An AsyncDuplicateLock that can be locked on all keysAsynchronous locking based on a keyOptimistic vs. Pessimistic lockingHow can I get jQuery to perform a synchronous, rather than asynchronous, Ajax request?Volatile vs. Interlocked vs. lockHow can I upload files asynchronously?Why is lock(this) … bad?How can I get the application's path in a .NET console application?How to loop through all enum values in C#?How can I generate random alphanumeric strings?How does lock work exactly?ReaderWriterLockSlim questions

Can I Retrieve Email Addresses from BCC?

(Bedrock Edition) Loading more than six chunks at once

Coordinate position not precise

Lay out the Carpet

Is this Spell Mimic feat balanced?

I'm in charge of equipment buying but no one's ever happy with what I choose. How to fix this?

Using parameter substitution on a Bash array

Failed to fetch jessie backports repository

Hide Select Output from T-SQL

What does this 7 mean above the f flat

How can I use the arrow sign in my bash prompt?

How to be diplomatic in refusing to write code that breaches the privacy of our users

is this a spam?

If you attempt to grapple an opponent that you are hidden from, do they roll at disadvantage?

How does it work when somebody invests in my business?

How does residential electricity work?

voltage of sounds of mp3files

What is the intuitive meaning of having a linear relationship between the logs of two variables?

Is there a good way to store credentials outside of a password manager?

Have I saved too much for retirement so far?

Everything Bob says is false. How does he get people to trust him?

How can I replace every global instance of "x[2]" with "x_2"

Efficiently merge handle parallel feature branches in SFDX

apt-get update is failing in debian



An AsyncDuplicateLock that can be locked on all keys


Asynchronous locking based on a keyOptimistic vs. Pessimistic lockingHow can I get jQuery to perform a synchronous, rather than asynchronous, Ajax request?Volatile vs. Interlocked vs. lockHow can I upload files asynchronously?Why is lock(this) … bad?How can I get the application's path in a .NET console application?How to loop through all enum values in C#?How can I generate random alphanumeric strings?How does lock work exactly?ReaderWriterLockSlim questions













2















I need a lock similar to the one from this answer from Stephen Cleary: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31194647/4381408



However, I also need to be able to lock on all keys at the same time. I'm using Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx library as well, so I thought of combining the AsyncDuplicateLock with an AsyncReaderWriterLock like this:



public sealed class AsyncDuplicateReaderWriterLock

private AsyncReaderWriterLock _rwLock = new AsyncReaderWriterLock();
private AsyncDuplicateLock _duplicateLock = new AsyncDuplicateLock();

public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

return CollectionDisposable.Create(
_rwLock.ReaderLock(),
_duplicateLock.Lock(key)
);


public async Task<IDisposable> ReaderLockAsync(object key)

return CollectionDisposable.Create(
await _rwLock.ReaderLockAsync(),
await _duplicateLock.LockAsync(key));


public IDisposable WriterLock()

return _rwLock.WriterLock();


public async Task<IDisposable> WriterLockAsync()

return await _rwLock.WriterLockAsync();




This way, I can use ReaderLock to lock on a key, and WriterLock to lock on all keys. It's critical I get this right so I want to be sure that there's no way for this to deadlock or not lock properly. I don't feel confident enough about it.



So would this work, be somewhat efficient, and be threadsafe?



Thanks for the help!










share|improve this question




























    2















    I need a lock similar to the one from this answer from Stephen Cleary: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31194647/4381408



    However, I also need to be able to lock on all keys at the same time. I'm using Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx library as well, so I thought of combining the AsyncDuplicateLock with an AsyncReaderWriterLock like this:



    public sealed class AsyncDuplicateReaderWriterLock

    private AsyncReaderWriterLock _rwLock = new AsyncReaderWriterLock();
    private AsyncDuplicateLock _duplicateLock = new AsyncDuplicateLock();

    public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

    return CollectionDisposable.Create(
    _rwLock.ReaderLock(),
    _duplicateLock.Lock(key)
    );


    public async Task<IDisposable> ReaderLockAsync(object key)

    return CollectionDisposable.Create(
    await _rwLock.ReaderLockAsync(),
    await _duplicateLock.LockAsync(key));


    public IDisposable WriterLock()

    return _rwLock.WriterLock();


    public async Task<IDisposable> WriterLockAsync()

    return await _rwLock.WriterLockAsync();




    This way, I can use ReaderLock to lock on a key, and WriterLock to lock on all keys. It's critical I get this right so I want to be sure that there's no way for this to deadlock or not lock properly. I don't feel confident enough about it.



    So would this work, be somewhat efficient, and be threadsafe?



    Thanks for the help!










    share|improve this question


























      2












      2








      2


      1






      I need a lock similar to the one from this answer from Stephen Cleary: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31194647/4381408



      However, I also need to be able to lock on all keys at the same time. I'm using Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx library as well, so I thought of combining the AsyncDuplicateLock with an AsyncReaderWriterLock like this:



      public sealed class AsyncDuplicateReaderWriterLock

      private AsyncReaderWriterLock _rwLock = new AsyncReaderWriterLock();
      private AsyncDuplicateLock _duplicateLock = new AsyncDuplicateLock();

      public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

      return CollectionDisposable.Create(
      _rwLock.ReaderLock(),
      _duplicateLock.Lock(key)
      );


      public async Task<IDisposable> ReaderLockAsync(object key)

      return CollectionDisposable.Create(
      await _rwLock.ReaderLockAsync(),
      await _duplicateLock.LockAsync(key));


      public IDisposable WriterLock()

      return _rwLock.WriterLock();


      public async Task<IDisposable> WriterLockAsync()

      return await _rwLock.WriterLockAsync();




      This way, I can use ReaderLock to lock on a key, and WriterLock to lock on all keys. It's critical I get this right so I want to be sure that there's no way for this to deadlock or not lock properly. I don't feel confident enough about it.



      So would this work, be somewhat efficient, and be threadsafe?



      Thanks for the help!










      share|improve this question
















      I need a lock similar to the one from this answer from Stephen Cleary: https://stackoverflow.com/a/31194647/4381408



      However, I also need to be able to lock on all keys at the same time. I'm using Stephen Cleary's AsyncEx library as well, so I thought of combining the AsyncDuplicateLock with an AsyncReaderWriterLock like this:



      public sealed class AsyncDuplicateReaderWriterLock

      private AsyncReaderWriterLock _rwLock = new AsyncReaderWriterLock();
      private AsyncDuplicateLock _duplicateLock = new AsyncDuplicateLock();

      public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

      return CollectionDisposable.Create(
      _rwLock.ReaderLock(),
      _duplicateLock.Lock(key)
      );


      public async Task<IDisposable> ReaderLockAsync(object key)

      return CollectionDisposable.Create(
      await _rwLock.ReaderLockAsync(),
      await _duplicateLock.LockAsync(key));


      public IDisposable WriterLock()

      return _rwLock.WriterLock();


      public async Task<IDisposable> WriterLockAsync()

      return await _rwLock.WriterLockAsync();




      This way, I can use ReaderLock to lock on a key, and WriterLock to lock on all keys. It's critical I get this right so I want to be sure that there's no way for this to deadlock or not lock properly. I don't feel confident enough about it.



      So would this work, be somewhat efficient, and be threadsafe?



      Thanks for the help!







      c# .net asynchronous async-await locking






      share|improve this question















      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question








      edited Mar 21 at 15:36







      t.baart

















      asked Mar 21 at 15:25









      t.baartt.baart

      6217




      6217






















          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          1














          I strongly, strongly advise you to take a step back, think about the actual problem you're trying to solve, explain it to someone else, and ask them how they would solve the concurrency issues.



          That said, yes, you can (ab)use a reader/writer lock to do this. Personally, I would separate out the locking:



          public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

          var rwKey = _rwLock.ReaderLock();
          var duplicateKey = _duplicateLock.Lock(key);
          return CollectionDisposable.Create(rwKey, duplicateKey);


          // (and the same for async)


          This makes it more obvious that the code is taking the RWL first (which it must do, in order to be correct).






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

            – t.baart
            2 days ago











          Your Answer






          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function ()
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function ()
          StackExchange.snippets.init();
          );
          );
          , "code-snippets");

          StackExchange.ready(function()
          var channelOptions =
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "1"
          ;
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
          createEditor();
          );

          else
          createEditor();

          );

          function createEditor()
          StackExchange.prepareEditor(
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader:
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          ,
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          );



          );













          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55283882%2fan-asyncduplicatelock-that-can-be-locked-on-all-keys%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes








          1 Answer
          1






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          1














          I strongly, strongly advise you to take a step back, think about the actual problem you're trying to solve, explain it to someone else, and ask them how they would solve the concurrency issues.



          That said, yes, you can (ab)use a reader/writer lock to do this. Personally, I would separate out the locking:



          public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

          var rwKey = _rwLock.ReaderLock();
          var duplicateKey = _duplicateLock.Lock(key);
          return CollectionDisposable.Create(rwKey, duplicateKey);


          // (and the same for async)


          This makes it more obvious that the code is taking the RWL first (which it must do, in order to be correct).






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

            – t.baart
            2 days ago
















          1














          I strongly, strongly advise you to take a step back, think about the actual problem you're trying to solve, explain it to someone else, and ask them how they would solve the concurrency issues.



          That said, yes, you can (ab)use a reader/writer lock to do this. Personally, I would separate out the locking:



          public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

          var rwKey = _rwLock.ReaderLock();
          var duplicateKey = _duplicateLock.Lock(key);
          return CollectionDisposable.Create(rwKey, duplicateKey);


          // (and the same for async)


          This makes it more obvious that the code is taking the RWL first (which it must do, in order to be correct).






          share|improve this answer























          • Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

            – t.baart
            2 days ago














          1












          1








          1







          I strongly, strongly advise you to take a step back, think about the actual problem you're trying to solve, explain it to someone else, and ask them how they would solve the concurrency issues.



          That said, yes, you can (ab)use a reader/writer lock to do this. Personally, I would separate out the locking:



          public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

          var rwKey = _rwLock.ReaderLock();
          var duplicateKey = _duplicateLock.Lock(key);
          return CollectionDisposable.Create(rwKey, duplicateKey);


          // (and the same for async)


          This makes it more obvious that the code is taking the RWL first (which it must do, in order to be correct).






          share|improve this answer













          I strongly, strongly advise you to take a step back, think about the actual problem you're trying to solve, explain it to someone else, and ask them how they would solve the concurrency issues.



          That said, yes, you can (ab)use a reader/writer lock to do this. Personally, I would separate out the locking:



          public IDisposable ReaderLock(object key)

          var rwKey = _rwLock.ReaderLock();
          var duplicateKey = _duplicateLock.Lock(key);
          return CollectionDisposable.Create(rwKey, duplicateKey);


          // (and the same for async)


          This makes it more obvious that the code is taking the RWL first (which it must do, in order to be correct).







          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered Mar 23 at 1:05









          Stephen ClearyStephen Cleary

          287k47482604




          287k47482604












          • Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

            – t.baart
            2 days ago


















          • Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

            – t.baart
            2 days ago

















          Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

          – t.baart
          2 days ago






          Thanks for the answer as well as the advice. I'll rethink why this is even necessary and see if I need to make changes so that this locking mechanism isn't needed anymore. At the moment, some of the operations don't have a known key (yet) but do require locking for possible concurrency issues. Not sure if it's possible, but it's probably better to rewrite those operations so that locking is no longer necessary until I do have a key.

          – t.baart
          2 days ago




















          draft saved

          draft discarded
















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid


          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function ()
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f55283882%2fan-asyncduplicatelock-that-can-be-locked-on-all-keys%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          Kamusi Yaliyomo Aina za kamusi | Muundo wa kamusi | Faida za kamusi | Dhima ya picha katika kamusi | Marejeo | Tazama pia | Viungo vya nje | UrambazajiKuhusu kamusiGo-SwahiliWiki-KamusiKamusi ya Kiswahili na Kiingerezakuihariri na kuongeza habari

          SQL error code 1064 with creating Laravel foreign keysForeign key constraints: When to use ON UPDATE and ON DELETEDropping column with foreign key Laravel error: General error: 1025 Error on renameLaravel SQL Can't create tableLaravel Migration foreign key errorLaravel php artisan migrate:refresh giving a syntax errorSQLSTATE[42S01]: Base table or view already exists or Base table or view already exists: 1050 Tableerror in migrating laravel file to xampp serverSyntax error or access violation: 1064:syntax to use near 'unsigned not null, modelName varchar(191) not null, title varchar(191) not nLaravel cannot create new table field in mysqlLaravel 5.7:Last migration creates table but is not registered in the migration table

          은진 송씨 목차 역사 본관 분파 인물 조선 왕실과의 인척 관계 집성촌 항렬자 인구 같이 보기 각주 둘러보기 메뉴은진 송씨세종실록 149권, 지리지 충청도 공주목 은진현