// Called from Thread 1.
public void AddData(Data theData) {
lock(dataQueue) {
dataQueue.Enqueue(theData);
}
}
// Worker for Thread 2.
private void ProcessingThread() {
while(true) {
int length = dataQueue.Count;
for (int i = 0; i < length; i++) {
Data curData;
lock(dataQueue) {
curData = dataQueue.Dequeue();
}
// Process data.
}
// Sleep for a short while.
}
}
So, from what I can see, in the event where the length is updated before the data is actually inserted, Thread 2 is still forced to wait until Thread 1 is finished before it can access it so it's still safe. Though if I'm wrong, please tell me. No one wants garbage data.
Also, it is possible that Count is not a member but an accessor and it might return garbage or crash if it sees some inconsistent data.
Still, both of the above can be rare occurrences. The reason that you are not seeing no particular issues is because you are basically busy waiting and polling the queue (i.e. the sleep comment); if you replaced the dataQueue.Count with just a random number generator, the code will still work. If you were doing proper signaling instead of sleeping, then your code will get stuck in case of a missed wakeup.
You are correct in that `Count` is a property, and it could be doing extra things, but according to the implementation [1] it just returns the value of a private integer. Of course, this is an implementation detail and shouldn't be relied upon, but I'm not sure how much that could be changed.
However, you are mistaken about the code continuing to work if `dataQueue.Count` were replaced with an RNG, or if it were otherwise higher than it should be. The `Dequeue` function raises an exception if called on an empty queue. This one is part of the API, not an implementation detail. An uncaught exception here would crash the thread, not just blindly carry on.
Of course, I'm no expert, and could just be talking out of my ass.
[0] https://docs.microsoft.com/en-gb/dotnet/api/system.collectio... [1] https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/master/src/libraries/...
Count is implemented as a simple read currently, but that's not guaranteed to be the case in the future (that's the whole reason for having a property.
Fair enough about the rng, I'm not really a c# programmer, so I just assumed that dequeue would return a null on an empty queue.
I'm not an expert either, and certainly not a c# expert (although I kind of like the language, I haven't written a line in 7 years), so YMMV.
How critical this ends up being to the program is heavily dependent on the queue data structure and how its being manipulated. But in a simple copy/linked list type situation referencing garbage data is quite likely.
A lot of traditional comp sci programs are plenty happy to teach about data synchronization primitives but completely fail to mention that most general API (posix/etc) primitives also have read/write fences implied. Those fences are as important on any processor made in the last two decades as the atomic operations themselves. As generally the implementations also provide both architectural memory barriers as well as compiler level fencing to assure the compiler isn't reordering the primitive with the code it is intended to protect. Going further, many architectures provide unfenced atomics. So, if you decide to code your own atomic_inc/swap/etc you have to also understand the memory model of the target machine before you have actually created something equivalent to what is taught in your average comp-sci department.