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

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 ?

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。

ConcurrentList(作为一个可调整大小的数组，而不是一个链表)不容易用非阻塞操作编写。它的API不能很好地转换为“并发”版本。

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。