Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Update TestScheduler.cs #5011

Merged
merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2021
Merged

Update TestScheduler.cs #5011

merged 1 commit into from
May 14, 2021

Conversation

brah-mcdude
Copy link
Contributor

fixed bug #5010

@@ -88,10 +88,14 @@ public void AdvanceTo(DateTimeOffset when)
{
var scheduledTime = _now.Add(initialDelay ?? delay).UtcTicks;

if (!_scheduledWork.TryGetValue(scheduledTime, out var tickItems))
ConcurrentQueue<ScheduledItem> tickItems;
while (!_scheduledWork.TryGetValue(scheduledTime, out tickItems))
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

so this is compare-and-swap basically @brah-mcdude ?

Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah ok, I think I get this now after reading the original issue on #5010

Copy link
Contributor Author

@brah-mcdude brah-mcdude May 13, 2021

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

tickItems is a queue of all the items that we want to schedule for a specific scheduledTime tick.
We need to extract this queue from the dictionary of all _scheduledWork.
If TryGetValue fails, then we need to create tickItems and add it to _scheduledWork.
However, if by the time that we call TryAdd, someone else has already added a new tickItems at the scheduledTime tick entry, our call to TryAdd will fail. In such a scenario - we need to start over.
In other words, we need to loop while TryGetValue fails.
Actually, our thread's SECOND attempt to TryAdd MUST ALWAYS succeed.
So, theoretically, we could re-write it as a 3 iterations for loop: (int i = 0; i < 3; i++) that will throw an exception if i reaches 2.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants