我在创建一个简单的线程池时正在考虑这个thread。在那里，我偶然发现@MilanGardian's response for .NET 3.5，这是优雅的，符合我的目的：
using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Threading;
namespace SimpleThreadPool
{
public sealed class Pool : IDisposable
{
public Pool(int size)
{
this._workers = new LinkedList<Thread>();
for (var i = 0; i < size; ++i)
{
var worker = new Thread(this.Worker) { Name = string.Concat("Worker ", i) };
worker.Start();
this._workers.AddLast(worker);
}
}
public void Dispose()
{
var waitForThreads = false;
lock (this._tasks)
{
if (!this._disposed)
{
GC.SuppressFinalize(this);
this._disallowAdd = true; // wait for all tasks to finish processing while not allowing any more new tasks
while (this._tasks.Count > 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(this._tasks);
}
this._disposed = true;
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // wake all workers (none of them will be active at this point; disposed flag will cause then to finish so that we can join them)
waitForThreads = true;
}
}
if (waitForThreads)
{
foreach (var worker in this._workers)
{
worker.Join();
}
}
}
public void QueueTask(Action task)
{
lock (this._tasks)
{
if (this._disallowAdd) { throw new InvalidOperationException("This Pool instance is in the process of being disposed, can't add anymore"); }
if (this._disposed) { throw new ObjectDisposedException("This Pool instance has already been disposed"); }
this._tasks.AddLast(task);
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // pulse because tasks count changed
}
}
private void Worker()
{
Action task = null;
while (true) // loop until threadpool is disposed
{
lock (this._tasks) // finding a task needs to be atomic
{
while (true) // wait for our turn in _workers queue and an available task
{
if (this._disposed)
{
return;
}
if (null != this._workers.First && object.ReferenceEquals(Thread.CurrentThread, this._workers.First.Value) && this._tasks.Count > 0) // we can only claim a task if its our turn (this worker thread is the first entry in _worker queue) and there is a task available
{
task = this._tasks.First.Value;
this._tasks.RemoveFirst();
this._workers.RemoveFirst();
Monitor.PulseAll(this._tasks); // pulse because current (First) worker changed (so that next available sleeping worker will pick up its task)
break; // we found a task to process, break out from the above 'while (true)' loop
}
Monitor.Wait(this._tasks); // go to sleep, either not our turn or no task to process
}
}
task(); // process the found task
this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
task = null;
}
}
private readonly LinkedList<Thread> _workers; // queue of worker threads ready to process actions
private readonly LinkedList<Action> _tasks = new LinkedList<Action>(); // actions to be processed by worker threads
private bool _disallowAdd; // set to true when disposing queue but there are still tasks pending
private bool _disposed; // set to true when disposing queue and no more tasks are pending
}
public static class Program
{
static void Main()
{
using (var pool = new Pool(5))
{
var random = new Random();
Action<int> randomizer = (index =>
{
Console.WriteLine("{0}: Working on index {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, index);
Thread.Sleep(random.Next(20, 400));
Console.WriteLine("{0}: Ending {1}", Thread.CurrentThread.Name, index);
});
for (var i = 0; i < 40; ++i)
{
var i1 = i;
pool.QueueTask(() => randomizer(i1));
}
}
}
}
}
我使用如下：
static void Main(string[] args)
{
...
...
while(keepRunning)
{
...
pool.QueueTask(() => DoTask(eventObject);
}
...
}
private static void DoTask(EventObject e)
{
// Do some computations
pool.QueueTask(() => DoAnotherTask(eventObject)); // this is a relatively smaller computation
}
运行代码大约两天后，我收到以下异常：
Unhandled Exception: System.NullReferenceException: Object reference not set to an instance of an object.
at System.Collections.Generic.LinkedList`1.InternalInsertNodeBefore(LinkedListNode`1 node, LinkedListNode`1 newNode)
at System.Collections.Generic.LinkedList`1.AddLast(T value)
at MyProg.Pool.Worker()
at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart_Context(Object state)
at System.Threading.ExecutionContext.Run(ExecutionContext executionContext, ContextCallback callback, Object state)
at System.Threading.ThreadHelper.ThreadStart()
我无法弄清楚导致这种情况的原因，因为我无法再次收到此错误。有关如何解决此问题的任何建议吗？
答案 0 :(得分：3)
认为我发现了这个问题。代码示例错过lock()
private void Worker()
{
Action task = null;
while (true) // loop until threadpool is disposed
{
lock (this._tasks) // finding a task needs to be atomic
{
while (true) // wait for our turn in _workers queue and an available task
{
....
}
}
task(); // process the found task
this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
task = null;
}
}
锁应该延长或缠绕this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);
如果查看修改LinkedList（Pool.QueueTask）的其他代码，它将包含在lock中。
答案 1 :(得分：3)
似乎访问_workers链接列表未正确同步。请考虑以下情况：
让我们假设在某些时候this._workets列表包含一个项目。
第一个线程调用this._workers.AddLast(Thread.CurrentThread);但在一个非常特殊的地方被中断 - 在AddLast()方法内：
public void AddLast(LinkedListNode<T> node)
{
this.ValidateNewNode(node);
if (this.head == null)
{
this.InternalInsertNodeToEmptyList(node);
}
else
{
// here we got interrupted - the list was not empty,
// but it would be pretty soon, and this.head becomes null
// InternalInsertNodeBefore() does not expect that
this.InternalInsertNodeBefore(this.head, node);
}
node.list = (LinkedList<T>) this;
}
其他线程调用this._workers.RemoveFirst();。该语句周围没有lock()所以它完成了，现在列表为空。 AddLast()现在应该调用InternalInsertNodeToEmptyList(node);但不能，因为已经评估了条件。
在单个lock(this._tasks)行周围放置一个简单的this._workers.AddLast()可以防止出现这种情况。
其他不良情况包括两个线程同时将项目添加到同一列表中。