问题
I have the following situation:
I have a lot of threads in my project, and each thread process one "key" by time.
Two threads cannot process the same "key" at the same time, but my project process A LOOOOOT OF KEYS, so I can't store the "keys" on memory, I need to store on memory that a thread is processing a "key" and if another thread tries to process the same "key" this thread will be waiting in a lock clause.
Now I have the following structure:
public class Lock
{
private static object _lockObj = new object();
private static List<object> _lockListValues = new List<object>();
public static void Execute(object value, Action action)
{
lock (_lockObj)
{
if (!_lockListValues.Contains(value))
_lockListValues.Add(value);
}
lock (_lockListValues.First(x => x.Equals(value)))
{
action.Invoke();
}
}
}
It is working fine, the problem is that the keys aren't being removed from the memory. the biggest trouble is the multi thread feature because at any time a "key" can be processed.
How could I solve this without a global lock independent of the keys?
回答1:
Sorry, but no, this is not the way it should be done.
First, you speak about keys, but you store keys as type object in List and then you are searching with LINQ to get that from list.
For that kind of stuff is here dictionary.
Second, object model, usually it is best to implement locking of some object around some class, make it nice and clean:
like:
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
public LockedObject<T>
{
public readonly T data;
public readonly int id;
private readonly object obj = new object();
LockedObject(int id, T data)
{
this.id = id;
this.data = data;
}
//Usually, if you have Action related to some data,
//it is better to receive
//that data as parameter
public void InvokeAction(Action<T> action)
{
lock(obj)
{
action(data);
}
}
}
//Now it is a concurrently safe object applying some action
//concurrently on given data, no matter how it is stored.
//But still, this is the best idea:
ConcurrentDictionary<int, LockedObject<T>> dict =
new ConcurrentDictionary<int, LockedObject<T>>();
//You can insert, read, remove all object's concurrently.
But, the best thing is yet to come! :) You can make it lock free and very easily!
EDIT1:
ConcurrentInvoke, dictionary like collection for concurrently safe invoking action over data. There can be only one action at the time on given key.
using System;
using System.Threading;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
public class ConcurrentInvoke<TKey, TValue>
{
//we hate lock() :)
private class Data<TData>
{
public readonly TData data;
private int flag;
private Data(TData data)
{
this.data = data;
}
public static bool Contains<TTKey>(ConcurrentDictionary<TTKey, Data<TData>> dict, TTKey key)
{
return dict.ContainsKey(key);
}
public static bool TryAdd<TTKey>(ConcurrentDictionary<TTKey, Data<TData>> dict, TTKey key, TData data)
{
return dict.TryAdd(key, new Data<TData>(data));
}
// can not remove if,
// not exist,
// remove of the key already in progress,
// invoke action of the key inprogress
public static bool TryRemove<TTKey>(ConcurrentDictionary<TTKey, Data<TData>> dict, TTKey key, Action<TTKey, TData> action_removed = null)
{
Data<TData> data = null;
if (!dict.TryGetValue(key, out data)) return false;
var access = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref data.flag, 1, 0) == 0;
if (!access) return false;
Data<TData> data2 = null;
var removed = dict.TryRemove(key, out data2);
Interlocked.Exchange(ref data.flag, 0);
if (removed && action_removed != null) action_removed(key, data2.data);
return removed;
}
// can not invoke if,
// not exist,
// remove of the key already in progress,
// invoke action of the key inprogress
public static bool TryInvokeAction<TTKey>(ConcurrentDictionary<TTKey, Data<TData>> dict, TTKey key, Action<TTKey, TData> invoke_action = null)
{
Data<TData> data = null;
if (invoke_action == null || !dict.TryGetValue(key, out data)) return false;
var access = Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref data.flag, 1, 0) == 0;
if (!access) return false;
invoke_action(key, data.data);
Interlocked.Exchange(ref data.flag, 0);
return true;
}
}
private
readonly
ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, Data<TValue>> dict =
new ConcurrentDictionary<TKey, Data<TValue>>()
;
public bool Contains(TKey key)
{
return Data<TValue>.Contains(dict, key);
}
public bool TryAdd(TKey key, TValue value)
{
return Data<TValue>.TryAdd(dict, key, value);
}
public bool TryRemove(TKey key, Action<TKey, TValue> removed = null)
{
return Data<TValue>.TryRemove(dict, key, removed);
}
public bool TryInvokeAction(TKey key, Action<TKey, TValue> invoke)
{
return Data<TValue>.TryInvokeAction(dict, key, invoke);
}
}
ConcurrentInvoke<int, string> concurrent_invoke = new ConcurrentInvoke<int, string>();
concurrent_invoke.TryAdd(1, "string 1");
concurrent_invoke.TryAdd(2, "string 2");
concurrent_invoke.TryAdd(3, "string 3");
concurrent_invoke.TryRemove(1);
concurrent_invoke.TryInvokeAction(3, (key, value) =>
{
Console.WriteLine("InvokingAction[key: {0}, vale: {1}", key, value);
});
回答2:
I modified a KeyedLock class that I posted in another question, to use internally the Monitor class instead of SemaphoreSlims. I expected that using a specialized mechanism for synchronous locking would offer better performance, but I can't actually see any difference. I am posting it anyway because it has the added convenience feature of releasing the lock automatically with the using statement. This feature adds no significant overhead in the case of synchronous locking, so there is no reason to omit it.
The KeyedMonitor class stores internally only the locking objects that are currently in use, plus a small pool of locking objects that have been released and can be reused. This pool reduces significantly the memory allocations under heavy usage.
public class KeyedMonitor<TKey>
{
private readonly Dictionary<TKey, (object, int)> _perKey;
private readonly Stack<object> _pool;
private readonly int _poolCapacity;
public KeyedMonitor(IEqualityComparer<TKey> keyComparer = null,
int poolCapacity = 10)
{
_perKey = new Dictionary<TKey, (object, int)>(keyComparer);
_pool = new Stack<object>(poolCapacity);
_poolCapacity = poolCapacity;
}
public ExitToken Enter(TKey key)
{
var locker = GetLocker(key);
Monitor.Enter(locker);
return new ExitToken(this, key);
}
public bool TryEnter(TKey key, int millisecondsTimeout)
{
var locker = GetLocker(key);
var acquired = Monitor.TryEnter(locker, millisecondsTimeout);
if (!acquired) ReleaseLocker(key, withMonitorExit: false);
return acquired;
}
public void Exit(TKey key) => ReleaseLocker(key, withMonitorExit: true);
private object GetLocker(TKey key)
{
object locker;
lock (_perKey)
{
if (_perKey.TryGetValue(key, out var entry))
{
int counter;
(locker, counter) = entry;
counter++;
_perKey[key] = (locker, counter);
}
else
{
lock (_pool) locker = _pool.Count > 0 ? _pool.Pop() : null;
if (locker == null) locker = new object();
_perKey[key] = (locker, 1);
}
}
return locker;
}
private void ReleaseLocker(TKey key, bool withMonitorExit)
{
object locker; int counter;
lock (_perKey)
{
if (_perKey.TryGetValue(key, out var entry))
{
(locker, counter) = entry;
counter--;
if (counter == 0)
_perKey.Remove(key);
else
_perKey[key] = (locker, counter);
}
else
{
throw new InvalidOperationException("Key not found.");
}
}
if (withMonitorExit) Monitor.Exit(locker);
if (counter == 0)
lock (_pool) if (_pool.Count < _poolCapacity) _pool.Push(locker);
}
public readonly struct ExitToken : IDisposable
{
private readonly KeyedMonitor<TKey> _parent;
private readonly TKey _key;
public ExitToken(KeyedMonitor<TKey> parent, TKey key)
{
_parent = parent; _key = key;
}
public void Dispose() => _parent?.Exit(_key);
}
}
Usage example:
var locker = new KeyedMonitor<string>();
using (locker.Enter("Hello"))
{
DoSomething(); // with the "Hello" resource
}
Although the KeyedMonitor class is thread-safe, it is not as robust as using the lock statement directly, because it offers no resilience in case of a ThreadAbortException. An aborted thread could leave the class in a corrupted internal state. I don't consider this to be a big issue, since the Thread.Abort method has become obsolete in the current version of the .NET platform (.NET 5).
来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/33786579/how-to-dynamically-lock-strings-but-remove-the-lock-objects-from-memory