Win32 Read/Write Lock Using Only Critical Sections

Question

I have to implement a read/write lock in C++ using the Win32 api as part of a project at work. All of the existing solutions use kernel objects (semaphores and mutexes) that require a context switch during execution. This is far too slow for my application.

I would like implement one using only critical sections, if possible. The lock does not have to be process safe, only threadsafe. Any ideas on how to go about this?

Answer 1

If you can target Vista or greater, you should use the built-in SRWLock's. They are lightweight like critical sections, entirely user-mode when there is no contention.

Joe Duffy's blog has some recent entries on implementing different types of non-blocking reader/writer locks. These locks do spin, so they would not be appropriate if you intend to do a lot of work while holding the lock. The code is C#, but should be straightforward to port to native.

You can implement a reader/writer lock using critical sections and events - you just need to keep enough state to only signal the event when necessary to avoid an unnecessary kernel mode call.

Answer 2

I don't think this can be done without using at least one kernel-level object (Mutex or Semaphore), because you need the help of the kernel to make the calling process block until the lock is available.

Critical sections do provide blocking, but the API is too limited. e.g. you cannot grab a CS, discover that a read lock is available but not a write lock, and wait for the other process to finish reading (because if the other process has the critical section it will block other readers which is wrong, and if it doesn't then your process will not block but spin, burning CPU cycles.)

However what you can do is use a spin lock and fall back to a mutex whenever there is contention. The critical section is itself implemented this way. I would take an existing critical section implementation and replace the PID field with separate reader & writer counts.

Answer 3

Old question, but this is something that should work. It doesn't spin on contention. Readers incur limited extra cost if they have little or no contention, because SetEvent is called lazily (look at the edit history for a more heavyweight version that doesn't have this optimization).

#include <windows.h>

typedef struct _RW_LOCK {
    CRITICAL_SECTION countsLock;
    CRITICAL_SECTION writerLock;
    HANDLE noReaders;
    int readerCount;
    BOOL waitingWriter;
} RW_LOCK, *PRW_LOCK;

void rwlock_init(PRW_LOCK rwlock)
{
    InitializeCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
    InitializeCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);

    /*
     * Could use a semaphore as well.  There can only be one waiter ever,
     * so I'm showing an auto-reset event here.
     */
    rwlock->noReaders = CreateEvent (NULL, FALSE, FALSE, NULL);
}

void rwlock_rdlock(PRW_LOCK rwlock)
{
    /*
     * We need to lock the writerLock too, otherwise a writer could
     * do the whole of rwlock_wrlock after the readerCount changed
     * from 0 to 1, but before the event was reset.
     */
    EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
    EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
    ++rwlock->readerCount;
    LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
    LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
}

int rwlock_wrlock(PRW_LOCK rwlock)
{
    EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
    /*
     * readerCount cannot become non-zero within the writerLock CS,
     * but it can become zero...
     */
    if (rwlock->readerCount > 0) {
        EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);

        /* ... so test it again.  */
        if (rwlock->readerCount > 0) {
            rwlock->waitingWriter = TRUE;
            LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
            WaitForSingleObject(rwlock->noReaders, INFINITE);
        } else {
            /* How lucky, no need to wait.  */
            LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
        }
    }

    /* writerLock remains locked.  */
}

void rwlock_rdunlock(PRW_LOCK rwlock)
{
    EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
    assert (rwlock->readerCount > 0);
    if (--rwlock->readerCount == 0) {
        if (rwlock->waitingWriter) {
            /*
             * Clear waitingWriter here to avoid taking countsLock
             * again in wrlock.
             */
            rwlock->waitingWriter = FALSE;
            SetEvent(rwlock->noReaders);
        }
    }
    LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->countsLock);
}

void rwlock_wrunlock(PRW_LOCK rwlock)
{
    LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
}

You could decrease the cost for readers by using a single CRITICAL_SECTION:

• countsLock is replaced with writerLock in rdlock and rdunlock

• rwlock->waitingWriter = FALSE is removed in wrunlock

• wrlock's body is changed to

  EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
  rwlock->waitingWriter = TRUE;
  while (rwlock->readerCount > 0) {
      LeaveCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
      WaitForSingleObject(rwlock->noReaders, INFINITE);
      EnterCriticalSection(&rwlock->writerLock);
  }
  rwlock->waitingWriter = FALSE;
  
  /* writerLock remains locked.  */
  

However this loses in fairness, so I prefer the above solution.