Skip to main content

[Code refactoring] Multiple Threads - Locks and Mutex

Each of us know what is lock and what its purpose is. It is used to block a critical section of code – the statements from the lock block will be executed only by one thread at the same time.
public class Foo
{
  FooConnection con;
  
  public void OpenConnection()
  {
    ...
    con.Open();
  }

  public void CloseConnection()
  {
    ...
    con.Close();    
  }

  public void Write(...)
  {
    ...
    con.Write(...);
  }
  
  public object Read()
  {
    ...
    ... con.Read();
    ...
  }
}

...
Foo foo = ...;
foo.OpenConnection();
foo.Read();
foo.Read();
...
foo.Read();
foo.RWRWRWR..();
foo.CloseConnection();
Being in a multi-thread environment problems with multiple access to the same resources appeared, information started to be corrupted and many more. For example, multiple read and write started to execute at the same time and having only one connection (cursor) the information retrieved was corrupted.
Because there was only one instance of Foo, locks were added to Read and Write operations. They could not add locks in the locations where Read and Write methods because there were different flows and combinations.

  public void Write(...)
  {
    lock(padLock)
    {
      ...
      con.Write(...);
    }
  }
  
  public object Read()
  {
    lock(padLock)
    {
      ...
      ... con.Read();
      ...
    }
  }
The application started to work better, but they still observed that from time to time they have the same concurrence problems that cause the application to crash.
Can you spot the problem?
Even if lock block the access to a critical section, this is not the solution for our case. We need to make Read/Write operations atomic and to not allow a Read or Write operation to be executed in the same time.
To resolve this problem we have two simple solutions. The most simple fix, that would work for short time is using a Mutex. It is a synchronization primitive similar with a semaphore that has the size 1.
public class Foo
{
  FooConnection con;
  Mutex mutex = new Mutex();
  
  public void OpenConnection()
  {
    ...
    con.Open();
  }

  public void CloseConnection()
  {
    ...
    con.Close();    
  }

  public void Write(...)
  {
    mutex.WaitOne();
    ...
    con.Write(...);
    mutex.ReleaseMutex();    
  }
  
  public object Read()
  {    
    mutex.WaitOne();
    ...
    ... con.Read();
    ...
    mutex.ReleaseMutex();
  }
}
Using a Mutex, we can ensure that only one thread will execute the code from Read or Write block. We will not have cases when on one thread execute the Read method and the other one executes the Write operation.
Other solutions could be used based on transaction or connection pattern (similar with the one that we use in ORM framework.

Comments

  1. There is only one way that the Mutex would work, and that is making the application run slower. Because Mutex is an interprocess communication synchronization object, being therefore heavier than the use of a simple lock. So this works as long as you want interprocess communication locking.

    The first method should've worked... but it is more likely that the problem is caused by the fact that one of the threads closed the resource too fast or opened the resource too late. First of all, you want to add locking around opening and closing, and second of all, you want to clear that handle when it's closed/not opened.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(

ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded

Today blog post will be started with the following error when running DB tests on the CI machine: threw exception: System.InvalidOperationException: The Entity Framework provider type 'System.Data.Entity.SqlServer.SqlProviderServices, EntityFramework.SqlServer' registered in the application config file for the ADO.NET provider with invariant name 'System.Data.SqlClient' could not be loaded. Make sure that the assembly-qualified name is used and that the assembly is available to the running application. See http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=260882 for more information. at System.Data.Entity.Infrastructure.DependencyResolution.ProviderServicesFactory.GetInstance(String providerTypeName, String providerInvariantName) This error happened only on the Continuous Integration machine. On the devs machines, everything has fine. The classic problem – on my machine it’s working. The CI has the following configuration: TeamCity .NET 4.51 EF 6.0.2 VS2013 It see

Navigating Cloud Strategy after Azure Central US Region Outage

 Looking back, July 19, 2024, was challenging for customers using Microsoft Azure or Windows machines. Two major outages affected customers using CrowdStrike Falcon or Microsoft Azure computation resources in the Central US. These two outages affected many people and put many businesses on pause for a few hours or even days. The overlap of these two issues was a nightmare for travellers. In addition to blue screens in the airport terminals, they could not get additional information from the airport website, airline personnel, or the support line because they were affected by the outage in the Central US region or the CrowdStrike outage.   But what happened in reality? A faulty CrowdStrike update affected Windows computers globally, from airports and healthcare to small businesses, affecting over 8.5m computers. Even if the Falson Sensor software defect was identified and a fix deployed shortly after, the recovery took longer. In parallel with CrowdStrike, Microsoft provided a too