Diagnostics: Fixes possible Thread contention in Traces #5455
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
FabianMeiswinkel
requested review from
Pilchie,
kirankumarkolli and
sboshra
as code owners
![github-actions[bot]](https://avatars.githubusercontent.com/in/15368?s=60&v=4){kind=small}
kirankumarkolli
changed the title
kirankumarkolli
approved these changes
Oct 27, 2025
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Pull Request Template
Description
This PR fixes a regression in tracing introduced by #5422, which can lead to thread contention. The bug is that the locking expects Trace-names to be unique for different logical operations - but many of the strings passed into new root traces (logical operations) are not new string instances (with possibly same value) but constants - so same singelton string instances. In tehse cases the new code will provide unnecessary lock contention. The locking scope should be just the scope of the ITrace instance - so, this PR introduces a new instance-level lock object (something I tried to avoid initially to avoid allocation of a new object-instance per trace). The alternative (Id - is a ValueType) and (children is a List that is exposed via properties - locking it would not be guaranteed to be dead-lock free - woudl be unliekly but not impossble if caller locks on the returned value from the Childred property).
Type of change
Please delete options that are not relevant.
Closing issues
To automatically close an issue: closes #IssueNumber