在。net 4.0中看到新的System.Collections.Concurrent命名空间，我非常激动，非常棒!我已经看到ConcurrentDictionary, ConcurrentQueue, ConcurrentStack, ConcurrentBag和BlockingCollection。
有一样东西似乎神秘地丢失了，那就是ConcurrentList<T>。我必须自己写吗(或者从网上得到:))?
我是不是遗漏了什么明显的东西?
当前回答
我试过一段时间(也:在GitHub)。我的实现出现了一些问题，我在这里就不赘述了。让我告诉你，更重要的是，我学到了什么。
首先，你不可能得到一个完整的IList<T>的无锁和线程安全的实现。特别是，随机插入和删除是行不通的，除非你也忘记了O(1)随机访问(也就是说，除非你“欺骗”，只是使用某种链表，让索引糟糕透顶)。
我认为可能值得的是一个线程安全的IList<T>的有限子集:特别是一个允许添加并通过索引提供随机只读访问的子集(但没有Insert、RemoveAt等，也没有随机写访问)。
This was the goal of my ConcurrentList<T> implementation. But when I tested its performance in multithreaded scenarios, I found that simply synchronizing adds to a List<T> was faster. Basically, adding to a List<T> is lightning fast already; the complexity of the computational steps involved is miniscule (increment an index and assign to an element in an array; that's really it). You would need a ton of concurrent writes to see any sort of lock contention on this; and even then, the average performance of each write would still beat out the more expensive albeit lockless implementation in ConcurrentList<T>.
在相对罕见的情况下，列表的内部数组需要调整自身的大小，您确实需要付出一点代价。因此，最终我得出结论，这是一个适合的场景，其中仅添加ConcurrentList<T>集合类型是有意义的:当您希望保证在每次调用中添加元素的开销较低时(因此，与平摊性能目标相反)。
它并不是一个像您想象的那样有用的类。
其他回答
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。
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();
}
}
我试过一段时间(也:在GitHub)。我的实现出现了一些问题，我在这里就不赘述了。让我告诉你，更重要的是，我学到了什么。
首先，你不可能得到一个完整的IList<T>的无锁和线程安全的实现。特别是，随机插入和删除是行不通的，除非你也忘记了O(1)随机访问(也就是说，除非你“欺骗”，只是使用某种链表，让索引糟糕透顶)。
我认为可能值得的是一个线程安全的IList<T>的有限子集:特别是一个允许添加并通过索引提供随机只读访问的子集(但没有Insert、RemoveAt等，也没有随机写访问)。
This was the goal of my ConcurrentList<T> implementation. But when I tested its performance in multithreaded scenarios, I found that simply synchronizing adds to a List<T> was faster. Basically, adding to a List<T> is lightning fast already; the complexity of the computational steps involved is miniscule (increment an index and assign to an element in an array; that's really it). You would need a ton of concurrent writes to see any sort of lock contention on this; and even then, the average performance of each write would still beat out the more expensive albeit lockless implementation in ConcurrentList<T>.
在相对罕见的情况下，列表的内部数组需要调整自身的大小，您确实需要付出一点代价。因此，最终我得出结论，这是一个适合的场景，其中仅添加ConcurrentList<T>集合类型是有意义的:当您希望保证在每次调用中添加元素的开销较低时(因此，与平摊性能目标相反)。
它并不是一个像您想象的那样有用的类。
With all due respect to the great answers provided already, there are times that I simply want a thread-safe IList. Nothing advanced or fancy. Performance is important in many cases but at times that just isn't a concern. Yes, there are always going to be challenges without methods like "TryGetValue" etc, but most cases I just want something that I can enumerate without needing to worry about putting locks around everything. And yes, somebody can probably find some "bug" in my implementation that might lead to a deadlock or something (I suppose) but lets be honest: When it comes to multi-threading, if you don't write your code correctly, it is going deadlock anyway. With that in mind I decided to make a simple ConcurrentList implementation that provides these basic needs.
为了它的价值:我做了一个基本的测试，添加10,000,000项到常规列表和ConcurrentList，结果是:
列表完成时间:7793毫秒。 并发完成时间:8064毫秒。
public class ConcurrentList<T> : IList<T>, IDisposable
{
#region Fields
private readonly List<T> _list;
private readonly ReaderWriterLockSlim _lock;
#endregion
#region Constructors
public ConcurrentList()
{
this._lock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim(LockRecursionPolicy.NoRecursion);
this._list = new List<T>();
}
public ConcurrentList(int capacity)
{
this._lock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim(LockRecursionPolicy.NoRecursion);
this._list = new List<T>(capacity);
}
public ConcurrentList(IEnumerable<T> items)
{
this._lock = new ReaderWriterLockSlim(LockRecursionPolicy.NoRecursion);
this._list = new List<T>(items);
}
#endregion
#region Methods
public void Add(T item)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
this._list.Add(item);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public void Insert(int index, T item)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
this._list.Insert(index, item);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public bool Remove(T item)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
return this._list.Remove(item);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public void RemoveAt(int index)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
this._list.RemoveAt(index);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public int IndexOf(T item)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
return this._list.IndexOf(item);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public void Clear()
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
this._list.Clear();
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
public bool Contains(T item)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
return this._list.Contains(item);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
this._list.CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new ConcurrentEnumerator<T>(this._list, this._lock);
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
return new ConcurrentEnumerator<T>(this._list, this._lock);
}
~ConcurrentList()
{
this.Dispose(false);
}
public void Dispose()
{
this.Dispose(true);
}
private void Dispose(bool disposing)
{
if (disposing)
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
this._lock.Dispose();
}
#endregion
#region Properties
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
return this._list[index];
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
set
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterWriteLock();
this._list[index] = value;
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitWriteLock();
}
}
}
public int Count
{
get
{
try
{
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
return this._list.Count;
}
finally
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
}
}
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get { return false; }
}
#endregion
}
public class ConcurrentEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T>
{
#region Fields
private readonly IEnumerator<T> _inner;
private readonly ReaderWriterLockSlim _lock;
#endregion
#region Constructor
public ConcurrentEnumerator(IEnumerable<T> inner, ReaderWriterLockSlim @lock)
{
this._lock = @lock;
this._lock.EnterReadLock();
this._inner = inner.GetEnumerator();
}
#endregion
#region Methods
public bool MoveNext()
{
return _inner.MoveNext();
}
public void Reset()
{
_inner.Reset();
}
public void Dispose()
{
this._lock.ExitReadLock();
}
#endregion
#region Properties
public T Current
{
get { return _inner.Current; }
}
object IEnumerator.Current
{
get { return _inner.Current; }
}
#endregion
}
我很惊讶没有人提到使用LinkedList作为编写专业类的基础。
通常我们不需要各种集合类的完整API，如果您编写的主要是功能性副作用的免费代码，尽可能使用不可变的类，那么您实际上不会希望改变集合，以支持各种快照实现。
LinkedList solves some difficult problems of creating snapshot copies/clones of large collections. I also use it to create "threadsafe" enumerators to enumerate over the collection. I can cheat, because I know that I'm not changing the collection in any way other than appending, I can keep track of the list size, and only lock on changes to list size. Then my enumerator code simply enumerates from 0 to n for any thread that wants a "snapshot" of the append only collection, that will be guaranteed to represent a "snapshot" of the collection at any moment in time, regardless of what other threads are appending to the head of the collection.
我非常确定大多数需求通常非常简单，您只需要2或3个方法。编写一个真正的泛型库是非常困难的，但解决您自己的代码需求有时可以通过一两个技巧很容易。
LinkedList和优秀的函数式编程万岁。
干杯,……爱你们! 艾尔
附注:样本hack AppendOnly类在这里:https://github.com/goblinfactory/AppendOnly
推荐文章
- 实体框架核心:在上一个操作完成之前，在此上下文中开始的第二个操作
- 如何为构造函数定制Visual Studio的私有字段生成快捷方式?
- 为什么Visual Studio 2015/2017/2019测试运行器没有发现我的xUnit v2测试
- 如何使用JSON确保字符串是有效的JSON。网
- AppSettings从.config文件中获取值
- 通过HttpClient向REST API发布一个空体
- 如何检查IEnumerable是否为空或空?
- 自动化invokerrequired代码模式
- 没有ListBox。SelectionMode="None"，是否有其他方法禁用列表框中的选择?
- 在c#代码中设置WPF文本框的背景颜色
- 在c#中，什么是单子?
- c#和Java中的泛型有什么不同?和模板在c++ ?
- c#线程安全快速(est)计数器
- 如何将此foreach代码转换为Parallel.ForEach?
- 如何在iis7应用程序池中设置。net Framework 4.5版本
