问题
i've recently come across a producer/consumer pattern c# implementation. it's very simple and (for me at least) very elegant.
it seems to have been devised around 2006, so i was wondering if this implementation is
- safe
- still applicable
Code is below (original code was referenced at http://bytes.com/topic/net/answers/575276-producer-consumer#post2251375)
using System;
using System.Collections;
using System.Threading;
public class Test
{
static ProducerConsumer queue;
static void Main()
{
queue = new ProducerConsumer();
new Thread(new ThreadStart(ConsumerJob)).Start();
Random rng = new Random(0);
for (int i=0; i < 10; i++)
{
Console.WriteLine ("Producing {0}", i);
queue.Produce(i);
Thread.Sleep(rng.Next(1000));
}
}
static void ConsumerJob()
{
// Make sure we get a different random seed from the
// first thread
Random rng = new Random(1);
// We happen to know we've only got 10
// items to receive
for (int i=0; i < 10; i++)
{
object o = queue.Consume();
Console.WriteLine ("\t\t\t\tConsuming {0}", o);
Thread.Sleep(rng.Next(1000));
}
}
}
public class ProducerConsumer
{
readonly object listLock = new object();
Queue queue = new Queue();
public void Produce(object o)
{
lock (listLock)
{
queue.Enqueue(o);
// We always need to pulse, even if the queue wasn't
// empty before. Otherwise, if we add several items
// in quick succession, we may only pulse once, waking
// a single thread up, even if there are multiple threads
// waiting for items.
Monitor.Pulse(listLock);
}
}
public object Consume()
{
lock (listLock)
{
// If the queue is empty, wait for an item to be added
// Note that this is a while loop, as we may be pulsed
// but not wake up before another thread has come in and
// consumed the newly added object. In that case, we'll
// have to wait for another pulse.
while (queue.Count==0)
{
// This releases listLock, only reacquiring it
// after being woken up by a call to Pulse
Monitor.Wait(listLock);
}
return queue.Dequeue();
}
}
}
回答1:
The code is older than that - I wrote it some time before .NET 2.0 came out. The concept of a producer/consumer queue is way older than that though :)
Yes, that code is safe as far as I'm aware - but it has some deficiencies:
- It's non-generic. A modern version would certainly be generic.
- It has no way of stopping the queue. One simple way of stopping the queue (so that all the consumer threads retire) is to have a "stop work" token which can be put into the queue. You then add as many tokens as you have threads. Alternatively, you have a separate flag to indicate that you want to stop. (This allows the other threads to stop before finishing all the current work in the queue.)
- If the jobs are very small, consuming a single job at a time may not be the most efficient thing to do.
The ideas behind the code are more important than the code itself, to be honest.
回答2:
You could do something like the following code snippet. It's generic and has a method for enqueue-ing nulls (or whatever flag you'd like to use) to tell the worker threads to exit.
The code is taken from here: http://www.albahari.com/threading/part4.aspx#_Wait_and_Pulse
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Text;
using System.Threading;
namespace ConsoleApplication1
{
public class TaskQueue<T> : IDisposable where T : class
{
object locker = new object();
Thread[] workers;
Queue<T> taskQ = new Queue<T>();
public TaskQueue(int workerCount)
{
workers = new Thread[workerCount];
// Create and start a separate thread for each worker
for (int i = 0; i < workerCount; i++)
(workers[i] = new Thread(Consume)).Start();
}
public void Dispose()
{
// Enqueue one null task per worker to make each exit.
foreach (Thread worker in workers) EnqueueTask(null);
foreach (Thread worker in workers) worker.Join();
}
public void EnqueueTask(T task)
{
lock (locker)
{
taskQ.Enqueue(task);
Monitor.PulseAll(locker);
}
}
void Consume()
{
while (true)
{
T task;
lock (locker)
{
while (taskQ.Count == 0) Monitor.Wait(locker);
task = taskQ.Dequeue();
}
if (task == null) return; // This signals our exit
Console.Write(task);
Thread.Sleep(1000); // Simulate time-consuming task
}
}
}
}
回答3:
Back in the day I learned how Monitor.Wait/Pulse works (and a lot about threads in general) from the above piece of code and the article series it is from. So as Jon says, it has a lot of value to it and is indeed safe and applicable.
However, as of .NET 4, there is a producer-consumer queue implementation in the framework. I only just found it myself but up to this point it does everything I need.
回答4:
Warning: If you read the comments, you'll understand my answer is wrong :)
There's a possible deadlock in your code.
Imagine the following case, for clarity, I used a single-thread approach but should be easy to convert to multi-thread with sleep:
// We create some actions...
object locker = new object();
Action action1 = () => {
lock (locker)
{
System.Threading.Monitor.Wait(locker);
Console.WriteLine("This is action1");
}
};
Action action2 = () => {
lock (locker)
{
System.Threading.Monitor.Wait(locker);
Console.WriteLine("This is action2");
}
};
// ... (stuff happens, etc.)
// Imagine both actions were running
// and there's 0 items in the queue
// And now the producer kicks in...
lock (locker)
{
// This would add a job to the queue
Console.WriteLine("Pulse now!");
System.Threading.Monitor.Pulse(locker);
}
// ... (more stuff)
// and the actions finish now!
Console.WriteLine("Consume action!");
action1(); // Oops... they're locked...
action2();
Please do let me know if this doesn't make any sense.
If this is confirmed, then the answer to your question is, "no, it isn't safe" ;) I hope this helps.
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/1656404/c-sharp-producer-consumer