固定大小的队列，可在新入队时自动使旧值出队

我正在使用 ConcurrentQueue一个共享数据结构，该结构的目的是保存传递给它的最后N个对象（历史记录）。

假设我们有一个浏览器，并且希望有最近浏览的100个Urls。我想要一个队列，当容量满（历史记录中有100个地址）时，在新条目插入（入队）时自动删除（出队）最旧的（第一个）条目。

我该如何使用System.Collections？

我将编写一个包装器类，该类在Enqueue上将检查Count，然后在计数超出限制时出队。

 public class FixedSizedQueue<T>
 {
     ConcurrentQueue<T> q = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();
     private object lockObject = new object();

     public int Limit { get; set; }
     public void Enqueue(T obj)
     {
        q.Enqueue(obj);
        lock (lockObject)
        {
           T overflow;
           while (q.Count > Limit && q.TryDequeue(out overflow)) ;
        }
     }
 }

我会稍微改一下...扩展ConcurrentQueue，以便能够在FixedSizeQueue上使用Linq扩展

public class FixedSizedQueue<T> : ConcurrentQueue<T>
{
    private readonly object syncObject = new object();

    public int Size { get; private set; }

    public FixedSizedQueue(int size)
    {
        Size = size;
    }

    public new void Enqueue(T obj)
    {
        base.Enqueue(obj);
        lock (syncObject)
        {
            while (base.Count > Size)
            {
                T outObj;
                base.TryDequeue(out outObj);
            }
        }
    }
}

对于任何认为有用的人，这里是一些基于Richard Schneider上面回答的工作代码：

public class FixedSizedQueue<T>
{
    readonly ConcurrentQueue<T> queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();

    public int Size { get; private set; }

    public FixedSizedQueue(int size)
    {
        Size = size;
    }

    public void Enqueue(T obj)
    {
        queue.Enqueue(obj);

        while (queue.Count > Size)
        {
            T outObj;
            queue.TryDequeue(out outObj);
        }
    }
}

出于其价值，这是一个轻量级的循环缓冲区，其中标有一些方法，可用于安全和不安全的使用。

public class CircularBuffer<T> : IEnumerable<T>
{
    readonly int size;
    readonly object locker;

    int count;
    int head;
    int rear;
    T[] values;

    public CircularBuffer(int max)
    {
        this.size = max;
        locker = new object();
        count = 0;
        head = 0;
        rear = 0;
        values = new T[size];
    }

    static int Incr(int index, int size)
    {
        return (index + 1) % size;
    }

    private void UnsafeEnsureQueueNotEmpty()
    {
        if (count == 0)
            throw new Exception("Empty queue");
    }

    public int Size { get { return size; } }
    public object SyncRoot { get { return locker; } }

    #region Count

    public int Count { get { return UnsafeCount; } }
    public int SafeCount { get { lock (locker) { return UnsafeCount; } } }
    public int UnsafeCount { get { return count; } }

    #endregion

    #region Enqueue

    public void Enqueue(T obj)
    {
        UnsafeEnqueue(obj);
    }

    public void SafeEnqueue(T obj)
    {
        lock (locker) { UnsafeEnqueue(obj); }
    }

    public void UnsafeEnqueue(T obj)
    {
        values[rear] = obj;

        if (Count == Size)
            head = Incr(head, Size);
        rear = Incr(rear, Size);
        count = Math.Min(count + 1, Size);
    }

    #endregion

    #region Dequeue

    public T Dequeue()
    {
        return UnsafeDequeue();
    }

    public T SafeDequeue()
    {
        lock (locker) { return UnsafeDequeue(); }
    }

    public T UnsafeDequeue()
    {
        UnsafeEnsureQueueNotEmpty();

        T res = values[head];
        values[head] = default(T);
        head = Incr(head, Size);
        count--;

        return res;
    }

    #endregion

    #region Peek

    public T Peek()
    {
        return UnsafePeek();
    }

    public T SafePeek()
    {
        lock (locker) { return UnsafePeek(); }
    }

    public T UnsafePeek()
    {
        UnsafeEnsureQueueNotEmpty();

        return values[head];
    }

    #endregion


    #region GetEnumerator

    public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
    {
        return UnsafeGetEnumerator();
    }

    public IEnumerator<T> SafeGetEnumerator()
    {
        lock (locker)
        {
            List<T> res = new List<T>(count);
            var enumerator = UnsafeGetEnumerator();
            while (enumerator.MoveNext())
                res.Add(enumerator.Current);
            return res.GetEnumerator();
        }
    }

    public IEnumerator<T> UnsafeGetEnumerator()
    {
        int index = head;
        for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
        {
            yield return values[index];
            index = Incr(index, size);
        }
    }

    System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return this.GetEnumerator();
    }

    #endregion
}

我喜欢使用Foo()/SafeFoo()/UnsafeFoo()约定：

• Foo方法UnsafeFoo默认调用。
• UnsafeFoo 方法可以自由修改状态而无需锁定，它们只能调用其他不安全的方法。
• SafeFoo方法调用UnsafeFoo一个锁内的方法。

它有点冗长，但是会产生明显的错误，例如，在应该是线程安全的方法的锁之外调用不安全的方法更加明显。

这是我对固定大小的Queue的看法

它使用常规Queue，以避免在Count上使用属性时的同步开销ConcurrentQueue。它还实现了IReadOnlyCollection可以使用LINQ方法的功能。其余与此处的其他答案非常相似。

[Serializable]
[DebuggerDisplay("Count = {" + nameof(Count) + "}, Limit = {" + nameof(Limit) + "}")]
public class FixedSizedQueue<T> : IReadOnlyCollection<T>
{
    private readonly Queue<T> _queue = new Queue<T>();
    private readonly object _lock = new object();

    public int Count { get { lock (_lock) { return _queue.Count; } } }
    public int Limit { get; }

    public FixedSizedQueue(int limit)
    {
        if (limit < 1)
            throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException(nameof(limit));

        Limit = limit;
    }

    public FixedSizedQueue(IEnumerable<T> collection)
    {
        if (collection is null || !collection.Any())
           throw new ArgumentException("Can not initialize the Queue with a null or empty collection", nameof(collection));

        _queue = new Queue<T>(collection);
        Limit = _queue.Count;
    }

    public void Enqueue(T obj)
    {
        lock (_lock)
        {
            _queue.Enqueue(obj);

            while (_queue.Count > Limit)
                _queue.Dequeue();
        }
    }

    public void Clear()
    {
        lock (_lock)
            _queue.Clear();
    }

    public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
    {
        lock (_lock)
            return new List<T>(_queue).GetEnumerator();
    }

    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
    {
        return GetEnumerator();
    }
}

只是为了好玩，我相信这是另一个实现，可以解决大多数评论者的问题。特别是，无需锁定即可实现线程安全，并且包装类将实现隐藏起来。

public class FixedSizeQueue<T> : IReadOnlyCollection<T>
{
  private ConcurrentQueue<T> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();
  private int _count;

  public int Limit { get; private set; }

  public FixedSizeQueue(int limit)
  {
    this.Limit = limit;
  }

  public void Enqueue(T obj)
  {
    _queue.Enqueue(obj);
    Interlocked.Increment(ref _count);

    // Calculate the number of items to be removed by this thread in a thread safe manner
    int currentCount;
    int finalCount;
    do
    {
      currentCount = _count;
      finalCount = Math.Min(currentCount, this.Limit);
    } while (currentCount != 
      Interlocked.CompareExchange(ref _count, finalCount, currentCount));

    T overflow;
    while (currentCount > finalCount && _queue.TryDequeue(out overflow))
      currentCount--;
  }

  public int Count
  {
    get { return _count; }
  }

  public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
  {
    return _queue.GetEnumerator();
  }

  System.Collections.IEnumerator System.Collections.IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
  {
    return _queue.GetEnumerator();
  }
}

我的版本只是普通版本的子类Queue。.没有什么特别之处，但是看到每个人都参与，并且它仍然带有主题标题，我不妨放在这里。它也返回出队的，以防万一。

public sealed class SizedQueue<T> : Queue<T>
{
    public int FixedCapacity { get; }
    public SizedQueue(int fixedCapacity)
    {
        this.FixedCapacity = fixedCapacity;
    }

    /// <summary>
    /// If the total number of item exceed the capacity, the oldest ones automatically dequeues.
    /// </summary>
    /// <returns>The dequeued value, if any.</returns>
    public new T Enqueue(T item)
    {
        base.Enqueue(item);
        if (base.Count > FixedCapacity)
        {
            return base.Dequeue();
        }
        return default;
    }
}

让我们再添加一个答案。为什么要这样超过别人？

1）简单。试图保证大小是好事，但会导致不必要的复杂性，从而可能会表现出自己的问题。

2）实现IReadOnlyCollection，这意味着您可以在其上使用Linq并将其传递给期望IEnumerable的各种事物。

3）没有锁定。上面的许多解决方案都使用锁，这在无锁集合上是不正确的。

4）实现ConcurrentQueue所做的相同的方法，属性和接口集，包括IProducerConsumerCollection，这对于要与BlockingCollection一起使用集合很重要。

如果TryDequeue失败，此实现可能最终会获得比预期更多的条目，但是这种发生的频率似乎不值得使用专门的代码，因为这将不可避免地影响性能并导致其自身意料之外的问题。

如果您绝对想保证大小，那么实现Prune（）或类似方法似乎是最好的主意。您可以在其他方法（包括TryDequeue）中使用ReaderWriterLockSlim读取锁定，并且仅在修剪时才使用写入锁定。

class ConcurrentFixedSizeQueue<T> : IProducerConsumerCollection<T>, IReadOnlyCollection<T>, ICollection {
    readonly ConcurrentQueue<T> m_concurrentQueue;
    readonly int m_maxSize;

    public int Count => m_concurrentQueue.Count;
    public bool IsEmpty => m_concurrentQueue.IsEmpty;

    public ConcurrentFixedSizeQueue (int maxSize) : this(Array.Empty<T>(), maxSize) { }

    public ConcurrentFixedSizeQueue (IEnumerable<T> initialCollection, int maxSize) {
        if (initialCollection == null) {
            throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(initialCollection));
        }

        m_concurrentQueue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>(initialCollection);
        m_maxSize = maxSize;
    }

    public void Enqueue (T item) {
        m_concurrentQueue.Enqueue(item);

        if (m_concurrentQueue.Count > m_maxSize) {
            T result;
            m_concurrentQueue.TryDequeue(out result);
        }
    }

    public void TryPeek (out T result) => m_concurrentQueue.TryPeek(out result);
    public bool TryDequeue (out T result) => m_concurrentQueue.TryDequeue(out result);

    public void CopyTo (T[] array, int index) => m_concurrentQueue.CopyTo(array, index);
    public T[] ToArray () => m_concurrentQueue.ToArray();

    public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator () => m_concurrentQueue.GetEnumerator();
    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator () => GetEnumerator();

    // Explicit ICollection implementations.
    void ICollection.CopyTo (Array array, int index) => ((ICollection)m_concurrentQueue).CopyTo(array, index);
    object ICollection.SyncRoot => ((ICollection) m_concurrentQueue).SyncRoot;
    bool ICollection.IsSynchronized => ((ICollection) m_concurrentQueue).IsSynchronized;

    // Explicit IProducerConsumerCollection<T> implementations.
    bool IProducerConsumerCollection<T>.TryAdd (T item) => ((IProducerConsumerCollection<T>) m_concurrentQueue).TryAdd(item);
    bool IProducerConsumerCollection<T>.TryTake (out T item) => ((IProducerConsumerCollection<T>) m_concurrentQueue).TryTake(out item);

    public override int GetHashCode () => m_concurrentQueue.GetHashCode();
    public override bool Equals (object obj) => m_concurrentQueue.Equals(obj);
    public override string ToString () => m_concurrentQueue.ToString();
}

为了您的编码乐趣，我向您提交ConcurrentDeck“

public class ConcurrentDeck<T>
{
   private readonly int _size;
   private readonly T[] _buffer;
   private int _position = 0;

   public ConcurrentDeck(int size)
   {
       _size = size;
       _buffer = new T[size];
   }

   public void Push(T item)
   {
       lock (this)
       {
           _buffer[_position] = item;
           _position++;
           if (_position == _size) _position = 0;
       }
   }

   public T[] ReadDeck()
   {
       lock (this)
       {
           return _buffer.Skip(_position).Union(_buffer.Take(_position)).ToArray();
       }
   }
}

用法示例：

void Main()
{
    var deck = new ConcurrentDeck<Tuple<string,DateTime>>(25);
    var handle = new ManualResetEventSlim();
    var task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>{
    var timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
    timer.Elapsed += (s,a) => {deck.Push(new Tuple<string,DateTime>("task1",DateTime.Now));};
    timer.Interval = System.TimeSpan.FromSeconds(1).TotalMilliseconds;
    timer.Enabled = true;
    handle.Wait();
    }); 
    var task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>{
    var timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
    timer.Elapsed += (s,a) => {deck.Push(new Tuple<string,DateTime>("task2",DateTime.Now));};
    timer.Interval = System.TimeSpan.FromSeconds(.5).TotalMilliseconds;
    timer.Enabled = true;
    handle.Wait();
    }); 
    var task3 = Task.Factory.StartNew(()=>{
    var timer = new System.Timers.Timer();
    timer.Elapsed += (s,a) => {deck.Push(new Tuple<string,DateTime>("task3",DateTime.Now));};
    timer.Interval = System.TimeSpan.FromSeconds(.25).TotalMilliseconds;
    timer.Enabled = true;
    handle.Wait();
    }); 
    System.Threading.Thread.Sleep(TimeSpan.FromSeconds(10));
    handle.Set();
    var outputtime = DateTime.Now;
    deck.ReadDeck().Select(d => new {Message = d.Item1, MilliDiff = (outputtime - d.Item2).TotalMilliseconds}).Dump(true);
}

好吧，这取决于使用情况，我已经注意到，在多线程环境中使用上述解决方案时，某些解决方案可能会超出大小。无论如何，我的用例是显示最后5个事件，并且有多个线程将事件写入队列，另一个线程从队列中读取事件并将其显示在Winform Control中。这就是我的解决方案。

编辑：由于我们已经在实现中使用了锁定，因此我们实际上并不需要ConcurrentQueue，它可以提高性能。

class FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<T> 
{
    readonly Queue<T> queue = new Queue<T>();
    readonly object syncObject = new object();

    public int MaxSize { get; private set; }

    public FixedSizedConcurrentQueue(int maxSize)
    {
        MaxSize = maxSize;
    }

    public void Enqueue(T obj)
    {
        lock (syncObject)
        {
            queue.Enqueue(obj);
            while (queue.Count > MaxSize)
            {
                queue.Dequeue();
            }
        }
    }

    public T[] ToArray()
    {
        T[] result = null;
        lock (syncObject)
        {
            result = queue.ToArray();
        }

        return result;
    }

    public void Clear()
    {
        lock (syncObject)
        {
            queue.Clear();
        }
    }
}

编辑：我们syncObject在上面的示例中并不需要，我们可以使用queue对象，因为我们不会queue在任何函数中对其进行初始化，也不会将其标记为readonly。

只是因为没有人说过。.您可以使用a LinkedList<T>并添加线程安全性：

public class Buffer<T> : LinkedList<T>
{
    private int capacity;

    public Buffer(int capacity)
    {
        this.capacity = capacity;   
    }

    public void Enqueue(T item)
    {
        // todo: add synchronization mechanism
        if (Count == capacity) RemoveLast();
        AddFirst(item);
    }

    public T Dequeue()
    {
        // todo: add synchronization mechanism
        var last = Last.Value;
        RemoveLast();
        return last;
    }
}

需要注意的一件事是，在此示例中，默认枚举顺序将为LIFO。但这在必要时可以被覆盖。

公认的答案将产生可避免的副作用。

下面的链接是我在下面编写示例时使用的参考。

尽管Microsoft的文档确实使用了锁定，但却有些误导，但是它们却锁定了细分类。段类本身使用互锁。

using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;

namespace Lib.Core
{
    // Sources: 
    // https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/collections/thread-safe/
    // https://docs.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/api/system.threading.interlocked?view=netcore-3.1
    // https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/master/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/Collections/Concurrent/ConcurrentQueue.cs
    // https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/blob/master/src/libraries/System.Private.CoreLib/src/System/Collections/Concurrent/ConcurrentQueueSegment.cs

    /// <summary>
    /// Concurrent safe circular buffer that will used a fixed capacity specified and resuse slots as it goes.
    /// </summary>
    /// <typeparam name="TObject">The object that you want to go into the slots.</typeparam>
    public class ConcurrentCircularBuffer<TObject>
    {
        private readonly ConcurrentQueue<TObject> _queue;

        public int Capacity { get; private set; }

        public ConcurrentCircularBuffer(int capacity)
        {
            if(capacity <= 0)
            {
                throw new ArgumentException($"The capacity specified '{capacity}' is not valid.", nameof(capacity));
            }

            // Setup the queue to the initial capacity using List's underlying implementation.
            _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<TObject>(new List<TObject>(capacity));

            Capacity = capacity;
        }

        public void Enqueue(TObject @object)
        {
            // Enforce the capacity first so the head can be used instead of the entire segment (slow).
            while (_queue.Count + 1 > Capacity)
            {
                if (!_queue.TryDequeue(out _))
                {
                    // Handle error condition however you want to ie throw, return validation object, etc.
                    var ex = new Exception("Concurrent Dequeue operation failed.");
                    ex.Data.Add("EnqueueObject", @object);
                    throw ex;
                }
            }

            // Place the item into the queue
            _queue.Enqueue(@object);
        }

        public TObject Dequeue()
        {
            if(_queue.TryDequeue(out var result))
            {
                return result;
            }

            return default;
        }
    }
}

这是又一个实现，它尽可能使用底层的ConcurrentQueue，同时提供通过ConcurrentQueue提供的相同接口。

/// <summary>
/// This is a FIFO concurrent queue that will remove the oldest added items when a given limit is reached.
/// </summary>
/// <typeparam name="TValue"></typeparam>
public class FixedSizedConcurrentQueue<TValue> : IProducerConsumerCollection<TValue>, IReadOnlyCollection<TValue>
{
    private readonly ConcurrentQueue<TValue> _queue;

    private readonly object _syncObject = new object();

    public int LimitSize { get; }

    public FixedSizedConcurrentQueue(int limit)
    {
        _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<TValue>();
        LimitSize = limit;
    }

    public FixedSizedConcurrentQueue(int limit, System.Collections.Generic.IEnumerable<TValue> collection)
    {
        _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<TValue>(collection);
        LimitSize = limit;

    }

    public int Count => _queue.Count;

    bool ICollection.IsSynchronized => ((ICollection) _queue).IsSynchronized;

    object ICollection.SyncRoot => ((ICollection)_queue).SyncRoot; 

    public bool IsEmpty => _queue.IsEmpty;

    // Not supported until .NET Standard 2.1
    //public void Clear() => _queue.Clear();

    public void CopyTo(TValue[] array, int index) => _queue.CopyTo(array, index);

    void ICollection.CopyTo(Array array, int index) => ((ICollection)_queue).CopyTo(array, index);

    public void Enqueue(TValue obj)
    {
        _queue.Enqueue(obj);
        lock( _syncObject )
        {
            while( _queue.Count > LimitSize ) {
                _queue.TryDequeue(out _);
            }
        }
    }

    public IEnumerator<TValue> GetEnumerator() => _queue.GetEnumerator();

    IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator() => ((IEnumerable<TValue>)this).GetEnumerator();

    public TValue[] ToArray() => _queue.ToArray();

    public bool TryAdd(TValue item)
    {
        Enqueue(item);
        return true;
    }

    bool IProducerConsumerCollection<TValue>.TryTake(out TValue item) => TryDequeue(out item);

    public bool TryDequeue(out TValue result) => _queue.TryDequeue(out result);

    public bool TryPeek(out TValue result) => _queue.TryPeek(out result);

}

这是我的队列版本：

public class FixedSizedQueue<T> {
  private object LOCK = new object();
  ConcurrentQueue<T> queue;

  public int MaxSize { get; set; }

  public FixedSizedQueue(int maxSize, IEnumerable<T> items = null) {
     this.MaxSize = maxSize;
     if (items == null) {
        queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();
     }
     else {
        queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>(items);
        EnsureLimitConstraint();
     }
  }

  public void Enqueue(T obj) {
     queue.Enqueue(obj);
     EnsureLimitConstraint();
  }

  private void EnsureLimitConstraint() {
     if (queue.Count > MaxSize) {
        lock (LOCK) {
           T overflow;
           while (queue.Count > MaxSize) {
              queue.TryDequeue(out overflow);
           }
        }
     }
  }


  /// <summary>
  /// returns the current snapshot of the queue
  /// </summary>
  /// <returns></returns>
  public T[] GetSnapshot() {
     return queue.ToArray();
  }
}

我发现在IEnumerable的基础上构造一个构造函数很有用，并且在调用时让GetSnapshot拥有项的多线程安全列表（在这种情况下为数组）很有用，但不会增加如果底层集合发生更改，则会发生错误。

双重计数检查是为了防止在某些情况下锁定。