Reputation: 1940
Say I have two functions that manipulate a count, and an OnTimer function that fires at a regular interval.
void IncrementCount()
{
_myCount++;
}
void OverwriteCount(int newValue)
{
_myCount = newValue;
}
void OnTimer()
{
Console.WriteLine(_myCount);
}
My desire is that if/when OverwriteCount is called, IncrementCount can't be executed until the timer function executes.
My initial thought to resolve this was to use a ManualResetEvent to help synchronize behaviors:
private static ManualResetEventSlim mre = new ManualResetEventSlim(initialState: true);
void IncrementCount()
{
mre.Wait(-1); // can't increment until the event is signaled
_myCount++;
}
void OverwriteCount(int newValue)
{
mre.Reset(); // unsignal the event, blocking threads
_myCount = newValue;
}
void OnTimer()
{
Console.WriteLine(_myCount);
mre.Set(); // signal the event
}
My concern is a degenerate, multi-threaded scenario where thread A gets past the mre.Wait() in IncrementCount() but hasn't actually incremented _myCount yet. Thread B then calls mre.Reset() and overwrites _myCount. Thread A then gets a turn and increments _myCount.
Could I solve this by also adding a lock inside IncrementCount() and OverwriteCount() to ensure only one thread can modify _myCount at a time? Do I risk deadlock if I get stuck waiting on the reset event while holding the lock?
Upvotes: 0
Views: 142
Reputation: 81503
If i understand you, then yes it would work if you chose what to lock appropriately. There is probably a more granular way to do this, but as of now i see nothing wrong with this
void IncrementCount()
{
mre.Wait();
// lets not cause a race, lock until OverwriteCount is finished
lock (_sync)
{
_myCount++;
}
}
void OverwriteCount(int newValue)
{
// lock this so we can assure the count is updated
lock (_sync)
{
mre.Reset(); // unsignal the event, blocking threads
_myCount = newValue;
}
}
void OnTimer()
{
Console.WriteLine(_myCount);
mre.Set(); // signal the event
}
Upvotes: 1