Lock-free thread safety in console apps - asp.net-core

Question

To ensure thread-safety, I'm trying to find a generic cross-platform approach to
execute all delegates asynchronously in the main thread or ...
execute delegete in a background thread and pass result to the main one
Considering that console apps do not have synchronization context, I create new context when app is loading and then use one of the following methods.
Set and restore custom SC as described in Await, SynchronizationContext, and Console Apps article by Stephen Toub
Marshall all delegates to main thread using context.Post call as described in the article ExecutionContext vs SynchronizationContext by Stephen Toub
Using background thread with producer-consumer collection as described in Basic synchronization by Joe Albahari
Question
Ideas #1 and #2 set context correctly only if it's done synchronously. If they're called from inside Parallel.For(0, 100) then synchronization context starts using all threads available in a thread pool. Idea #3 always performs tasks within dedicated thread as expected, unfortunately, not in the main thread. Combining idea #3 with IOCompletionPortTaskScheduler, I can achieve asynchrony and single-threading, unfortunately, this approach will work only in Windows. Is there a way to combine these solutions to achieve requirements at the top of the post, including cross-platform.
Scheduler
public class SomeScheduler
{
public Task<T> RunInTheMainThread<T>(Func<T> action, SynchronizationContext sc)
{
var res = new TaskCompletionSource<T>();
SynchronizationContext.SetSynchronizationContext(sc); // Idea #1
sc.Post(o => res.SetResult(action()), null); // Idea #2
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(state => res.SetResult(action())); // Idea #3
return res.Task;
}
}
Main
var scheduler = new SomeScheduler();
var sc = SynchronizationContext.Current ?? new SynchronizationContext();
new Thread(async () =>
{
var res = await scheduler.ExecuteAsync(() => 5, sc);
});

Answer 1

You can use the lock/Monitor.Pulse/Monitor.Wait and a Queue
I know the title says lock-free. But my guess is that you want the UI updates to occur outside the locks or worker threads should be able to continue working without having to wait for main thread to update the UI (at least this is how I understand the requirement).
Here the locks are never during the producing of items, or updating the UI. They are held only during the short duration it takes to enqueue/dequeue item in the queue.
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Threading.Tasks;
using static System.Threading.Thread;
namespace ConsoleApp1
{
internal static class Program
{
private class WorkItem
{
public string SomeData { get; init; }
}
private static readonly Queue<WorkItem> s_workQueue = new Queue<WorkItem>();
private static void Worker()
{
var random = new Random();
// Simulate some work
Sleep(random.Next(1000));
// Produce work item outside the lock
var workItem = new WorkItem
{
SomeData = $"data produced from thread {CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId}"
};
// Acquire lock only for the short time needed to add the work item to the stack
lock (s_workQueue)
{
s_workQueue.Enqueue(workItem);
// Notify the main thread that a new item is added to the queue causing it to wakeup
Monitor.Pulse(s_workQueue);
}
// work item is now queued, no need to wait for main thread to finish updating the UI
// Continue work here
}
private static WorkItem GetWorkItem()
{
// Acquire lock only for the duration needed to get the item from the queue
lock (s_workQueue)
{
WorkItem result;
// Try to get the item from the queue
while (!s_workQueue.TryDequeue(out result))
{
// Lock is released during Wait call
Monitor.Wait(s_workQueue);
// Lock is acquired again after Wait call
}
return result;
}
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
const int totalTasks = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++)
{
_ = Task.Run(Worker);
}
var remainingTasks = totalTasks;
// Main loop (similar to message loop)
while (remainingTasks > 0)
{
var item = GetWorkItem();
// Update UI
Console.WriteLine("Got {0} and updated UI on thread {1}.", item.SomeData, CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
remainingTasks--;
}
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
}
}
Update
Since you don't want to have the main thread Wait for an event, you can change the code as follows:
private static WorkItem? GetWorkItem()
{
// Acquire lock only for the duration needed to get the item from the queue
lock (s_workQueue)
{
// Try to get the item from the queue
s_workQueue.TryDequeue(out var result);
return result;
}
}
private static void Main(string[] args)
{
const int totalTasks = 10;
for (var i = 0; i < totalTasks; i++)
{
_ = Task.Run(Worker);
}
var remainingTasks = totalTasks;
// Main look (similar to message loop)
while (remainingTasks > 0)
{
var item = GetWorkItem();
if (item != null)
{
// Update UI
Console.WriteLine("Got {0} and updated UI on thread {1}.", item.SomeData, CurrentThread.ManagedThreadId);
remainingTasks--;
}
else
{
// Queue is empty, so do some other work here then try again after the work is done
// Do some other work here
// Sleep to simulate some work being done by main thread
Thread.Sleep(100);
}
}
Console.WriteLine("Done");
}
The problem in the above solution is that the Main thread should do only part of the work it is supposed to do, then call GetWorkItem to check if the queue has something, before resuming whatever it was doing again. It is doable if you can divide that work into small pieces that don't take too long.
I don't know if my answer here is what you want. What do you imagine the main thread would be doing when there are no work items in the queue?
if you think it should be doing nothing (i.e. waiting) then the Wait solution should be fine.
If you think it should be doing something, then may be that work it should be doing can be queued as a Work item as well.