c# - Volatile vs. Interlocked vs. lock - Stack Overflow Interlocked methods apply a full fence around instructions they execute, so reordering does not happen Interlocked methods do not need or even do not support access to a volatile field, as volatile is placed a half fence around operations on given field and interlocked is using the full fence Footnote: What volatile is actually good for
How does Interlocked work and why is it faster than lock? Interlocked has support at the CPU level, which can do the atomic operation directly For example, Interlocked Increment is effectively an XADD, and compare and swap (ie: Interlocked CompareExchange) is supported via the CMPXCHG instructions (both with a LOCK prefix)
C# Interlocked functions as a lock mechanism? - Stack Overflow Interlocked instructions need to ensure that caches are synchronized so that reads and writes don't seem to move past the instruction Depending on the details of the memory system and how much memory was recently modified on various processors, this can be pretty expensive (hundreds of instruction cycles)
c# - Interlocked - when do I use it? - Stack Overflow I suggest you use the lock C# statement and only use Interlocked for easy cases (increment a shared counter) or performance critical cases Interlocked can only be used to access a single variable at a time and only quite primitive operations are supported You will have a really hard time synchronizing multiple variables with Interlocked
multithreading - Where is InterlockedRead? - Stack Overflow Interlocked operations are normally only of concern when modifying memory (typically in some non-trivial compare-exchange type way) As the MSDN article you found indicates, read operations (when properly aligned) can be considered atomic at all times without further precautions
c# - Fields read from written by several threads, Interlocked vs . . . There are a fair share of questions about Interlocked vs volatile here on SO, I understand and know the concepts of volatile (no re-ordering, always reading from memory, etc ) and I am aware of how Interlocked works in that it performs an atomic operation
Correct way to use the Interlocked class for multithreading in . NET Interlocked in this case will only ensure that processedLargeReports will always get to 0 after all threads finished processing all tasks, but that is all If you need to limit concurrent access to some resourse - just use appropriate tool for this: Semaphore or SemaphoreSlim classes
multiprocessing - InterlockedIncrement vs. ++ - Stack Overflow In NET it's basically the same story, but you have overloaded Increment, instead of Interlocked and Interlocked 64 So yeah - whenever you write multithreaded stuff (even on a single-core), just use the interlocked increments on shared memory It's not worth trying to be "smarter" than machine here