本文介绍了这是无锁的.NET队列线程安全的？的处理方法，对大家解决问题具有一定的参考价值，需要的朋友们下面随着小编来一起学习吧！
问题描述
我的问题是，下面是包括了一个阅读器单写队列级的线程安全类的？这种队列称为无锁，即使如果队列装满它会阻止。该数据结构的灵感来自于Marc Gravell的实现阻塞队列的在这里计算器。
的结构的点是允许一个线程将数据写入缓冲器中，而另一个线程来读取数据。所有这一切都需要尽可能快地发生。
有一个类似的数据结构，在DDJ的文章香草萨特，除了实现在C ++中。另一个区别是，我使用的是香草链表，我使用数组的链表。
而不是仅仅包括code片段我有整个事情与一个宽容的开源许可评论（MIT许可1.0）的情况下，任何人发现它是有用的，并希望使用它（原样或修改）。
这是有关询问关于如何创建一个并发阻塞队列（见的在创建.NET 和Thread-safe在.NET 阻塞队列实现）。
下面是code：
使用系统;
使用System.Collections.Generic;
使用的System.Threading;
使用System.Diagnostics程序;
命名空间CollectionSandbox
{
///这是实现一个单一的读/辛格勒作家缓冲队列
///与（几乎）没有锁。如果填充该实现只阻止
/// 向上。实施是阵列的一个链表。
///它是由欲望启发，创造一个非阻塞版本
///由Marc Gravell在C＃中的阻塞队列落实
/// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/530211/creating-a-blocking-queuet-in-net/530228#530228
类SimpleSharedQueue＆LT; T＆GT; ：IStreamBuffer＆LT; T＆GT;
{
///用于信号的东西都不再满
ManualResetEvent的canWrite =新的ManualResetEvent（真正的）;
///这是一个缓冲区的大小
const int的BUFFER_SIZE = 512;
///这是节点的最大数目。
const int的MAX_NODE_COUNT = 100;
///这标志着将新数据写入到的位置。
光标加法器;
///这标志着从读取新数据的位置。
光标卸妆;
///指示没有更多的数据将被写入该节点。
公共布尔完成= FALSE;
///节点是数据项的数组，指针下一个项目，
///和在被占领的项目数的索引
类节点
{
///当数据被存储。
大众T []数据=新的T [BUFFER_SIZE];
///当前存储在节点的数据项的数量。
下一个公开节点;
///当前存储在节点的数据项的数量。
公众诠释计数;
///默认的构造方法，仅适用于第一个节点。
公共节点（）
{
计数= 0;
}
///只会被调用由作家将新节点添加到场景
公共节点（T X，节点preV）
{
数据[0] = X;
数= 1;
//将previous节点安全地更新以指向这个节点。
//读者可以看的地步，而我们将其设置，所以这应该是
// 原子。
Interlocked.Exchange（参考prev.next，这一点）;
}
}
///这是用来指向单个节点内的位置，并且可以执行
///读或作家。一个光标将只读取，而另一个光标只会
///曾经写。
类光标
{
///指向父队列
公共SimpleSharedQueue＆LT; T＆GT; q;
///当前节点
公共节点节点;
///对于作家，这点到该下一个项目将被写入的位置。
///对于一个阅读器，这个指向该下一个项目将被读取的位置。
公众诠释电流= 0;
///创建一个新的光标，指向节点
公共光标（SimpleSharedQueue＆LT; T＆GT; Q，节点的节点）
{
this.q = Q;
this.node =节点;
}
///用于推动更多的数据到队列
公共无效写入（T X）
{
Trace.Assert（当前== node.count）;
//检查我们是否在节点的限制，并且将需要分配一个新的缓冲区。
如果（当前== BUFFER_SIZE）
{
//检查队列已满
如果（q.IsFull（））
{
//信号canWrite事件为假
q.canWrite.Reset（）;
//等待，直到canWrite事件信号
q.canWrite.WaitOne（）;
}
//创建一个新的节点
节点=新节点（X，节点）;
电流= 1;
}
其他
{
//如果实现为正确，则读者将从未尝试访问此
//当我们将它设置数组位置。这是因为不变量的那
//如果读取器和写入器处于相同节点：
// reader.current＆LT; node.count
// 和
// writer.current = node.count
node.data [电流++] = X;
//我们必须使用互锁，以确保我们incremeent计数
// atomicalluy，因为读者可以阅读它。
Interlocked.Increment（REF node.count）;
}
}
///从队列中提取数据，只有当返回false
/// 那里
公共BOOL读（REF牛逼X）
{
而（真）
{
如果（电流I node.count）
{
X = node.data [电流++];
返回true;
}
否则，如果（（当前== BUFFER_SIZE）及和放大器;！（node.next = NULL））
{
//将当前节点到下一个。
//我们知道它是安全的这样做。
//旧节点将有它没有更多引用它
//并会被垃圾收集器删除。
节点= node.next;
//如果有写线程等待队列，
//然后松开。
//概念上有一个如果（q.IsFull），但我们不能把它
//因为这会导致竞争条件。
q.canWrite.Set（）;
//指向第一个点
电流= 0;
//其中一个不变的是，每一个节点之后创建的第一个，
//将具有至少一个项目。所以下面的调用是安全的
X = node.data [电流++];
返回true;
}
//如果我们到这里，我们已经看过最新添加的数据。
//然后我们检查，看看是否作家已经完成生产数据。
如果（q.completed）
返回false;
//如果我们在这里没有数据的等待，并没有萎靡不振完成的线程。
//等待一毫秒。该系统还将上下文切换。
//这将允许写入线程一些额外的资源，以泵出
//更多的数据（特别是如果它iself是多线程）
Thread.sleep代码（1）;
}
}
}
///返回当前使用的节点的数目。
私人诠释NodeCount
{
得到
{
INT结果为0;
节点CUR = NULL;
Interlocked.Exchange＆LT;节点＆GT;（REF CUR，remover.node）;
//对从去除所有节点的加法器
//效率不高，但是这不是经常调用。
而（CUR！= NULL）
{
++结果;
Interlocked.Exchange＆LT;节点＆GT;（REF CUR，cur.next）;
}
返回结果;
}
}
///构建队列。
公共SimpleSharedQueue（）
{
节点根=新节点（）;
加法器=新的光标（本，根）;
卸妆=新的光标（本，根）;
}
///指示给读者，没有更多的数据是要被写入。
公共无效MarkCompleted（）
{
完成=真;
}
///读取下一个数据。返回false，如果没有更多的数据。
公共BOOL读（REF牛逼X）
{
返回remover.Read（REF X）;
}
///写入更多的数据。
公共无效写入（T X）
{
adder.Write（X）;
}
///告诉我们，如果有太多的节点，并且可以不加了。
私人布尔IsFull（）
{
返回NodeCount == MAX_NODE_COUNT;
}
}
}
解决方案
微软研究院CHESS应被证明是用于测试你实现一个很好的工具。
My question is, is the class included below for a single-reader single-writer queue class thread-safe? This kind of queue is called lock-free, even if it will block if the queue is filled. The data structure was inspired by Marc Gravell's implementation of a blocking queue here at StackOverflow.
The point of the structure is to allow a single thread to write data to the buffer, and another thread to read data. All of this needs to happen as quickly as possible.
A similar data structure is described in an article at DDJ by Herb Sutter, except the implementation is in C++. Another difference is that I use a vanilla linked list, I use a linked list of arrays.
Rather than just including a snippet of code I include the whole thing with comment with a permissive open source license (MIT License 1.0) in case anyone finds it useful, and wants to use it (as-is or modified).
This is related to other questions asked on Stack Overflow of how to create a blocking concurrent queues (see Creating a blockinq Queue in .NET and Thread-safe blocking queue implementation in .NET).
Here is the code:
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
using System.Diagnostics;
namespace CollectionSandbox
{
/// This is a single reader / singler writer buffered queue implemented
/// with (almost) no locks. This implementation will block only if filled
/// up. The implementation is a linked-list of arrays.
/// It was inspired by the desire to create a non-blocking version
/// of the blocking queue implementation in C# by Marc Gravell
/// http://stackoverflow.com/questions/530211/creating-a-blocking-queuet-in-net/530228#530228
class SimpleSharedQueue<T> : IStreamBuffer<T>
{
/// Used to signal things are no longer full
ManualResetEvent canWrite = new ManualResetEvent(true);
/// This is the size of a buffer
const int BUFFER_SIZE = 512;
/// This is the maximum number of nodes.
const int MAX_NODE_COUNT = 100;
/// This marks the location to write new data to.
Cursor adder;
/// This marks the location to read new data from.
Cursor remover;
/// Indicates that no more data is going to be written to the node.
public bool completed = false;
/// A node is an array of data items, a pointer to the next item,
/// and in index of the number of occupied items
class Node
{
/// Where the data is stored.
public T[] data = new T[BUFFER_SIZE];
/// The number of data items currently stored in the node.
public Node next;
/// The number of data items currently stored in the node.
public int count;
/// Default constructor, only used for first node.
public Node()
{
count = 0;
}
/// Only ever called by the writer to add new Nodes to the scene
public Node(T x, Node prev)
{
data[0] = x;
count = 1;
// The previous node has to be safely updated to point to this node.
// A reader could looking at the point, while we set it, so this should be
// atomic.
Interlocked.Exchange(ref prev.next, this);
}
}
/// This is used to point to a location within a single node, and can perform
/// reads or writers. One cursor will only ever read, and another cursor will only
/// ever write.
class Cursor
{
/// Points to the parent Queue
public SimpleSharedQueue<T> q;
/// The current node
public Node node;
/// For a writer, this points to the position that the next item will be written to.
/// For a reader, this points to the position that the next item will be read from.
public int current = 0;
/// Creates a new cursor, pointing to the node
public Cursor(SimpleSharedQueue<T> q, Node node)
{
this.q = q;
this.node = node;
}
/// Used to push more data onto the queue
public void Write(T x)
{
Trace.Assert(current == node.count);
// Check whether we are at the node limit, and are going to need to allocate a new buffer.
if (current == BUFFER_SIZE)
{
// Check if the queue is full
if (q.IsFull())
{
// Signal the canWrite event to false
q.canWrite.Reset();
// Wait until the canWrite event is signaled
q.canWrite.WaitOne();
}
// create a new node
node = new Node(x, node);
current = 1;
}
else
{
// If the implementation is correct then the reader will never try to access this
// array location while we set it. This is because of the invariant that
// if reader and writer are at the same node:
// reader.current < node.count
// and
// writer.current = node.count
node.data[current++] = x;
// We have to use interlocked, to assure that we incremeent the count
// atomicalluy, because the reader could be reading it.
Interlocked.Increment(ref node.count);
}
}
/// Pulls data from the queue, returns false only if
/// there
public bool Read(ref T x)
{
while (true)
{
if (current < node.count)
{
x = node.data[current++];
return true;
}
else if ((current == BUFFER_SIZE) && (node.next != null))
{
// Move the current node to the next one.
// We know it is safe to do so.
// The old node will have no more references to it it
// and will be deleted by the garbage collector.
node = node.next;
// If there is a writer thread waiting on the Queue,
// then release it.
// Conceptually there is a "if (q.IsFull)", but we can't place it
// because that would lead to a Race condition.
q.canWrite.Set();
// point to the first spot
current = 0;
// One of the invariants is that every node created after the first,
// will have at least one item. So the following call is safe
x = node.data[current++];
return true;
}
// If we get here, we have read the most recently added data.
// We then check to see if the writer has finished producing data.
if (q.completed)
return false;
// If we get here there is no data waiting, and no flagging of the completed thread.
// Wait a millisecond. The system will also context switch.
// This will allow the writing thread some additional resources to pump out
// more data (especially if it iself is multithreaded)
Thread.Sleep(1);
}
}
}
/// Returns the number of nodes currently used.
private int NodeCount
{
get
{
int result = 0;
Node cur = null;
Interlocked.Exchange<Node>(ref cur, remover.node);
// Counts all nodes from the remover to the adder
// Not efficient, but this is not called often.
while (cur != null)
{
++result;
Interlocked.Exchange<Node>(ref cur, cur.next);
}
return result;
}
}
/// Construct the queue.
public SimpleSharedQueue()
{
Node root = new Node();
adder = new Cursor(this, root);
remover = new Cursor(this, root);
}
/// Indicate to the reader that no more data is going to be written.
public void MarkCompleted()
{
completed = true;
}
/// Read the next piece of data. Returns false if there is no more data.
public bool Read(ref T x)
{
return remover.Read(ref x);
}
/// Writes more data.
public void Write(T x)
{
adder.Write(x);
}
/// Tells us if there are too many nodes, and can't add anymore.
private bool IsFull()
{
return NodeCount == MAX_NODE_COUNT;
}
}
}
解决方案
Microsoft Research CHESS should prove to be a good tool for testing your implementation.
这篇关于这是无锁的.NET队列线程安全的？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！