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 ?

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 ?

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。

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。

System.Collections.Generic。List<t>对于多个读取器来说已经是线程安全的。试图使它对多个写入器是线程安全的是没有意义的。(原因Henk和Stephen已经提到了)