Asynchronous locking based on a key

Question

I'm attempting to figure out an issue that has been raised with my ImageProcessor library here where I am getting intermittent file access errors when adding items to the cache.

System.IO.IOException: The process cannot access the file 'D:\home\site\wwwroot\app_data\cache\0\6\5\f\2\7\065f27fc2c8e843443d210a1e84d1ea28bbab6c4.webp' because it is being used by another process.

I wrote a class designed to perform an asynchronous lock based upon a key generated by a hashed url but it seems I have missed something in the implementation.

My locking class

public sealed class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
    /// <summary>
    /// The collection of semaphore slims.
    /// </summary>
    private static readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim> SemaphoreSlims
                            = new ConcurrentDictionary<object, SemaphoreSlim>();

    /// <summary>
    /// Locks against the given key.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="key">
    /// The key that identifies the current object.
    /// </param>
    /// <returns>
    /// The disposable <see cref="Task"/>.
    /// </returns>
    public IDisposable Lock(object key)
    {
        DisposableScope releaser = new DisposableScope(
        key,
        s =>
        {
            SemaphoreSlim locker;
            if (SemaphoreSlims.TryRemove(s, out locker))
            {
                locker.Release();
                locker.Dispose();
            }
        });

        SemaphoreSlim semaphore = SemaphoreSlims.GetOrAdd(key, new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));
        semaphore.Wait();
        return releaser;
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// Asynchronously locks against the given key.
    /// </summary>
    /// <param name="key">
    /// The key that identifies the current object.
    /// </param>
    /// <returns>
    /// The disposable <see cref="Task"/>.
    /// </returns>
    public Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key)
    {
        DisposableScope releaser = new DisposableScope(
        key,
        s =>
        {
            SemaphoreSlim locker;
            if (SemaphoreSlims.TryRemove(s, out locker))
            {
                locker.Release();
                locker.Dispose();
            }
        });

        Task<IDisposable> releaserTask = Task.FromResult(releaser as IDisposable);
        SemaphoreSlim semaphore = SemaphoreSlims.GetOrAdd(key, new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));

        Task waitTask = semaphore.WaitAsync();

        return waitTask.IsCompleted
                   ? releaserTask
                   : waitTask.ContinueWith(
                       (_, r) => (IDisposable)r,
                       releaser,
                       CancellationToken.None,
                       TaskContinuationOptions.ExecuteSynchronously,
                       TaskScheduler.Default);
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// The disposable scope.
    /// </summary>
    private sealed class DisposableScope : IDisposable
    {
        /// <summary>
        /// The key
        /// </summary>
        private readonly object key;

        /// <summary>
        /// The close scope action.
        /// </summary>
        private readonly Action<object> closeScopeAction;

        /// <summary>
        /// Initializes a new instance of the <see cref="DisposableScope"/> class.
        /// </summary>
        /// <param name="key">
        /// The key.
        /// </param>
        /// <param name="closeScopeAction">
        /// The close scope action.
        /// </param>
        public DisposableScope(object key, Action<object> closeScopeAction)
        {
            this.key = key;
            this.closeScopeAction = closeScopeAction;
        }

        /// <summary>
        /// Disposes the scope.
        /// </summary>
        public void Dispose()
        {
            this.closeScopeAction(this.key);
        }
    }
}

Usage - within a HttpModule

private readonly AsyncDuplicateLock locker = new AsyncDuplicateLock();

using (await this.locker.LockAsync(cachedPath))
{
    // Process and save a cached image.
}

Can anyone spot where I have gone wrong? I'm worried that I am misunderstanding something fundamental.

The full source for the library is stored on Github here

Answer 1

As the other answerer noted, the original code is removing the SemaphoreSlim from the ConcurrentDictionary before it releases the semaphore. So, you've got too much semaphore churn going on - they're being removed from the dictionary when they could still be in use (not acquired, but already retrieved from the dictionary).

The problem with this kind of "mapping lock" is that it's difficult to know when the semaphore is no longer necessary. One option is to never dispose the semaphores at all; that's the easy solution, but may not be acceptable in your scenario. Another option - if the semaphores are actually related to object instances and not values (like strings) - is to attach them using ephemerons; however, I believe this option would also not be acceptable in your scenario.

So, we do it the hard way. :)

There are a few different approaches that would work. I think it makes sense to approach it from a reference-counting perspective (reference-counting each semaphore in the dictionary). Also, we want to make the decrement-count-and-remove operation atomic, so I just use a single lock (making the concurrent dictionary superfluous):

public sealed class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
  private sealed class RefCounted<T>
  {
    public RefCounted(T value)
    {
      RefCount = 1;
      Value = value;
    }

    public int RefCount { get; set; }
    public T Value { get; private set; }
  }

  private static readonly Dictionary<object, RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>> SemaphoreSlims
                        = new Dictionary<object, RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>>();

  private SemaphoreSlim GetOrCreate(object key)
  {
    RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim> item;
    lock (SemaphoreSlims)
    {
      if (SemaphoreSlims.TryGetValue(key, out item))
      {
        ++item.RefCount;
      }
      else
      {
        item = new RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim>(new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1));
        SemaphoreSlims[key] = item;
      }
    }
    return item.Value;
  }

  public IDisposable Lock(object key)
  {
    GetOrCreate(key).Wait();
    return new Releaser { Key = key };
  }

  public async Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key)
  {
    await GetOrCreate(key).WaitAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
    return new Releaser { Key = key };
  }

  private sealed class Releaser : IDisposable
  {
    public object Key { get; set; }

    public void Dispose()
    {
      RefCounted<SemaphoreSlim> item;
      lock (SemaphoreSlims)
      {
        item = SemaphoreSlims[Key];
        --item.RefCount;
        if (item.RefCount == 0)
          SemaphoreSlims.Remove(Key);
      }
      item.Value.Release();
    }
  }
}

Answer 2

The problems in your implementation arise from your desire to remove unused lockers from the dictionary. It would be much simpler if you could just let each SemaphoreSlim stay in the dictionary forever (until the process terminates). Assuming that this is not a viable option, you have two obstacles to overcome:

1. How to keep track of how many workers are using each semaphore, so that you know when it's safe to remove it.
2. How to do the above using the performant but tricky ConcurrentDictionary<K,V> collection.

Stephen Cleary's answer shows how to solve the first problem, using a normal Dictionary<K,V>. A reference counter is stored along with each SemaphoreSlim, and everything is synchronized with the lock statement on a single locker object. In this answer I'll show how to solve the second problem.

The problem with the ConcurrentDictionary<K,V> collection is that it protects from corruption only its internal state, not the values it contains. So if you use a mutable class as TValue, you are opening the door for subtle race conditions, especially if you intend to cache these values in a pool and reuse them. The trick that eliminates the race conditions is to make the TValue an immutable struct. This way it essentially becomes part of the internal state of the dictionary, and it is protected by it. In the AsyncDuplicateLock implementation below, the TValue is a readonly struct, declared also as a record for performance¹ and convenience:

public class AsyncDuplicateLock
{
    private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<object, Entry> _semaphores = new();

    private readonly record struct Entry(SemaphoreSlim Semaphore, int RefCount);

    public readonly struct Releaser : IDisposable
    {
        private readonly AsyncDuplicateLock _parent;
        private readonly object _key;
        public Releaser(AsyncDuplicateLock parent, object key)
        {
            _parent = parent; _key = key;
        }
        public void Dispose() => _parent.Release(_key);
    }

    public async ValueTask<Releaser> LockAsync(object key)
    {
        Entry entry = _semaphores.AddOrUpdate(key,
            static _ => new Entry(new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1), 1),
            static (_, entry) => entry with { RefCount = entry.RefCount + 1 });

        await entry.Semaphore.WaitAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
        return new Releaser(this, key);
    }

    private void Release(object key)
    {
        Entry entry;
        while (true)
        {
            bool exists = _semaphores.TryGetValue(key, out entry);
            if (!exists)
                throw new InvalidOperationException("Key not found.");
            if (entry.RefCount > 1)
            {
                Entry newEntry = entry with { RefCount = entry.RefCount - 1 };
                if (_semaphores.TryUpdate(key, newEntry, entry))
                    break;
            }
            else
            {
                if (_semaphores.TryRemove(KeyValuePair.Create(key, entry)))
                    break;
            }
        }
        entry.Semaphore.Release();
    }
}

Notice that increasing and decreasing the RefCount involves spinning in a while loop. That's because the current thread might lose the optimistic race with other threads for updating the dictionary, in which case it tries again until it succeeds. The spinning is obvious in the Release method, but also happens internally in the LockAsync method. The AddOrUpdate method employs internally a similar logic around the invocation of the updateValueFactory delegate.

Performance: the above implementation is about 80% faster than a simpler Dictionary<K,V>-based implementation, under conditions of heavy contention. That's because the ConcurrentDictionary<K,V> utilizes multiple locker objects internally, so a thread that wants to lock on the key "A" doesn't have to wait until another thread completes acquiring or releasing the key "B". It is considerably more allocatey though. If you have some reason to keep the garbage collector relaxed, a Dictionary<K,V>-based implementation will you serve you better. If you desire both ultimate speed and ultimate memory-efficiency, you could take a look at the 6th revision of this answer, for an implementation based on multiple Dictionary<K,V>s.

Note: When the SemaphoreSlim class is misused, it throws a SemaphoreFullException. This happens when the semaphore is released more times than it has been acquired. The AsyncDuplicateLock implementation of this answer behaves differently in case of misuse: it throws an InvalidOperationException("Key not found."). This happens because when a key is released as many times as it has been acquired, the associated semaphore is removed from the dictionary. If this implementation ever throws a SemaphoreFullException, it would be an indication of a bug.

¹ _{The ConcurrentDictionary<K,V> compares the TValues in many operations (AddOrUpdate, TryUpdate and TryRemove among others), using the EqualityComparer<TValue>.Default. Structs by default are not compared efficiently, unless they implement the IEquatable<T> interface. Record structs do implement this interface, in a similar way to the value-tuples, so they can be compared for equality efficiently. Actually using a value-tuple as TValue ((SemaphoreSlim, int)) might be slightly more efficient, because the members of value-tuples are fields, while the members of record structs are properties. Record structs are more convenient though.}

Answer 3

I wrote a library called AsyncKeyedLock to fix this common problem. The library currently supports using it with the type object (so you can mix different types together) or using generics to get a more efficient solution. It allows for timeouts, cancellation tokens, and also pooling so as to reduce allocations. Underlying it uses a ConcurrentDictionary and also allows for setting the initial capacity and concurrency for this dictionary.

I have benchmarked this against the other solutions provided here and it is more efficient, in terms of speed, memory usage (allocations) as well as scalability (internally it uses the more scalable ConcurrentDictionary). It's being used in a number of systems in production and used by a number of popular libraries.

The source code is available on GitHub and packaged at NuGet.

The approach here is to basically use the ConcurrentDictionary to store an IDisposable object which has a counter on it and a SemaphoreSlim. Once this counter reaches 0, it is removed from the dictionary and either disposed or returned to the pool (if pooling is used). Monitor is used to lock this object when either the counter is being incremented or decremented.

Usage example:

var locker = new AsyncKeyedLocker<string>(o =>
{
   o.PoolSize = 20;
   o.PoolInitialFill = 1;
});

string key = "my key";

// asynchronous code
using (await locker.LockAsync(key, cancellationToken))
{
   ...
}

// synchronous code
using (locker.Lock(key))
{
   ...
}

Download from NuGet.

Answer 4

I rewrote the @StephenCleary answer with this:

public sealed class AsyncLockList {

    readonly Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> Semaphores = new Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount>();

    SemaphoreSlim GetOrCreateSemaphore(object key) {
        lock (Semaphores) {
            if (Semaphores.TryGetValue(key, out var item)) {
                item.IncrementCount();
            } else {
                item = new SemaphoreReferenceCount();
                Semaphores[key] = item;
            }
            return item.Semaphore;
        }
    }

    public IDisposable Lock(object key) {
        GetOrCreateSemaphore(key).Wait();
        return new Releaser(Semaphores, key);
    }

    public async Task<IDisposable> LockAsync(object key) {
        await GetOrCreateSemaphore(key).WaitAsync().ConfigureAwait(false);
        return new Releaser(Semaphores, key);
    }

    sealed class SemaphoreReferenceCount {
        public readonly SemaphoreSlim Semaphore = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);
        public int Count { get; private set; } = 1;

        [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
        public void IncrementCount() => Count++;

        [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
        public void DecrementCount() => Count--;
    }

    sealed class Releaser : IDisposable {
        readonly Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> Semaphores;
        readonly object Key;

        [MethodImpl(MethodImplOptions.AggressiveInlining)]
        public Releaser(Dictionary<object, SemaphoreReferenceCount> semaphores, object key) {
            Semaphores = semaphores;
            Key = key;
        }

        public void Dispose() {
            lock (Semaphores) {
                var item = Semaphores[Key];
                item.DecrementCount();
                if (item.Count == 0)
                    Semaphores.Remove(Key);
                item.Semaphore.Release();
            }
        }
    }
}

Answer 5

Inspired by this previous answer, here is a version that supports async wait:

    public class KeyedLock<TKey>
    {
        private readonly ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, LockInfo> _locks = new();

        public int Count => _locks.Count;

        public async Task<IDisposable> WaitAsync(TKey key, CancellationToken cancellationToken = default)
        {
            // Get the current info or create a new one.
            var info = _locks.AddOrUpdate(key,
                // Add
                k => new LockInfo(),
                // Update
                (k, v) => v.Enter() ? v : new LockInfo());

            try
            {
                await info.Semaphore.WaitAsync(cancellationToken);

                return new Releaser(() => Release(key, info, true));
            }
            catch (OperationCanceledException)
            {
                // The semaphore wait was cancelled, release the lock.
                Release(key, info, false);
                throw;
            }
        }

        private void Release(TKey key, LockInfo info, bool isCurrentlyLocked)
        {
            if (info.Leave())
            {
                // This was the last lock for the key.

                // Only remove this exact info, in case another thread has
                // already put its own info into the dictionary
                // Note that this call to Remove(entry) is in fact thread safe.
                var entry = new KeyValuePair<TKey, LockInfo>(key, info);
                if (((ICollection<KeyValuePair<TKey, LockInfo>>)_locks).Remove(entry))
                {
                    // This exact info was removed.
                    info.Dispose();
                }
            }
            else if (isCurrentlyLocked)
            {
                // There is another waiter.
                info.Semaphore.Release();
            }
        }

        private class LockInfo : IDisposable
        {
            private SemaphoreSlim _semaphore = null;
            private int _refCount = 1;

            public SemaphoreSlim Semaphore
            {
                get
                {
                    // Lazily create the semaphore.
                    var s = _semaphore;
                    if (s is null)
                    {
                        s = new SemaphoreSlim(1, 1);

                        // Assign _semaphore if its current value is null.
                        var original = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _semaphore, s, null);

                        // If someone else already created a semaphore, return that one
                        if (original is not null)
                        {
                            s.Dispose();
                            return original;
                        }
                    }
                    return s;
                }
            }

            // Returns true if successful
            public bool Enter()
            {
                if (Interlocked.Increment(ref _refCount) > 1)
                {
                    return true;
                }

                // This lock info is not valid anymore - its semaphore is or will be disposed.
                return false;
            }

            // Returns true if this lock info is now ready for removal
            public bool Leave()
            {
                if (Interlocked.Decrement(ref _refCount) <= 0)
                {
                    // This was the last lock
                    return true;
                }

                // There is another waiter
                return false;
            }

            public void Dispose() => _semaphore?.Dispose();
        }

        private sealed class Releaser : IDisposable
        {
            private readonly Action _dispose;

            public Releaser(Action dispose) => _dispose = dispose;

            public void Dispose() => _dispose();
        }
    }