我有下面的例子。我也找不出为什么队列SyncRoot也有锁,而这两种相干算法都使用相同的对象进行了完全锁定。
据说队列锁是必要的。
public class CrudeThreadPool
{
static readonly int MaxWorkThreads = 4;
static readonly int WaitTimeout = 2000;
public delegate void WorkDelegate();
public CrudeThreadPool() {
stop = false;
workLock = new Object();
workQueue = new Queue();
threads = new Thread[ MaxWorkThreads ];
for( int i = 0; i < MaxWorkThreads; ++i ) {
threads[i] =
new Thread( new ThreadStart(this.ThreadFunc) );
threads[i].Start();
}
}
private void ThreadFunc() {
lock( workLock ) {
do {
if( !stop ) {
WorkDelegate workItem = null;
if( Monitor.Wait(workLock, WaitTimeout) ) {
lock( workQueue.SyncRoot ) {
workItem =
(WorkDelegate) workQueue.Dequeue();
}
workItem();
}
}
} while( !stop );
}
}
public void SubmitWorkItem( WorkDelegate item ) {
lock( workLock ) {
lock( workQueue.SyncRoot ) {
workQueue.Enqueue( item );
}
Monitor.Pulse( workLock );
}
}
public void Shutdown() {
stop = true;
}
private Queue workQueue;
private Object workLock;
private Thread[] threads;
private volatile bool stop;
}锁定队列SyncRoot的原因是什么,即lock(workQueue.SyncRoot )
发布于 2016-05-15 18:52:59
内部锁实际上并不是必需的,因为只要没有再次到达等待,锁就会被保持,并将阻止所有生产者。因此,这应该是可行的:
private void ThreadFunc() {
do {
if( !stop ) {
WorkDelegate workItem = null;
lock( workLock ) {
if( Monitor.Wait(workLock, WaitTimeout) ) {
workItem = (WorkDelegate) workQueue.Dequeue();
}
}
if (workItem != null) workItem();
}
} while( !stop );
}
public void SubmitWorkItem( WorkDelegate item )
{
lock( workLock ) {
workQueue.Enqueue( item );
Monitor.Pulse( workLock );
}
}对于线程处理场景,约瑟夫·阿尔巴哈里遗址是一个很棒的参考。虽然这是一个典型的生产者/消费者场景,但我建议您使用BlockingCollection。
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/37242257
复制相似问题