When should the volatile keyword be used in C#?

If you want to get slightly more technical about what the volatile keyword does, consider the following program (I'm using DevStudio 2005):

#include <iostream>
void main()
{
  int j = 0;
  for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
  {
    j += i;
  }
  for (volatile int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
  {
    j += i;
  }
  std::cout << j;
}

Using the standard optimised (release) compiler settings, the compiler creates the following assembler (IA32):

void main()
{
00401000  push        ecx  
  int j = 0;
00401001  xor         ecx,ecx 
  for (int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
00401003  xor         eax,eax 
00401005  mov         edx,1 
0040100A  lea         ebx,[ebx] 
  {
    j += i;
00401010  add         ecx,eax 
00401012  add         eax,edx 
00401014  cmp         eax,64h 
00401017  jl          main+10h (401010h) 
  }
  for (volatile int i = 0 ; i < 100 ; ++i)
00401019  mov         dword ptr [esp],0 
00401020  mov         eax,dword ptr [esp] 
00401023  cmp         eax,64h 
00401026  jge         main+3Eh (40103Eh) 
00401028  jmp         main+30h (401030h) 
0040102A  lea         ebx,[ebx] 
  {
    j += i;
00401030  add         ecx,dword ptr [esp] 
00401033  add         dword ptr [esp],edx 
00401036  mov         eax,dword ptr [esp] 
00401039  cmp         eax,64h 
0040103C  jl          main+30h (401030h) 
  }
  std::cout << j;
0040103E  push        ecx  
0040103F  mov         ecx,dword ptr [__imp_std::cout (40203Ch)] 
00401045  call        dword ptr [__imp_std::basic_ostream<char,std::char_traits<char> >::operator<< (402038h)] 
}
0040104B  xor         eax,eax 
0040104D  pop         ecx  
0040104E  ret              

Looking at the output, the compiler has decided to use the ecx register to store the value of the j variable. For the non-volatile loop (the first) the compiler has assigned i to the eax register. Fairly straightforward. There are a couple of interesting bits though - the lea ebx,[ebx] instruction is effectively a multibyte nop instruction so that the loop jumps to a 16 byte aligned memory address. The other is the use of edx to increment the loop counter instead of using an inc eax instruction. The add reg,reg instruction has lower latency on a few IA32 cores compared to the inc reg instruction, but never has higher latency.

Now for the loop with the volatile loop counter. The counter is stored at [esp] and the volatile keyword tells the compiler the value should always be read from/written to memory and never assigned to a register. The compiler even goes so far as to not do a load/increment/store as three distinct steps (load eax, inc eax, save eax) when updating the counter value, instead the memory is directly modified in a single instruction (an add mem,reg). The way the code has been created ensures the value of the loop counter is always up-to-date within the context of a single CPU core. No operation on the data can result in corruption or data loss (hence not using the load/inc/store since the value can change during the inc thus being lost on the store). Since interrupts can only be serviced once the current instruction has completed, the data can never be corrupted, even with unaligned memory.

Once you introduce a second CPU to the system, the volatile keyword won't guard against the data being updated by another CPU at the same time. In the above example, you would need the data to be unaligned to get a potential corruption. The volatile keyword won't prevent potential corruption if the data cannot be handled atomically, for example, if the loop counter was of type long long (64 bits) then it would require two 32 bit operations to update the value, in the middle of which an interrupt can occur and change the data.

So, the volatile keyword is only good for aligned data which is less than or equal to the size of the native registers such that operations are always atomic.

The volatile keyword was conceived to be used with IO operations where the IO would be constantly changing but had a constant address, such as a memory mapped UART device, and the compiler shouldn't keep reusing the first value read from the address.

If you're handling large data or have multiple CPUs then you'll need a higher level (OS) locking system to handle the data access properly.

I don't think there's a better person to answer this than Eric Lippert (emphasis in the original):

In C#, "volatile" means not only "make sure that the compiler and the jitter do not perform any code reordering or register caching optimizations on this variable". It also means "tell the processors to do whatever it is they need to do to ensure that I am reading the latest value, even if that means halting other processors and making them synchronize main memory with their caches".

Actually, that last bit is a lie. The true semantics of volatile reads and writes are considerably more complex than I've outlined here; in fact they do not actually guarantee that every processor stops what it is doing and updates caches to/from main memory. Rather, they provide weaker guarantees about how memory accesses before and after reads and writes may be observed to be ordered with respect to each other. Certain operations such as creating a new thread, entering a lock, or using one of the Interlocked family of methods introduce stronger guarantees about observation of ordering. If you want more details, read sections 3.10 and 10.5.3 of the C# 4.0 specification.

Frankly, I discourage you from ever making a volatile field. Volatile fields are a sign that you are doing something downright crazy: you're attempting to read and write the same value on two different threads without putting a lock in place. Locks guarantee that memory read or modified inside the lock is observed to be consistent, locks guarantee that only one thread accesses a given chunk of memory at a time, and so on. The number of situations in which a lock is too slow is very small, and the probability that you are going to get the code wrong because you don't understand the exact memory model is very large. I don't attempt to write any low-lock code except for the most trivial usages of Interlocked operations. I leave the usage of "volatile" to real experts.

For further reading see:

• Understand the Impact of Low-Lock Techniques in Multithreaded Apps
• Sayonara volatile

If you are using .NET 1.1, the volatile keyword is needed when doing double checked locking. Why? Because prior to .NET 2.0, the following scenario could cause a second thread to access an non-null, yet not fully constructed object:

1. Thread 1 asks if a variable is null. //if(this.foo == null)
2. Thread 1 determines the variable is null, so enters a lock. //lock(this.bar)
3. Thread 1 asks AGAIN if the variable is null. //if(this.foo == null)
4. Thread 1 still determines the variable is null, so it calls a constructor and assigns the value to the variable. //this.foo = new Foo();

Prior to .NET 2.0, this.foo could be assigned the new instance of Foo, before the constructor was finished running. In this case, a second thread could come in (during thread 1's call to Foo's constructor) and experience the following:

1. Thread 2 asks if variable is null. //if(this.foo == null)
2. Thread 2 determines the variable is NOT null, so tries to use it. //this.foo.MakeFoo()

Prior to .NET 2.0, you could declare this.foo as being volatile to get around this problem. Since .NET 2.0, you no longer need to use the volatile keyword to accomplish double checked locking.

Wikipedia actually has a good article on Double Checked Locking, and briefly touches on this topic: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double-checked_locking

Sometimes, the compiler will optimize a field and use a register to store it. If thread 1 does a write to the field and another thread accesses it, since the update was stored in a register (and not memory), the 2nd thread would get stale data.

You can think of the volatile keyword as saying to the compiler "I want you to store this value in memory". This guarantees that the 2nd thread retrieves the latest value.