C＃无锁编码完整性检查

Question

UPDATED : now using a read-only collection based on comments below

I believe that the following code should be thread safe "lock free" code, but want to make sure I'm not missing something...

public class ViewModel : INotifyPropertyChanged
{
   //INotifyPropertyChanged and other boring stuff goes here...

   private volatile List<string> _data;
   public IEnumerable<string> Data
   {
      get { return _data; }
   }

   //this function is called on a timer and runs on a background thread
   private void RefreshData()
   {
      List<string> newData = ACallToAService();
      _data = newData.AsReadOnly();
      OnPropertyChanged("Data"); // yes, this dispatches the to UI thread
   }
}

Specifically, I know that I could use a lock(_lock) or even an Interlocked.Exchange() but I don't believe that there is a need for it in this case. The volatile keyword should be sufficient (to make sure the value isn't cached), no? Can someone please confirm this, or else let me know what I don't understand about threading :)

Answer 1

I have no idea whether that is "safe" or not; it depends on precisely what you mean by "safe". For example, if you define "safe" as "a consistent ordering of all volatile writes is guaranteed to be observed from all threads", then your program is not guaranteed to be "safe" on all hardware.

The best practice here is to use a lock unless you have an extremely good reason not to. What is your extremely good reason to write this risky code?

UPDATE: My point is that low-lock or no-lock code is extremely risky and that only a small number of people in the world actually understand it. Let me give you an example, from Joe Duffy:

// deeply broken, do not use!
class Singleton {
    private static object slock = new object();
    private static Singleton instance;
    private static bool initialized;
    private Singleton() {}
    public Instance {
        get {
            if (!initialized) {
                lock (slock) {
                    if (!initialized) {
                        instance = new Singleton();
                        initialized = true;
                    }
                }
            }
            return instance;
        }
    }
}

This code is broken; it is perfectly legal for a correct implementation of the C# compiler to write you a program that returns null for the instance. Can you see how ? If not, then you have no business doing low-lock or no-lock programming; you will get it wrong.

I can't figure out this stuff myself; it breaks my brain. That's why I try to never do low-lock programming that departs in any way from standard practices that have been analyzed by experts.

Answer 2

It depends on what the intent is. The get/set of the list is atomic (even without volatile) and non-cached (volatile), but callers can mutate the list, which is not guaranteed thread-safe.

There is also a race condition that could lose data:

 obj.Data.Add(value);

Here value could easily be discarded.

I would use an immutable (read-only) collection.

Answer 3

I believe that this is safe in itself (even without volatile), however there may be issues depending on how other threads use the Data property.

Provided that you can guarantee that all other threads read and cache the value of Data once before doing enumeration on it (and don't try to cast it to some broader interface to perform other operations), and make no consistency assumptions for a second access to the property, then you should be ok. If you can't make that guarantee (and it'd be hard to make that guarantee if eg. one of the users is the framework itself via data-binding, and hence code that you do not control), then you can't say that it's safe.

For example, this would be safe:

foreach (var item in x.Data)
{
   // do something with item
}

And this would be safe (provided that the JIT isn't allowed to optimise away the local, which I think is the case):

var data = x.Data;
var item1 = FindItem(data, a);
var item2 = FindItem(data, b);
DoSomething(item1, item2);

The above two might act on stale data, but it will always be consistent data. But this would not necessarily be safe:

var item1 = FindItem(x.Data, a);
var item2 = FindItem(x.Data, b);
DoSomething(item1, item2);

This one could possibly be searching two different states of the collection (before and after some thread replaces it), so it may not be safe to operate on items found in each separate enumeration, as they may not be consistent with each other.

The issue would be worse with a broader interface; eg. if Data exposed IList<T> you'd have to watch for consistency of Count and indexer operations as well.

Answer 4

I think that if you have only two threads like you described, your code is correct and safe. And also you don't need that volatile, it is useless here.

But please don't call it "thread safe", as it is safe only for your two threads using it your special way.