main

Author: sharpchen

docs/document/Modern CSharp/docs/Parallel Programming/Concurrent Collections.md

@@ -0,0 +1,181 @@
+# Concurrent Collections
+
+
+## `ConcurrentDictionary`
+
+All operations of `ConcurrentDictionary<,>` including methods, properties and indexer are thread-safe.
+There's some unique methods dedicated to `ConcurrentDictionary<,>` rather than `Dictionary<,>`
+
+- `AddOrUpdate`: add or update the value dependent on old value.
+- `GetOrAdd`: get or add the value dependent on the key.
+- `TryRemove(key, out var value)`: remove if key exists.
+
+> [!TIP]
+> If the value you would add or update  does not dependent on the existing value, using indexer would be better.
+> If you care to **get** the value, always use `TryGet*` or `GetOrAdd` to avoid exceptions.
+
+```cs
+ConcurrentDictionary<string, string> dict = [];
+
+string? val;
+
+// if key is registered, update with the transformed value
+// if key is not registered, callback wouldn't be called
+val = dict.AddOrUpdate("key", "newValue", (key, old) => $"transformed {old} for {key}");
+// add with transformed key 
+// or 
+// update with transformed with key and old value.
+val = dict.AddOrUpdate(
+    "key",
+    key => $"transformed from {key} on add",
+    (key, old) => $"transformed {old} for {key} on update"
+);
+
+// if the key is not registered, add with the generated value
+// or just return the value
+val = dict.GetOrAdd("foo", key => $"generated using {key}");
+// add with raw value
+val = dict.GetOrAdd("foo", "newValue");
+
+// value is the value corresponds to the key
+if (dict.TryRemove("key", out string? value))
+    Console.WriteLine($"value {value} has been removed");
+```
+
+## `ConcurrentQueue`
+
+```cs
+using System.Collections.Concurrent;
+
+ConcurrentQueue<string> queue = [];
+
+queue.Enqueue("foo");
+
+if (queue.TryDequeue(out var result))
+    Console.WriteLine(result);
+
+if (queue.TryPeek(out var head))
+    Console.WriteLine(head);
+```
+
+## `ConcurrentStack`
+
+```cs
+using System.Collections.Concurrent;
+
+ConcurrentStack<int> stack = [];
+
+stack.Push(1);
+stack.PushRange([2, 3, 4]);
+
+if (stack.TryPeek(out var top))
+    Console.WriteLine(top);
+
+if (stack.TryPop(out var result))
+    Console.WriteLine(result);
+
+// pop a range to another collection
+// the new container should have valid Length or Count
+int[] dest = new int[stack.Count];
+if (stack.TryPopRange(dest, startIndex: 0, count: stack.Count) > 0)
+    Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", dest));
+
+// or pop them all directly
+if (stack.TryPopRange(dest) > 0)
+    Console.WriteLine(string.Join(", ", dest));
+```
+
+## `ConcurrentBag`
+
+`ConcurrentBag<T>` is a collection that its order is not guaranteed. But each peek or take within the same thread always returns the same value added by the thread.
+
+```cs
+using System.Collections.Concurrent;
+
+ConcurrentBag<int> bag = [];
+
+var tasks = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(i => {
+    return Task.Run(() => {
+        Console.WriteLine($"i: {i}");
+        bag.Add(i);
+        if (bag.TryPeek(out var result)) // [!code highlight] 
+            Console.WriteLine($"Peek: {result}"); // result is always the i been added within the same thread // [!code highlight] 
+    });
+});
+
+Task.WaitAll(tasks);
+
+if (bag.TryPeek(out var result))
+    Console.WriteLine(result); // random when access from main thread
+```
+
+That is because `ConcurrentBag` creates dedicated list for each thread so each thread wouldn't have to content for a same list, and you can only access those items been added within the same thread.
+
+```cs
+var tasks = Enumerable.Range(1, 10).Select(i => {
+    return Task.Run(() => {
+        bag.Add(i); bag.Add(i); bag.Add(i); // add 3 times in the thread // [!code highlight] 
+
+        while (bag.TryTake(out var result)) // [!code highlight] 
+            Console.WriteLine(result); // write i for 3 times since it was added 3 times within the same thread // [!code highlight] 
+    });
+});
+```
+
+## `BlockingCollection`
+
+Dedicated concurrent collections except `ConcurrentDictionary` implements a special interface `IProducerConsumerCollection<T>`
+
+```cs
+// Defines methods to manipulate thread-safe collections intended for producer/consumer usage.
+// This interface provides a unified representation for producer/consumer collections 
+// so that higher level abstractions such as BlockingCollection<T> can use the collection as the underlying storage mechanism.
+public interface IProducerConsumerCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>, IEnumerable, ICollection
+{
+    void CopyTo(T[] array, int index);
+
+    T[] ToArray();
+
+    bool TryAdd(T item);
+
+    bool TryTake([MaybeNullWhen(false)] out T item);
+}
+```
+
+`BlockingCollection<T>` is a dedicated **wrapper** to serve for any `IProducerConsumerCollection<T>` by limiting the maximum concurrent item count could a inner `IProducerConsumerCollection<T>` have.
+If the limit were reached, any operation on it including **producing** and **consuming** would be blocked(methods without indicator such as `Add`) or failed(methods such as `TryAdd`) on the thread.
+Such **Producer-Consumer** pattern is done by indicators returned from `bool IProducerConsumerCollection<T>.TryAdd(out var _)` and so on...
+
+> [!NOTE]
+> - **consume**: meaning the item was taken and removed from the inner concurrent collection
+> - **produce**: adding a item to the collection
+
+```cs
+using System.Collections.Concurrent;
+
+BlockingCollection<int> items = new(new ConcurrentBag<int>(), boundedCapacity: 5); // [!code highlight] 
+CancellationTokenSource cts = new();
+
+var produce = Task.Run(() => {
+    while (true) {
+        cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
+        var next = Random.Shared.Next(1, 9);
+        if (items.TryAdd(next)) // would fail if reached the boundedCapacity // [!code highlight] 
+            Console.WriteLine($"{next} was produced");
+        // no throttling here so producing is way faster than consuming // [!code highlight] 
+    }
+}, cts.Token);
+
+var consume = Task.Run(() => {
+    foreach (var item in items.GetConsumingEnumerable()) {
+        cts.Token.ThrowIfCancellationRequested();
+        Console.WriteLine($"{item} was consumed");
+        Thread.Sleep(Random.Shared.Next(500, 1000)); // throttling
+    }
+}, cts.Token);
+
+Console.ReadKey();
+cts.Cancel();
+```
+
+As you run the example you would find even the producer should produce faster but it blocks the appending when it reached the limit.

docs/document/Modern CSharp/docs/Parallel Programming/Synchronization/Monitor & lock Keyword.md

@@ -84,6 +84,40 @@ public class BankAccount
 }
 ```
 
+## Lock Object <Badge type="info" text=".NET 9" />
+
+`.NET 9` introduced a new dedicated `Lock` type as a replacement for normal `object` field.
+
+`Lock` has three kinds of usages to do the same thing as `lock` statement
+
+- `using (_lock.EnterScope) { ... }`
+- `lock` on the `Lock` field just like locking on `object` field.
+- `_lock.Enter & _lock.Exit` like `Monitor`
+
+```cs
+private readonly Lock _lock = new();
+public void Foo() {
+    // auto dispose
+    using (_lock.EnterScope()) { }
+
+    // or
+    _lock.Enter();
+    try {
+        // 
+    } finally {
+        _lock.Exit(); 
+    }
+    // or
+    if (_lock.TryEnter()) {
+        try {
+            // Critical section associated with _lock
+        } finally { 
+            _lock.Exit(); 
+        }
+    }
+}
+```
+
 ## Conclusion
 
 - Use `lock` as shorthand for `Monitor.Enter(obj)` and `Monitor.Exit(obj)`

docs/document/Modern CSharp/docs/Parallel Programming/Synchronization/Reader & Writer Lock.md

@@ -72,9 +72,29 @@ internal class Program {
 }
 ```
 
+## Recursive Lock
+
+When a implementation needs recursive logic within a entrance of lock inside, this is called **recursive lock**.
+`ReaderWriterLockSlim` supports such recursion when `LockRecursionPolicy.SupportsRecursion` is specified on creation.
+
+```cs
+private static readonly ReaderWriterLockSlim _lock = new(LockRecursionPolicy.SupportsRecursion);
+public void Foo() {
+    _lock.EnterReadLock();
+    try {
+        // recursion happens here...
+        if (condition) Foo();
+        // some other operation...
+    } finally {
+        _lock.ExitReadLock();
+    }
+}
+```
+
 ## Conclusion
 
 - Use `ReaderWriterLockSlim` for a more performant experience instead of old `ReaderWriterLock`.
+- `ReaderWriterLockSlim` is `IDisposable`, remember to release it after finishing the work.
 - Reader & Writer Lock allows **exclusive access for writing** but allows **multiple threads for reading**.
 - Do not use `ReaderWriterLockSlim` on dotnet framework projects, use old `ReaderWriterLock`.
-- Use `EnterUpgradeableReadLock` if you need to combine read and write as one atomic operation.
+- Use `EnterUpgradeableReadLock` and `ExitUpgradeableReadLock` if you need to combine read and write as one atomic operation.