Threading: Locking Under the hood of

What happens when we use the lock object? I am aware that it the runtime makes use of the monitor.Enter and Exit methods. But what really happens under the hood? Why only reference types to be used for locking? Even though the object used for accomplishing the locking is changed, how come it still provides thread safety?

In the current sample, we are modifying the object which is used for the locking purpose. Ideally, this is not a preferred way of doing it and best practise is to used a dedicated privately scoped variable.

static List<string> stringList = new List<string>();
    static void AddItems(object o)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++)
        {
            lock (stringList)
            {
                Thread.Sleep(20);
                stringList.Add(string.Format("Thread-{0},No-{1}", Thread.CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId, i));
          开发者_JAVA技巧  }
        }
        string[] listArray = null;

        lock(stringList)
        listArray = stringList.ToArray();

        foreach (string s in listArray)
        {
            Console.WriteLine(s);
        }
    }

What happens under the hood is approximately this:

• Imagine the object type has a hidden field in it.
• Monitor.Enter() and Monitor.Exit() use that field to communicate with each other.
• Every reference type inherits that field from object.

Of course, the type of that field is something special: It’s a synchronization lock that works in a thread-safe manner. In reality, of course, it is not really a field in the CLR sense, but a special feature of the CLR that uses a chunk of memory within each object’s memory to implement that synchronization lock. (The exact implementation is described in “Safe Thread Synchronization” in the MSDN Magazine.)

How come it still provides thread safety? I think what you mean is: why doesn’t it break thread safety for objects that are thread safe? The answer is easy: because you can have objects that are partly thread safe and partly not. You could have an object with two methods, and using one of them is thread safe while the other isn’t. Monitor.Enter() is thread safe irrespective of what the rest of the object does.

Why only reference types to be used for locking? Because only reference types actually have this special magic in their memory chunk. Value types are really literally just the value itself: a 32-bit integer in the case of int; a concatenation of all the fields in the case of a custom struct. You can pass a value type into Monitor.Enter(), and it won’t complain, but it won’t work because the value type will be boxed — i.e., wrapped into an object of a reference type. When you call Monitor.Exit(), it will be boxed again, so it will try to release the lock on a different object reference.

Regarding your code sample: I see nothing wrong with it. All your access to the stringList variable is wrapped in a lock, and you never assign to the stringList field itself except during initialisation. There is nothing that can go wrong with this; it is thread safe. (Of course something could go wrong if some other code accesses the field without locking it. If you were to make the field public, there is a very great chance of that happening accidentally. There is no need to use only locally-scoped variables for such a lock unless you really can’t ensure otherwise that the variable won’t be accessed by code you don’t control.)

But what really happens under the hood?

Refer to this MSDN article for an in-depth description.

Essentially, each CLR object that gets allocated has an associated field that holds a sync block index. This index points into a pool of sync blocks that the CLR maintains. A sync block holds the same information as a critical section which gets used during synchronization. Initially, an object's sync block index is meaningless (uninitialized). When you lock on the object, however, it gets a valid index into the pool.

Why only reference types to be used for locking?

You need a reference type since value types don't have the associated sync block index field (less overhead).

Even though the object used for accomplishing the locking is changed, how come it still provides thread safety?

Locking on a CLR object and then modifying it is akin to having a C++ object with a CRITICAL_SECTION member that's used for locking while that same object is modified. There are no thread safety issues there.

In the current sample, we are modifying the object which is used for the locking purpose. Ideally, this is not a preferred way of doing it and best practise is to used a dedicated privately scoped variable.

Correct, this situation is also described in the article. If you're not using a privately scoped variable that is in complete control of the owning class, then you can run into deadlock issues when two separate classes decide to lock on the same referenced object (e.g. if for some reason your stringList gets passed to another class that then decides to lock on it as well). This is unlikely, but if you use a strictly-controlled, privately scoped variable that never gets passed around, you will avoid such deadlocks altogether.