readerwriterlock allowing reads while write lock is acquired?

Question

I have a static class which is accessed by multiple remoting and other internal to the application threads. Part of the functionality of this class is controlling read/write access to various files, so I've implemented a static ReaderWriterLock on the list of files. The project uses the .net framework 2.0 as part of the customer requirements.

However when I stress test the system using a number of different clients (generally I'm using 16) each performing a large amount of reads and writes then very intermittently and only after several hours or even days have passed with at least 500k+ transactions completed the system crashes. Ok so we got a bug..

But when I check the logs of all locking events I can see that the following has happened:

1: Thread A acquires a write lock directly, checking IsWriterLock shows it to be true.

2: Thread B tries to acquire a reader lock and succeeds even though Thread A still has the write lock

3: System now crashes, stack trace now shows a null reference exception to the readerwriterlock

This process has been run several hundred thousand times previously with no errors and I can check the logs and see that the read lock was blocked in all cases previously until the write had exited. I have also tried implementing the readerwriterlock as a singleton but the issue still occurs

Has anybody ever seen anything like this before ??

A slimed down version of the readerwriterlock implementation used is shown below:

private const int readwriterlocktimeoutms = 5000;
    private static ReaderWriterLock readerWriterLock = new ReaderWriterLock();


    // this method will be called by thread A
    public static void MethodA()
    {
        // bool to indicate that we have the lock
        bool IsTaken = false;

        try
        {                
            // get the lock
            readerWriterLock.AcquireWriterLock(readwriterlocktimeoutms);

            // log that we have the lock for debug
            // Logger.LogInfo("MethodA: acquired write lock; writer lock held {0}; reader lock held {1}", readerWriterLock.IsWriterLockHeld.ToString(),readerWriterLock.IsReaderLockHeld.ToString(), );

            // mark that we have taken the lock
            IsTaken = true;
        }
        catch(Exception e)
        {
            throw new Exception(string.Format("Error getting lock {0} {1}", e.Message, Environment.StackTrace));
        }

        try
        {
           // do some work
        }
        finally
        {
            if (IsTaken)
            {
                readerWriterLock.ReleaseWriterLock();
            }
        }

    }

    // this method will be called by thread B
    public static void MethodB()
    {
        // bool to indicate that we have the lock
        bool IsTaken = false;

        try
        {
            // get the lock
            readerWriterLock.AcquireReaderLock(readwriterlocktimeoutms);

            // log that we have the lock for debug
            // Logger.LogInfo("MethodB: acquired read lock; writer lock held {0}; reader lock held {1}", readerWriterLock.IsWriterLockHeld.ToString(),readerWriterLock.IsReaderLockHeld.ToString(), );

            // mark that we have taken the lock
            IsTaken = true;
        }
        catch (Exception e)
        {
            throw new Exception(string.Format("Error getting lock {0} {1}", e.Message, Environment.StackTrace));
        }

        try
        {
           // do some work
        }
        finally
        {
            if (IsTaken)
            {
                readerWriterLock.ReleaseReaderLock();
            }
        }
    }

enter code here

Answer 1

@All finally have a solution to this problem. @Yannick you were on the right track...

If MSDN says that it's impossible to have reader and writer lock held at same time.

Today I got confirmation from microsoft that in cases of very heavy load on multiprocessor systems (note: I could never reproduce this problem on an AMD system only on Intel) its possible for ReaderWriterLock class objects to become corrupted, the risk of this is increased if the numer of writers at any given stage grows as these can backup in the queue.

For the last two weeks I've been running using the .Net 3.5 ReaderWriterLockSlim class and have not encountered the issue, which corresponds to what Microsoft have confirmed that the readerwriterlockslim class does not have the same risk of corruption as the fat ReaderWriterLock class.