We Keep Coding

Avoid starting new thread with lock

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();
}
}

How to make a slightly modified AutoResetEvent class?

I need a synchronizing class that behaves exactly like the AutoResetEvent class, but with one minor exception:
A call to the Set() method must release all waiting threads, and not just one.
How can I construct such a class? I am simply out of ideas?
Martin.

So you have multiple threads doing a .WaitOne() and you want to release them?
Use the ManualResetEvent class and all the waiting threads should release...

Thank you very much for all your thougts and inputs which I have read with great interest. I did some more searching here on Stackoverflow, and suddenly I found this, whcih turned out to be just what I was looking for. By cutting it down to just the two methods I need, I ended up with this small class:
public sealed class Signaller
{
public void PulseAll()
{
lock (_lock)
{
Monitor.PulseAll(_lock);
}
}
public bool Wait(TimeSpan maxWaitTime)
{
lock (_lock)
{
return Monitor.Wait(_lock, maxWaitTime);
}
}
private readonly object _lock = new object();
}
and it does excactly what it should! I'm amazed that a solution could be that simple, and I love such simplicity. I'ts beautiful. Thank you, Matthew Watson!
Martin.

Two things you might try.
Using a Barrier object add conditionally adding threads too it and signaling them.
The other might be to use a publisher subscriber setup like in RX. Each thread waits on an object that it passes to a collection. When you want to call 'set' loop over a snapshot of it calling set on each member.
Or you could try bears.

If the event is being referenced by all threads in a common field or property, you could replace the common field or property with a new non-signaled event and then signal the old one. It has some cost to it since you'll be regularly creating new synchronization objects, but it would work. Here's an example of how I would do that:
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile ManualResetEvent manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public void Set()
{
ManualResetEvent eventToSet = this.manualResetEvent;
this.manualResetEvent = new ManualResetEvent(false);
eventToSet.Set();
eventToSet.Dispose();
}
public bool WaitOne()
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne();
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(millisecondsTimeout);
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
return this.manualResetEvent.WaitOne(timeout);
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.manualResetEvent.Dispose();
}
}

Another more lightweight solution you could try that uses the Monitor class to lock and unlock objects is below. However, I'm not as happy with the cleanup story for this version of ReleasingAutoResetEvent since Monitor may hold a reference to it and keep it alive indefinitely if it is not properly disposed.
There are a few limitations/gotchas with this implementation. First, the thread that creates this object will be the only one that will be able to signal it with a call to Set; other threads that attempt to do the same thing will receive a SynchronizationLockException. Second, the thread that created it will never be able to wait on it successfully since it already owns the lock. This will only be an effective solution if you have exactly one controlling thread and several other waiting threads.
public static class Example
{
private static volatile bool stopRunning;
private static ReleasingAutoResetEvent myEvent;
public static void RunExample()
{
using (Example.myEvent = new ReleasingAutoResetEvent())
{
WaitCallback work = new WaitCallback(WaitThread);
for (int i = 0; i < 5; ++i)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(work, i.ToString());
}
Thread.Sleep(500);
for (int i = 0; i < 3; ++i)
{
Example.myEvent.Set();
Thread.Sleep(5000);
}
Example.stopRunning = true;
Example.myEvent.Set();
}
}
private static void WaitThread(object state)
{
while (!Example.stopRunning)
{
Example.myEvent.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("Thread {0} is released!", state);
}
}
}
public sealed class ReleasingAutoResetEvent : IDisposable
{
private volatile object lockObject = new object();
public ReleasingAutoResetEvent()
{
Monitor.Enter(this.lockObject);
}
public void Set()
{
object objectToSignal = this.lockObject;
object objectToLock = new object();
Monitor.Enter(objectToLock);
this.lockObject = objectToLock;
Monitor.Exit(objectToSignal);
}
public void WaitOne()
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
Monitor.Enter(objectToMonitor);
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
public bool WaitOne(int millisecondsTimeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, millisecondsTimeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public bool WaitOne(TimeSpan timeout)
{
object objectToMonitor = this.lockObject;
bool succeeded = Monitor.TryEnter(objectToMonitor, timeout);
if (succeeded)
{
Monitor.Exit(objectToMonitor);
}
return succeeded;
}
public void Dispose()
{
Monitor.Exit(this.lockObject);
}
}

Managing high/low priority threads in .net

The scenario is as follows:
There are a couple of low priority threads that can be interrupted by high priority threads. Whenever a high priority thread asks the low priority threads to pause, they will go to Wait state (if they are not in wait state already). However when a high priority thread signals that the low priority threads can Resume, the low priority threads should not resume until all the high priority threads that asked the low priority threads to pause have consented.
To solve this I am keeping a track of Pause() calls from the high priority threads to the low priority thread in a counter variable. Whenever the high priority thread asks the low priority thread to Pause(), the value of the counter is incremented by 1. If after the increment the counter has a value of 1, it means the thread was not in Wait, so ask it to go in Wait state. Otherwise just increment counter value. On the contrary when a high priority thread calls Resume() we decrement the counter value and if after the decrement the value is 0, it means the low priority threads can Resume now.
Here is a simplified implementation of my problem. The comparison operation inside if statements with Interlocked.XXX is not correct i.e.
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref _remain) == 1)
, as the read/modify and comparison operations are not atomic.
What am I missing here? I don't want to use thread priority.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace TestConcurrency
{
// I borrowed this class from Joe Duffy's blog and modified it
public class LatchCounter
{
private long _remain;
private EventWaitHandle m_event;
private readonly object _lockObject;
public LatchCounter()
{
_remain = 0;
m_event = new ManualResetEvent(true);
_lockObject = new object();
}
public void Check()
{
if (Interlocked.Read(ref _remain) > 0)
{
m_event.WaitOne();
}
}
public void Increment()
{
lock(_lockObject)
{
if (Interlocked.Increment(ref _remain) == 1)
m_event.Reset();
}
}
public void Decrement()
{
lock(_lockObject)
{
// The last thread to signal also sets the event.
if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref _remain) == 0)
m_event.Set();
}
}
}
public class LowPriorityThreads
{
private List<Thread> _threads;
private LatchCounter _latch;
private int _threadCount = 1;
internal LowPriorityThreads(int threadCount)
{
_threadCount = threadCount;
_threads = new List<Thread>();
for (int i = 0; i < _threadCount; i++)
{
_threads.Add(new Thread(ThreadProc));
}
_latch = new CountdownLatch();
}
public void Start()
{
foreach (Thread t in _threads)
{
t.Start();
}
}
void ThreadProc()
{
while (true)
{
//Do something
Thread.Sleep(Rand.Next());
_latch.Check();
}
}
internal void Pause()
{
_latch.Increment();
}
internal void Resume()
{
_latch.Decrement();
}
}
public class HighPriorityThreads
{
private Thread _thread;
private LowPriorityThreads _lowPriorityThreads;
internal HighPriorityThreads(LowPriorityThreads lowPriorityThreads)
{
_lowPriorityThreads = lowPriorityThreads;
_thread = new Thread(RandomlyInterruptLowPriortyThreads);
}
public void Start()
{
_thread.Start();
}
void RandomlyInterruptLowPriortyThreads()
{
while (true)
{
Thread.Sleep(Rand.Next());
_lowPriorityThreads.Pause();
Thread.Sleep(Rand.Next());
_lowPriorityThreads.Resume();
}
}
}
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
LowPriorityThreads lowPriorityThreads = new LowPriorityThreads(3);
HighPriorityThreads highPriorityThreadOne = new HighPriorityThreads(lowPriorityThreads);
HighPriorityThreads highPriorityThreadTwo = new HighPriorityThreads(lowPriorityThreads);
lowPriorityThreads.Start();
highPriorityThreadOne.Start();
highPriorityThreadTwo.Start();
}
}
class Rand
{
internal static int Next()
{
// Guid idea has been borrowed from somewhere on StackOverFlow coz I like it
return new System.Random(Guid.NewGuid().GetHashCode()).Next() % 30000;
}
}

I don't know about your requirements hence I won't discuss them here.
As far as the implementation goes, I would introduce a "dispatcher" class that will handle inter-threads interaction and also acts a a factory for "runnable" objects.
The implementation, of course is very rough and open for criticism.
class Program
{
static void Main(string[] args)
{
ThreadDispatcher td=new ThreadDispatcher();
Runner r1 = td.CreateHpThread(d=>OnHpThreadRun(d,1));
Runner r2 = td.CreateHpThread(d => OnHpThreadRun(d, 2));
Runner l1 = td.CreateLpThread(d => Console.WriteLine("Running low priority thread 1"));
Runner l2 = td.CreateLpThread(d => Console.WriteLine("Running low priority thread 2"));
Runner l3 = td.CreateLpThread(d => Console.WriteLine("Running low priority thread 3"));
l1.Start();
l2.Start();
l3.Start();
r1.Start();
r2.Start();
Console.ReadLine();
l1.Stop();
l2.Stop();
l3.Stop();
r1.Stop();
r2.Stop();
}
private static void OnHpThreadRun(ThreadDispatcher d,int number)
{
Random r=new Random();
Thread.Sleep(r.Next(100,2000));
d.CheckedIn();
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("*** Starting High Priority Thread {0} ***",number));
Thread.Sleep(r.Next(100, 2000));
Console.WriteLine(string.Format("+++ Finishing High Priority Thread {0} +++", number));
Thread.Sleep(300);
d.CheckedOut();
}
}
public abstract class Runner
{
private Thread _thread;
protected readonly Action<ThreadDispatcher> _action;
private readonly ThreadDispatcher _dispathcer;
private long _running;
readonly ManualResetEvent _stopEvent=new ManualResetEvent(false);
protected Runner(Action<ThreadDispatcher> action,ThreadDispatcher dispathcer)
{
_action = action;
_dispathcer = dispathcer;
}
public void Start()
{
_thread = new Thread(OnThreadStart);
_running = 1;
_thread.Start();
}
public void Stop()
{
_stopEvent.Reset();
Interlocked.Exchange(ref _running, 0);
_stopEvent.WaitOne(2000);
_thread = null;
Console.WriteLine("The thread has been stopped.");
}
protected virtual void OnThreadStart()
{
while (Interlocked.Read(ref _running)!=0)
{
OnStartWork();
_action.Invoke(_dispathcer);
OnFinishWork();
}
OnFinishWork();
_stopEvent.Set();
}
protected abstract void OnStartWork();
protected abstract void OnFinishWork();
}
public class ThreadDispatcher
{
private readonly ManualResetEvent _signal=new ManualResetEvent(true);
private int _hpCheckedInThreads;
private readonly object _lockObject = new object();
public void CheckedIn()
{
lock(_lockObject)
{
_hpCheckedInThreads++;
_signal.Reset();
}
}
public void CheckedOut()
{
lock(_lockObject)
{
if(_hpCheckedInThreads>0)
_hpCheckedInThreads--;
if (_hpCheckedInThreads == 0)
_signal.Set();
}
}
private class HighPriorityThread:Runner
{
public HighPriorityThread(Action<ThreadDispatcher> action, ThreadDispatcher dispatcher) : base(action,dispatcher)
{
}
protected override void OnStartWork()
{
}
protected override void OnFinishWork()
{
}
}
private class LowPriorityRunner:Runner
{
private readonly ThreadDispatcher _dispatcher;
public LowPriorityRunner(Action<ThreadDispatcher> action, ThreadDispatcher dispatcher)
: base(action, dispatcher)
{
_dispatcher = dispatcher;
}
protected override void OnStartWork()
{
Console.WriteLine("LP Thread is waiting for a signal.");
_dispatcher._signal.WaitOne();
Console.WriteLine("LP Thread got the signal.");
}
protected override void OnFinishWork()
{
}
}
public Runner CreateLpThread(Action<ThreadDispatcher> action)
{
return new LowPriorityRunner(action, this);
}
public Runner CreateHpThread(Action<ThreadDispatcher> action)
{
return new HighPriorityThread(action, this);
}
}
}

How to use a mutex

I have one thread, that is sending data stored in a buffer of type List< string> via tcp. Another thread is writing into the buffer. As I am not very familiar with c# I'd like to know how I should use lock or Mutex correctly.
This is the code I'd like to use eventually:
while(buffer.isLocked())
{
buffer.wait();
}
buffer.lockBuffer();
buffer.add(tcpPacket);
buffer.unlockBuffer();
buffer.notify();
This is my current code. I hope someone can help me complete it.
public class Buffer
{
private Mutex mutex;
private List<string> buffer;
private bool locked = false;
public Buffer()
{
mutex = new Mutex(false);
buffer = new List<string>();
}
public bool isLocked()
{
return locked;
}
public void lockBuffer()
{
if (!locked)
{
//...
locked = true;
}
}
public void unlockBuffer()
{
if(locked)
{
mutex.ReleaseMutex();
locked = false;
}
}
public void wait()
{
mutex.WaitOne();
}
public void notify()
{
//...
}
}

It would be better if you use System.Collections.Concurrent.BlockingCollection. It doesn't require an external sync.
For those who don't use 4.0
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace MyCollections
{
public class BlockingQueue<T> : IDisposable
{
Queue<T> _Queue = new Queue<T>();
SemaphoreSlim _ItemsInQueue = null;
SemaphoreSlim _FreeSlots = null;
int _MaxItems = -1;
public BlockingQueue(int maxItems=Int32.MaxValue)
{
_MaxItems = maxItems;
_ItemsInQueue = new SemaphoreSlim(0, maxItems);
_FreeSlots = new SemaphoreSlim(maxItems, maxItems);
}
public void Dispose()
{
if (_ItemsInQueue != null) _ItemsInQueue.Dispose();
if (_FreeSlots != null) _FreeSlots.Dispose();
}
public int Count
{
get { return _ItemsInQueue.CurrentCount; }
}
public void Add(T item)
{
if(_MaxItems != Int32.MaxValue) _FreeSlots.Wait();
lock (this)
{
_Queue.Enqueue(item);
_ItemsInQueue.Release();
}
}
public T Take()
{
T item = default(T);
_ItemsInQueue.Wait();
lock (this)
{
item = _Queue.Dequeue();
if (_MaxItems != Int32.MaxValue) _FreeSlots.Release();
}
return item;
}
}
}

The following code is not thread-safe. If two threads are entering this method at the same time, both might pass the if condition successfully.
public void lockBuffer()
{
if (!locked)
{
//...
locked = true;
}
}
You simply might want to do something like this:
lock (_sycnObject)
{
buffer.lockBuffer();
buffer.add(tcpPacket);
buffer.unlockBuffer();
buffer.notify();
}
I don't think you're doing something sophisticated that requires more than the simple to use lock-statement.

I wouldn't use Mutexes since I suppose you aren't dealing with multiple processes synchronization. Locks are pretty fine and simpler to implement:
class Buffer
{
private readonly object syncObject = new object();
private readonly List<string> buffer = new List<string>();
public void AddPacket(string packet)
{
lock (syncObject)
{
buffer.Add(packet);
}
}
public void Notify()
{
// Do something, if needed lock again here
// lock (syncObject)
// {
// Notify Implementation
// }
}
}
The usage is obviously (as you requested):
var myBuffer = new Buffer();
myBuffer.Add("Hello, World!");
myBuffer.Notify();

Automatically terminating non essential threads in C#

I have an object in C# on which I need to execute a method on a regular basis. I would like this method to be executed only when other people are using my object, as soon as people stop using my object I would like this background operation to stop.
So here is a simple example is this (which is broken):
class Fish
{
public Fish()
{
Thread t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(BackgroundWork));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
public void BackgroundWork()
{
while(true)
{
this.Swim();
Thread.Sleep(1000);
}
}
public void Swim()
{
Console.WriteLine("The fish is Swimming");
}
}
The problem is that if I new a Fish object anywhere, it never gets garbage collected, cause there is a background thread referencing it. Here is an illustrated version of broken code.
public void DoStuff()
{
Fish f = new Fish();
}
// after existing from this method my Fish object keeps on swimming.
I know that the Fish object should be disposable and I should clean up the thread on dispose, but I have no control over my callers and can not ensure dispose is called.
How do I work around this problem and ensure the background threads are automatically disposed even if Dispose is not called explicitly?

Here is my proposed solution to this problem:
class Fish : IDisposable
{
class Swimmer
{
Thread t;
WeakReference fishRef;
public ManualResetEvent terminate = new ManualResetEvent(false);
public Swimmer(Fish3 fish)
{
this.fishRef = new WeakReference(fish);
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(BackgroundWork));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
public void BackgroundWork()
{
bool done = false;
while(!done)
{
done = Swim();
if (!done)
{
done = terminate.WaitOne(1000, false);
}
}
}
// this is pulled out into a helper method to ensure
// the Fish object is referenced for the minimal amount of time
private bool Swim()
{
bool done;
Fish fish = Fish;
if (fish != null)
{
fish.Swim();
done = false;
}
else
{
done = true;
}
return done;
}
public Fish Fish
{
get { return fishRef.Target as Fish3; }
}
}
Swimmer swimmer;
public Fish()
{
swimmer = new Swimmer(this);
}
public void Swim()
{
Console.WriteLine("The third fish is Swimming");
}
volatile bool disposed = false;
public void Dispose()
{
if (!disposed)
{
swimmer.terminate.Set();
disposed = true;
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
~Fish()
{
if(!disposed)
{
Dispose();
}
}
}

I think the IDisposable solution is the correct one.
If the users of your class don't follow the guidelines for using classes that implement IDisposable it's their fault - and you can make sure that the documentation explicitly mentions how the class should be used.
Another, much messier, option would be a "KeepAlive" DateTime field that each method called by your client would update. The worker thread then checks the field periodically and exits if it hasn't been updated for a certain amount of time. When a method is setting the field the thread will be restarted if it has exited.

This is how I would do it:
class Fish3 : IDisposable
{
Thread t;
private ManualResetEvent terminate = new ManualResetEvent(false);
private volatile int disposed = 0;
public Fish3()
{
t = new Thread(new ThreadStart(BackgroundWork));
t.IsBackground = true;
t.Start();
}
public void BackgroundWork()
{
while(!terminate.WaitOne(1000, false))
{
Swim();
}
}
public void Swim()
{
Console.WriteLine("The third fish is Swimming");
}
public void Dispose()
{
if(Interlocked.Exchange(ref disposed, 1) == 0)
{
terminate.Set();
t.Join();
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
}
}
~Fish3()
{
if(Interlocked.Exchange(ref disposed, 1) == 0)
{
Dispose();
}
}
}