我实现了一个类似于Brian的方法。我的情况不同:

我直接管理数组。 我没有在try块中输入锁。 我使用yield return生成枚举器。 我支持锁递归。这允许在迭代期间从列表中读取。 我尽可能使用可升级的读锁。 DoSync和GetSync方法允许需要独占访问列表的顺序交互。

代码:

public class ConcurrentList<T> : IList<T>, IDisposable
{
    private ReaderWriterLockSlim _lock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim(LockRecursionPolicy.SupportsRecursion);
    private int _count = 0;

    public int Count
    {
        get
        { 
            _lock.EnterReadLock();
            try
            {           
                return _count;
            }
            finally
            {
                _lock.ExitReadLock();
            }
        }
    }

    public int InternalArrayLength
    { 
        get
        { 
            _lock.EnterReadLock();
            try
            {           
                return _arr.Length;
            }
            finally
            {
                _lock.ExitReadLock();
            }
        }
    }

    private T[] _arr;

    public ConcurrentList(int initialCapacity)
    {
        _arr = new T[initialCapacity];
    }

    public ConcurrentList():this(4)
    { }

    public ConcurrentList(IEnumerable<T> items)
    {
        _arr = items.ToArray();
        _count = _arr.Length;
    }

    public void Add(T item)
    {
        _lock.EnterWriteLock();
        try
        {       
            var newCount = _count + 1;          
            EnsureCapacity(newCount);           
            _arr[_count] = item;
            _count = newCount;                  
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitWriteLock();
        }       
    }

    public void AddRange(IEnumerable<T> items)
    {
        if (items == null)
            throw new ArgumentNullException("items");

        _lock.EnterWriteLock();

        try
        {           
            var arr = items as T[] ?? items.ToArray();          
            var newCount = _count + arr.Length;
            EnsureCapacity(newCount);           
            Array.Copy(arr, 0, _arr, _count, arr.Length);       
            _count = newCount;
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitWriteLock();          
        }
    }

    private void EnsureCapacity(int capacity)
    {   
        if (_arr.Length >= capacity)
            return;

        int doubled;
        checked
        {
            try
            {           
                doubled = _arr.Length * 2;
            }
            catch (OverflowException)
            {
                doubled = int.MaxValue;
            }
        }

        var newLength = Math.Max(doubled, capacity);            
        Array.Resize(ref _arr, newLength);
    }

    public bool Remove(T item)
    {
        _lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();

        try
        {           
            var i = IndexOfInternal(item);

            if (i == -1)
                return false;

            _lock.EnterWriteLock();
            try
            {   
                RemoveAtInternal(i);
                return true;
            }
            finally
            {               
                _lock.ExitWriteLock();
            }
        }
        finally
        {           
            _lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();
        }
    }

    public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
    {
        _lock.EnterReadLock();

        try
        {    
            for (int i = 0; i < _count; i++)
                // deadlocking potential mitigated by lock recursion enforcement
                yield return _arr[i]; 
        }
        finally
        {           
            _lock.ExitReadLock();
        }
    }

    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return this.GetEnumerator();
    }

    public int IndexOf(T item)
    {
        _lock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {   
            return IndexOfInternal(item);
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitReadLock();
        }
    }

    private int IndexOfInternal(T item)
    {
        return Array.FindIndex(_arr, 0, _count, x => x.Equals(item));
    }

    public void Insert(int index, T item)
    {
        _lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();

        try
        {                       
            if (index > _count)
                throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index"); 

            _lock.EnterWriteLock();
            try
            {       
                var newCount = _count + 1;
                EnsureCapacity(newCount);

                // shift everything right by one, starting at index
                Array.Copy(_arr, index, _arr, index + 1, _count - index);

                // insert
                _arr[index] = item;     
                _count = newCount;
            }
            finally
            {           
                _lock.ExitWriteLock();
            }
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();            
        }


    }

    public void RemoveAt(int index)
    {   
        _lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();
        try
        {   
            if (index >= _count)
                throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index");

            _lock.EnterWriteLock();
            try
            {           
                RemoveAtInternal(index);
            }
            finally
            {
                _lock.ExitWriteLock();
            }
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();            
        }
    }

    private void RemoveAtInternal(int index)
    {           
        Array.Copy(_arr, index + 1, _arr, index, _count - index-1);
        _count--;

        // release last element
        Array.Clear(_arr, _count, 1);
    }

    public void Clear()
    {
        _lock.EnterWriteLock();
        try
        {        
            Array.Clear(_arr, 0, _count);
            _count = 0;
        }
        finally
        {           
            _lock.ExitWriteLock();
        }   
    }

    public bool Contains(T item)
    {
        _lock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {   
            return IndexOfInternal(item) != -1;
        }
        finally
        {           
            _lock.ExitReadLock();
        }
    }

    public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
    {       
        _lock.EnterReadLock();
        try
        {           
            if(_count > array.Length - arrayIndex)
                throw new ArgumentException("Destination array was not long enough.");

            Array.Copy(_arr, 0, array, arrayIndex, _count);
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitReadLock();           
        }
    }

    public bool IsReadOnly
    {   
        get { return false; }
    }

    public T this[int index]
    {
        get
        {
            _lock.EnterReadLock();
            try
            {           
                if (index >= _count)
                    throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index");

                return _arr[index]; 
            }
            finally
            {
                _lock.ExitReadLock();               
            }           
        }
        set
        {
            _lock.EnterUpgradeableReadLock();
            try
            {

                if (index >= _count)
                    throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("index");

                _lock.EnterWriteLock();
                try
                {                       
                    _arr[index] = value;
                }
                finally
                {
                    _lock.ExitWriteLock();              
                }
            }
            finally
            {
                _lock.ExitUpgradeableReadLock();
            }

        }
    }

    public void DoSync(Action<ConcurrentList<T>> action)
    {
        GetSync(l =>
        {
            action(l);
            return 0;
        });
    }

    public TResult GetSync<TResult>(Func<ConcurrentList<T>,TResult> func)
    {
        _lock.EnterWriteLock();
        try
        {           
            return func(this);
        }
        finally
        {
            _lock.ExitWriteLock();
        }
    }

    public void Dispose()
    {   
        _lock.Dispose();
    }
}

有些人强调了一些好处(以及我的一些想法):

It could looklikes insane to unable random accesser (indexer) but to me it appears fine. You only have to think that there is many methods on multi-threaded collections that could fail like Indexer and Delete. You could also define failure (fallback) action for write accessor like "fail" or simply "add at the end". It is not because it is a multithreaded collection that it will always be used in a multithreaded context. Or it could also be used by only one writer and one reader. Another way to be able to use indexer in a safe manner could be to wrap actions into a lock of the collection using its root (if made public). For many people, making a rootLock visible goes agaist "Good practice". I'm not 100% sure about this point because if it is hidden you remove a lot of flexibility to the user. We always have to remember that programming multithread is not for anybody. We can't prevent every kind of wrong usage. Microsoft will have to do some work and define some new standard to introduce proper usage of Multithreaded collection. First the IEnumerator should not have a moveNext but should have a GetNext that return true or false and get an out paramter of type T (this way the iteration would not be blocking anymore). Also, Microsoft already use "using" internally in the foreach but sometimes use the IEnumerator directly without wrapping it with "using" (a bug in collection view and probably at more places) - Wrapping usage of IEnumerator is a recommended pratice by Microsoft. This bug remove good potential for safe iterator... Iterator that lock collection in constructor and unlock on its Dispose method - for a blocking foreach method.

这不是答案。这只是一些不适合特定场合的注释。

... My conclusion, Microsoft has to make some deep changes to the "foreach" to make MultiThreaded collection easier to use. Also it has to follow there own rules of IEnumerator usage. Until that, we can write a MultiThreadList easily that would use a blocking iterator but that will not follow "IList". Instead, you will have to define own "IListPersonnal" interface that could fail on "insert", "remove" and random accessor (indexer) without exception. But who will want to use it if it is not standard ?

在顺序执行的代码中，使用的数据结构与(编写良好的)并发执行的代码不同。原因是顺序代码隐含着隐式的顺序。然而并发代码并不意味着任何顺序;更妙的是，它暗示着缺乏任何明确的秩序!

因此，具有隐含顺序的数据结构(如List)对于解决并发问题不是很有用。列表意味着顺序，但它并没有清楚地定义这个顺序是什么。因此，操作列表的代码的执行顺序将(在某种程度上)决定列表的隐式顺序，这与有效的并发解决方案直接冲突。

记住，并发是一个数据问题，而不是代码问题!您不能先实现代码(或重写现有的顺序代码)，然后获得设计良好的并发解决方案。您需要首先设计数据结构，同时记住在并发系统中不存在隐式排序。

没有ConcurrentList的原因是因为它根本不能被写入。原因是在IList中有几个重要的操作依赖于索引，而这根本行不通。例如:

int catIndex = list.IndexOf("cat");
list.Insert(catIndex, "dog");

作者所追求的效果是在“cat”之前插入“dog”，但在多线程环境中，这两行代码之间的列表可能发生任何事情。例如，另一个线程可能执行list. removeat(0)，将整个列表向左移动，但关键的是，catIndex不会改变。这里的影响是Insert操作实际上将“狗”放在猫之后，而不是在它之前。

The several implementations that you see offered as "answers" to this question are well-meaning, but as the above shows, they don't offer reliable results. If you really want list-like semantics in a multithreaded environment, you can't get there by putting locks inside the list implementation methods. You have to ensure that any index you use lives entirely inside the context of the lock. The upshot is that you can use a List in a multithreaded environment with the right locking, but the list itself cannot be made to exist in that world.

如果你认为你需要一个并发列表，实际上只有两种可能:

你真正需要的是一个ConcurrentBag 您需要创建自己的集合，可能使用List和自己的并发控制来实现。

If you have a ConcurrentBag and are in a position where you need to pass it as an IList, then you have a problem, because the method you're calling has specified that they might try to do something like I did above with the cat & dog. In most worlds, what that means is that the method you're calling is simply not built to work in a multi-threaded environment. That means you either refactor it so that it is or, if you can't, you're going to have to handle it very carefully. You you'll almost certainly be required to create your own collection with its own locks, and call the offending method within a lock.

如果不需要处理太多项，无锁复制和写入方法非常有效。 下面是我写的一个类:

public class CopyAndWriteList<T>
{
    public static List<T> Clear(List<T> list)
    {
        var a = new List<T>(list);
        a.Clear();
        return a;
    }

    public static List<T> Add(List<T> list, T item)
    {
        var a = new List<T>(list);
        a.Add(item);
        return a;
    }

    public static List<T> RemoveAt(List<T> list, int index)
    {
        var a = new List<T>(list);
        a.RemoveAt(index);
        return a;
    }

    public static List<T> Remove(List<T> list, T item)
    {
        var a = new List<T>(list);
        a.Remove(item);
        return a;
    }

}

使用示例: orders_BUY = CopyAndWriteList.Clear(orders_BUY);

你用ConcurrentList做什么?

在线程世界中，随机访问容器的概念并不像它看起来那样有用。该声明

  if (i < MyConcurrentList.Count)  
      x = MyConcurrentList[i]; 

总的来说仍然不是线程安全的。

与其创建ConcurrentList，不如尝试使用现有的内容构建解决方案。最常见的类是ConcurrentBag，尤其是BlockingCollection。