Is the ++ operator thread safe? [duplicate]

Question

NOTE: I am really not very good at Multithreaded programming, but my current project has me doing it so I am trying to get my head around what is thread safe and what is not.

I was reading one of Eric Lippert's awesome answers on what ++i does. He says this is what really happens:

1. x is evaluated to produce the variable
2. the value of the variable is copied to a temporary location
3. the temporary value is incremented to produce a new value (not overwriting the temporary!)
4. the new value is stored in the variable
5. the result of the operation is the new value

This got me to thinking, what if two threads where calling ++i? If the first thread is at step 3 when the second thread is on step 2. (Meaning what if the second thread copies the value off to the temp location before the first thread stores the new value in the variable?)

If that happens then it would seem that both threads would only increment i once instead of twice. (Unless the whole thing is in a lock.)

Answer 1

As other answers have pointed out, no, ++ is not "threadsafe".

Something that I think will help as you learn about multithreading and its hazards is to start being very precise about what you mean by "threadsafe", because different people mean different things by it. Essentially the aspect of thread safety you are concerned about here is whether the operation is atomic or not. An "atomic" operation is one which is guaranteed to not be halfway complete when it is interrupted by another thread.

(There are plenty of other threading problems that have nothing to do with atomicity but which may still fall under some people's definitions of thread safety. For example, given two threads each mutating a variable, and two threads each reading the variable, are the two readers guaranteed to agree on the order in which the other two threads made mutations? If your logic depends on that, then you have a very difficult thread safety problem to deal with even if every read and write is atomic.)

In C#, practically nothing is guaranteed to be atomic. Briefly:

• reading a 32 bit integer or float
• reading a reference
• writing a 32 bit integer or float
• writing a reference

are guaranteed to be atomic (see the specification for the exact details.)

In particular, reading and writing a 64 bit integer or float is not guaranteed to be atomic. If you say:

C.x = 0xDEADBEEF00000000; 

on one thread, and

C.x = 0x000000000BADF00D; 

on another thread, then it is possible to on a third thread:

Console.WriteLine(C.x); 

have that write out 0xDEADBEEF0BADF00D, even though logically the variable never held that value. The C# language reserves the right to make writing to a long equivalent to writing to two ints, one after the other, and in practice some chips do implement it that way. A thread switch after the first of the writes can cause a reader to read something unexpected.

The long and short of it is: do not share anything between two threads without locking something. Locks are only slow when they are contented; if you have a performance problem because of contended locks then fix whatever architectural flaw is leading to contended locks. If the locks are not contended and are still too slow, only then should you consider going to dangerous low-lock techniques.

The common low-lock technique to use here is of course to call Threading.Interlocked.Increment, which does an increment of an integer in a manner guaranteed to be atomic. (Note however that it still does not make guarantees about things like what happens if two threads are each doing interlocked increments of two different variables at different times, and other threads are trying to determine which increment happened "first". C# does not guarantee that a single consistent ordering of events is seen by all threads.)

Answer 2

No, it isn't.

The analysis you have come up with is quite correct - the ++ (and --) operators are vulnerable to race conditions if they are not used with appropriate locking semantics.

These are difficult to get right, but thankfully, the BCL has a ready made solution for these specific cases:

You should use Interlocked.Increment if you want an atomic increment operation. There is also a Decrement and several other useful atomic operations defined on the Interlocked class.

Increments a specified variable and stores the result, as an atomic operation.