Count

I am upgrading some legacy WinForms code and I am trying to figure out what the "right way" as of .NET 4.6.1 to refactor the following.
The current code is doing a tight while(true) loop while checking a bool property. This property puts a lock() on a generic List<T> and then returns true if it has no items (list.Count == 0).
The loop has the dreaded Application.DoEvents() in it to make sure the message pump continues processing, otherwise it would lock up the application.
Clearly, this needs to go.
My confusion is how to start a basic refactoring where it still can check the queue length, while executing on a thread and not blowing out the CPU for no reason. A delay between checks here is fine, even a "long" one like 100ms+.
I was going to go with an approach that makes the method async and lets a Task run to do the check:
await Task.Run(() => KeepCheckingTheQueue());
Of course, this keeps me in the situation of the method needing to ... loop to check the state of the queue.
Between the waiting, awaiting, and various other methods that can be used to move this stuff to the thread pool ... any suggestion on how best to handle this?

What I need is how to best "poll' a boolean member (or property) while freeing the UI, without the DoEvents().
The answer you're asking for:
private async Task WaitUntilAsync(Func<bool> func)
{
while (!func())
await Task.Delay(100);
}
await WaitUntilAsync(() => list.Count == 0);
However, polling like this is a really poor approach. If you can describe the actual problem your code is solving, then you can get better solutions.
For example, if the list represents some queue of work, and your code is wanting to asynchronously wait until it's done, then this can be better coded using an explicit signal (e.g., TaskCompletionSource<T>) or a true producer/consumer queue (e.g., TPL Dataflow).

It's generally never a good idea for client code to worry about locking a collection (or sprinkling your code with lock() blocks everywhere) before querying it. Best to encapsulate that complexity out.
Instead I recommend using one of the .NET concurrent collections such as ConcurrentBag. No need for creating a Task which is somewhat expensive.
If your collection does not change much you might want to consider one of the immutable thread-safe collections such as ImmutableList<>.
EDIT: Upon reading your comments I suggest you use a WinForms Timer; OnApplicationIdle or BackgroundWorker. The problem with async is that you still need to periodically call it. Using a timer or app idle callback offers the benefit of using the GUI thread.

Depending on the use case, you could start a background thread or a background worker. Or maybe even a timer.
Those are executed in a different thread, and are therefore not locking the execution of your other form related code. Invoke the original thread if you have to perform actions on the UI thread.
I would also recommend to prevent locking as much as possible, for example by doing a check before actually locking:
if (list.Count == 0)
{
lock (lockObject)
{
if (list.Count == 0)
{
// execute your code here
}
}
}
That way you are only locking if you really need to and you avoid unnecessary blocking of your application.

I think what you're after here is the ability to await Task.Yield().
class TheThing {
private readonly List<int> _myList = new List<int>();
public async Task WaitForItToNotBeEmpty() {
bool hadItems;
do {
await Task.Yield();
lock (_myList) // Other answers have touched upon this locking concern
hadItems = _myList.Count != 0;
} while (!hadItems);
}
// ...
}

Can I use BlockingCollection for a network packet caching system?

I'm trying to implement a packet producer-consumer behavior by using a BlockingCollection, but I am having trouble understanding the documentation on it. From what I can tell, since apparently there is no guarantee that I can remove anything at all, the system would be too slow to be useful for performance-critical things like receiving and processing packets. The reason I need this is because the thread that receives packets is not the same thread that processes them. Am I missing something, or do I need to take another approach?
Example Code:
public BlockingCollection<byte[]> unprocessedPackets = new BlockingCollection<byte[]>();
public void Producer()
{
...Recieve packets...
unprocessedPackets.Add(packet);
}
public void Consumer(){
while(true)
{
byte[] packet = unprocessedPackets.Take();
...If i took something, process it.
}
}

That's how BlockingCollection<T> works. If and when taking an element from the collection blocks, it's because there's nothing to take. The only "slowness" is in the I/O producing items for the collection.
Note that you can pass a timeout value to the TryTake() method, which will cause it to wait that length of time before giving up. But if you use the TryTake(out T item) overload (i.e. the one without a timeout), it will return immediately if there's nothing to take.
More typical would be a consumer thread that does nothing but retrieve items for processing. In this case, the Take() method or the GetConsumingEnumerable() method are more appropriate. Both will block indefinitely until there's an item available to take. I prefer the latter; it provides a very nice, usable mechanism both for consuming the collection, and for terminating the consumer when you know there's nothing left (i.e. the CompleteAdding() method is called by the producing code).

BlockingCollection Max Size

I understand that BlockingCollection using ConcurrentQueue has a boundedcapacity of 100.
However I'm unsure as to what that means.
I'm trying to achieve a concurrent cache which, can dequeue, can deque/enque in one operation if the queue size is too large, (i.e. loose messages when the cache overflows). Is there a way to use boundedcapacity for this or is it better to manually do this or create a new collection.
Basically I have a reading thread and several writing threads. I would like it if the data in the queue is the "freshest" of all the writers.

A bounded capacity of N means that if the queue already contains N items, any thread attempting to add another item will block until a different thread removes an item.
What you seem to want is a different concept - you want most recently added item to be the first item that is dequeued by the consuming thread.
You can achieve that by using a ConcurrentStack rather than a ConcurrentQueue for the underlying store.
You would use this constructor and pass in a ConcurrentStack.
For example:
var blockingCollection = new BlockingCollection<int>(new ConcurrentStack<int>());
By using ConcurrentStack, you ensure that each item that the consuming thread dequeues will be the freshest item in the queue at that time.
Also note that if you specify an upper bound for the blocking collection, you can use BlockingCollection.TryAdd() which will return false if the collection was full at the time you called it.

It sounds to me like you're trying to build something like an MRU (most recently used) cache. BlockingCollection is not the best way to do that.
I would suggest instead that you use a LinkedList. It's not thread-safe, so you'll have to provide your own synchronization, but that's not too tough. Your enqueue method looks like this:
LinkedList<MyType> TheQueue = new LinkedList<MyType>();
object listLock = new object();
void Enqueue(MyType item)
{
lock (listLock)
{
TheQueue.AddFirst(item);
while (TheQueue.Count > MaxQueueSize)
{
// Queue overflow. Reduce to max size.
TheQueue.RemoveLast();
}
}
}
And dequeue is even easier:
MyType Dequeue()
{
lock (listLock)
{
return (TheQueue.Count > 0) ? TheQueue.RemoveLast() : null;
}
}
It's a little more involved if you want the consumers to do non-busy waits on the queue. You can do it with Monitor.Wait and Monitor.Pulse. See the example on the Monitor.Pulse page for an example.
Update:
It occurs to me that you could do the same thing with a circular buffer (an array). Just maintain head and tail pointers. You insert at head and remove at tail. If you go to insert, and head == tail, then you need to increment tail, which effectively removes the previous tail item.

If you want a custom BlockingCollection that holds the N most recent elements, and drops the oldest elements when it's full, you could create one quite easily based on a Channel<T>. The Channels are intended to be used in asynchronous scenarios, but making them block the consumer is trivial and should not cause any unwanted side-effects (like deadlocks), even if used in an environment with a SynchronizationContext installed.
public class MostRecentBlockingCollection<T>
{
private readonly Channel<T> _channel;
public MostRecentBlockingCollection(int capacity)
{
_channel = Channel.CreateBounded<T>(new BoundedChannelOptions(capacity)
{
FullMode = BoundedChannelFullMode.DropOldest,
});
}
public bool IsCompleted => _channel.Reader.Completion.IsCompleted;
public void Add(T item)
=> _channel.Writer.WriteAsync(item).AsTask().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
public T Take()
=> _channel.Reader.ReadAsync().AsTask().GetAwaiter().GetResult();
public void CompleteAdding() => _channel.Writer.Complete();
public IEnumerable<T> GetConsumingEnumerable()
{
while (_channel.Reader.WaitToReadAsync().AsTask().GetAwaiter().GetResult())
while (_channel.Reader.TryRead(out var item))
yield return item;
}
}
The MostRecentBlockingCollection class blocks only the consumer. The producer can always add items in the collection, causing (potentially) some previously added elements to be dropped.
Adding cancellation support should be straightforward, since the Channel<T> API already supports it. Adding support for timeout is less trivial, but shouldn't be very difficult to do.

Is this use of the generic List thread safe

I have a System.Collections.Generic.List<T> to which I only ever add items in a timer callback. The timer is restarted only after the operation completes.
I have a System.Collections.Concurrent.ConcurrentQueue<T> which stores indices of added items in the list above. This store operation is also always performed in the same timer callback described above.
Is a read operation that iterates the queue and accesses the corresponding items in the list thread safe?
Sample code:
private List<Object> items;
private ConcurrentQueue<int> queue;
private Timer timer;
private void callback(object state)
{
int index = items.Count;
items.Add(new object());
if (true)//some condition here
queue.Enqueue(index);
timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1));
}
//This can be called from any thread
public IEnumerable<object> AccessItems()
{
foreach (var index in queue)
{
yield return items[index];
}
}
My understanding:
Even if the list is resized when it is being indexed, I am only accessing an item that already exists, so it does not matter whether it is read from the old array or the new array. Hence this should be thread-safe.

Is a read operation that iterates the queue and accesses the corresponding items in the list thread safe?
Is it documented as being thread safe?
If no, then it is foolish to treat it as thread safe, even if it is in this implementation by accident. Thread safety should be by design.
Sharing memory across threads is a bad idea in the first place; if you don't do it then you don't have to ask whether the operation is thread safe.
If you have to do it then use a collection designed for shared memory access.
If you can't do that then use a lock. Locks are cheap if uncontended.
If you have a performance problem because your locks are contended all the time then fix that problem by changing your threading architecture rather than trying to do dangerous and foolish things like low-lock code. No one writes low-lock code correctly except for a handful of experts. (I am not one of them; I don't write low-lock code either.)
Even if the list is resized when it is being indexed, I am only accessing an item that already exists, so it does not matter whether it is read from the old array or the new array.
That's the wrong way to think about it. The right way to think about it is:
If the list is resized then the list's internal data structures are being mutated. It is possible that the internal data structure is mutated into an inconsistent form halfway through the mutation, that will be made consistent by the time the mutation is finished. Therefore my reader can see this inconsistent state from another thread, which makes the behaviour of my entire program unpredictable. It could crash, it could go into an infinite loop, it could corrupt other data structures, I don't know, because I'm running code that assumes a consistent state in a world with inconsistent state.

Big edit
The ConcurrentQueue is only safe with regard to the Enqueue(T) and T Dequeue() operations.
You're doing a foreach on it and that doesn't get synchronized at the required level.
The biggest problem in your particular case is the fact the enumerating of the Queue (which is a Collection in it's own right) might throw the wellknown "Collection has been modified" exception. Why is that the biggest problem ? Because you are adding things to the queue after you've added the corresponding objects to the list (there's also a great need for the List to be synchronized but that + the biggest problem get solved with just one "bullet"). While enumerating a collection it is not easy to swallow the fact that another thread is modifying it (even if on a microscopic level the modification is a safe - ConcurrentQueue does just that).
Therefore you absolutely need synchronize the access to the queues (and the central List while you're at it) using another means of synchronization (and by that I mean you can also forget abount ConcurrentQueue and use a simple Queue or even a List since you never Dequeue things).
So just do something like:
public void Writer(object toWrite) {
this.rwLock.EnterWriteLock();
try {
int tailIndex = this.list.Count;
this.list.Add(toWrite);
if (..condition1..)
this.queue1.Enqueue(tailIndex);
if (..condition2..)
this.queue2.Enqueue(tailIndex);
if (..condition3..)
this.queue3.Enqueue(tailIndex);
..etc..
} finally {
this.rwLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
and in the AccessItems:
public IEnumerable<object> AccessItems(int queueIndex) {
Queue<object> whichQueue = null;
switch (queueIndex) {
case 1: whichQueue = this.queue1; break;
case 2: whichQueue = this.queue2; break;
case 3: whichQueue = this.queue3; break;
..etc..
default: throw new NotSupportedException("Invalid queue disambiguating params");
}
List<object> results = new List<object>();
this.rwLock.EnterReadLock();
try {
foreach (var index in whichQueue)
results.Add(this.list[index]);
} finally {
this.rwLock.ExitReadLock();
}
return results;
}
And, based on my entire understanding of the cases in which your app accesses the List and the various Queues, it should be 100% safe.
End of big edit
First of all: What is this thing you call Thread-Safe ? by Eric Lippert
In your particular case, I guess the answer is no.
It is not the case that inconsistencies might arrise in the global context (the actual list).
Instead it is possible that the actual readers (who might very well "collide" with the unique writer) end up with inconsistencies in themselves (their very own Stacks meaning: local variables of all methods, parameters and also their logically isolated portion of the heap)).
The possibility of such "per-Thread" inconsistencies (the Nth thread wants to learn the number of elements in the List and finds out that value is 39404999 although in reality you only added 3 values) is enough to declare that, generally speaking that architecture is not thread-safe ( although you don't actually change the globally accessible List, simply by reading it in a flawed manner ).
I suggest you use the ReaderWriterLockSlim class.
I think you will find it fits your needs:
private ReaderWriterLockSlim rwLock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim(LockRecursionPolicy.SupportsRecursion);
private List<Object> items;
private ConcurrentQueue<int> queue;
private Timer timer;
private void callback(object state)
{
int index = items.Count;
this.rwLock.EnterWriteLock();
try {
// in this place, right here, there can be only ONE writer
// and while the writer is between EnterWriteLock and ExitWriteLock
// there can exist no readers in the following method (between EnterReadLock
// and ExitReadLock)
// we add the item to the List
// AND do the enqueue "atomically" (as loose a term as thread-safe)
items.Add(new object());
if (true)//some condition here
queue.Enqueue(index);
} finally {
this.rwLock.ExitWriteLock();
}
timer.Change(TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(500), TimeSpan.FromMilliseconds(-1));
}
//This can be called from any thread
public IEnumerable<object> AccessItems()
{
List<object> results = new List<object>();
this.rwLock.EnterReadLock();
try {
// in this place there can exist a thousand readers
// (doing these actions right here, between EnterReadLock and ExitReadLock)
// all at the same time, but NO writers
foreach (var index in queue)
{
this.results.Add ( this.items[index] );
}
} finally {
this.rwLock.ExitReadLock();
}
return results; // or foreach yield return you like that more :)
}

No because you are reading and writing to/from the same object concurrently. This is not documented to be safe so you can't be sure it is safe. Don't do it.
The fact that it is in fact unsafe as of .NET 4.0 means nothing, btw. Even if it was safe according to Reflector it could change anytime. You can't rely on the current version to predict future versions.
Don't try to get away with tricks like this. Why not just do it in an obviously safe way?
As a side note: Two timer callbacks can execute at the same time, so your code is doubly broken (multiple writers). Don't try to pull off tricks with threads.

It is thread-safish. The foreach statement uses the ConcurrentQueue.GetEnumerator() method. Which promises:
The enumeration represents a moment-in-time snapshot of the contents of the queue. It does not reflect any updates to the collection after GetEnumerator was called. The enumerator is safe to use concurrently with reads from and writes to the queue.
Which is another way of saying that your program isn't going to blow up randomly with an inscrutable exception message like the kind you'll get when you use the Queue class. Beware of the consequences though, implicit in this guarantee is that you may well be looking at a stale version of the queue. Your loop will not be able to see any elements that were added by another thread after your loop started executing. That kind of magic doesn't exist and is impossible to implement in a consistent way. Whether or not that makes your program misbehave is something you will have to think about and can't be guessed from the question. It is pretty rare that you can completely ignore it.
Your usage of the List<> is however utterly unsafe.

How do you pause a consumer until objects have been produced in a lock-free manner?

I have two threads, a producer and a consumer.
The producer might not always be producing something. The consumer however, needs to consume it as soon as it becomes available.
The producer thread works in a loop and puts results into a ConcurrentQueue. The consumer thread is in a while (!disposing) loop that calls AutoResetEvent.WaitOne when the system becomes disabled. I've considered calling AutoResetEvent.WaitOne also in the case when the ConcurrentQueue.TryDequeue method returns false; this should only ever happen when there are no items left in the queue.
However, if I were to do this, a deadlock could occur when the following execution is done:
Enqueue
TryDequeue returns true
TryDequeue returns false
Enqueue
WaitOne
This is a possibility in this snippet:
while (this.isDisposing == 0)
{
if (this.isEnabled == 0)
{
this.signal.WaitOne();
}
object item;
if (!this.queue.TryDequeue(out item))
{
this.signal.WaitOne();
continue;
}
this.HandleItem(item);
}
What is the proper way to do this without using locks?

I think the BlockingCollection would be good to use here. It will wait efficiently until there is data in the queue. You can combine this with a ConcurrentQueue I think. See http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd267312.aspx

The problem here is that thread pausing is in almost all operating systems a kernel level event. Windows I think with Fibers permits user-level pausing/unpausing, but that's all I know of.
So you locklessly whizz along with your queue, but how do you signal when there is something in the queue in the first place?
Signalling implies sleeping - and that's the problem. You can do lock-free signalling, but waiting, well, you gotta call the OS equivelent of WaitForEvent(), and that's a problem, because you don't WANT to be using these slow, OS provided mechanisms.
Basically, there's no or very litle OS support for this yet.