Blocking Queue is something that we might demand constantly for various kinds of applications, where one thread might take data from the queue, and other threads might try to put data into the queue. Unlike other thread-safe queue, the blocking queue should have one unique requiremnt in that whether a thread tries to take item from the queue or a thread try to put an item into the queue, the calling thread might be blocked until certain condition is met, for the put thread, the condition is that the queue is not full, and for the take thrad, the condition being the queue is not empty! They will be unblock immediately once the blocking condition is lifted.
there are many way that you can implement the blocking queue. you can use WaitHandle with the test on the number of items in the concurrent collections, then you will be able to know when to block and when to notify the threads.
But the DotNet framework has provided a very neat means for you to implement the Blocking queue with the off-the-shelf System.Collection.Concurrent namespace.
From the above mentioned namespace, there are BlockingCollection<> and ConcurrentQueue<>, but there is no such ConcurrentQueue<>?? Why Microsoft forget to provide such an important FIFO class, which can be applied in many a place?
Ah, Microsoft has actually inventted a very smart trick here because if you take a look at the signature of the BlockingCollection, it is somethig like this:
[DebuggerDisplay("Count = {Count}, Type = {m_collection}")]
[DebuggerTypeProxy(typeof(SystemThreadingCollections_BlockingCollectionDebugView<>))]
[ComVisible(false)]
public class BlockingCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>, ICollection, IEnumerable, IDisposable
{
public BlockingCollection();
public BlockingCollection(int boundedCapacity);
public BlockingCollection(IProducerConsumerCollection<T> collection);
public BlockingCollection(IProducerConsumerCollection<T> collection, int boundedCapacity);
// ...
}
as you can see some overload of the constructors takes a IProducerConsumerCollection<T> as it parameter, and what are those IProducerConsumerCollection<T> are coming from?
Ah, if you take a look at the signature of the ConcurrentQueue<T>
public class ConcurrentQueue<T> : IProducerConsumerCollection<T>, IEnumerable<T>, ICollection, IEnumerable
{
//...
}
Ah, so ConcurrentQueue is an instance of IProducerConsumerCollection<T>, For those of you who are interested to find ou wha the IProducerConsumerCollection<T> is, here it is the signature.
public interface IProducerConsumerCollection<T> : IEnumerable<T>, ICollection, IEnumerable
{
void CopyTo(T[] array, int index);
T[] ToArray();
bool TryAdd(T item);
bool TryTake(out T item);
}
So, basically IProducerConsumerCollction provides a TryAdd/TryTake pair with additional methods to supports copy to/from array.
So, back to our question, it sounds like that BlockingCollection is something that if you don't provide a underlying ProducerConsumer collection it will use a default one (not sure if that one is a FIFO, or FILO - you simply cannot make the assumption), but if you did, it will use the underlying collection that you provided (which means it will use the take/put characteristic of underlying collection, which means if you pass in a FIFO collection, then take/put will work in a FIFO manner ... The BlockingQueue serves as a container/wrapper of a ConcurrencyCollection with additional blocking ability.
Knowing that the work sounds almost trivial, you simply put a ConcurrentQueue<T> inside a BlockingQueue then you willget a blocking queue. But let's make a class for this.
public class BlockingQueue<T> : BlockingCollection<T>
{
#region ctor(s)
public BlockingQueue() : base(new ConcurrentQueue<T>())
{
}
public BlockingQueue (int maxSize) : base (new ConcurrentQueue<T>(), maxSize)
{
}
#endregion ctor(s)
#region Methods
/// <summary>
/// Enqueue an Item
/// </summary>
/// <param name="item">Item to enqueue</param>
/// <remarks>blocks if the blocking queue is full</remarks>
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
Add(item);
}
/// <summary>
/// Dequeue an item
/// </summary>
/// <param name="Item"></param>
/// <returns>Item dequeued</returns>
/// <remarks>blocks if the blocking queue is empty</remarks>
public T Dequeue()
{
return Take();
}
#endregion Methods
}
Ah, we explicitly add Enquee and Dequeue to mock up a Queue operation (you can use directly the Take or Add methods as you like)
Let's put this into a multiple thread environment and give it a spin.
First, we declare a Blocking Collection.
public List<HashSet<ITabularPushCallback>> callbackChannelLists = new List<HashSet<ITabularPushCallback>>();
// this is the Blocking Queue List.
public List<BlockingQueue<string[][]>> messageQueues = new List<BlockingQueue<string[][]>>();
and If there is data coming, one background thread will send a background thread to do Enqueue.
public void NotifyMesasge(string[][] messages, int tableId)
{
if (IsChannelRegistered(tableId))
{
HashSet<ITabularPushCallback> callbackChannelList = null;
BlockingQueue<string[][]> queue = null;
lock (SyncObj)
{
callbackChannelList = new HashSet<ITabularPushCallback>(callbackChannelLists[tableId]);
queue = messageQueues[tableId];
}
if (callbackChannelList.Count > 0 && queue != null)
{
ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem((o =>
{
if (queue != null)
queue.Enqueue(messages);
}), null);
}
}
else
{
// throw or swallow?
//throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("tableId", tableId, "Invalid callback channel");
}
}
and there a dedicated Background thread on parameterized on each "tableId" , which peeks data from the Queue and do processing, here is the main code that does the Dequeue and processing.
private void NotifyMessageThunk(int tableId)
{
HashSet<ITabularPushCallback> callbackChannelList = null;
BlockingQueue<string[][]> queue = null;
lock (SyncObj)
{
if (tableId < 0 || tableId > callbackChannelLists.Count) throw new ArgumentOutOfRangeException("tableId", tableId, "Expected nonnegative number and existing tableId!");
if (!IsChannelRegistered(tableId))
{
Thread.Sleep(100); // CPU effecient means.
return;
}
callbackChannelList = GetCallbackChannel(tableId);
queue = messageQueues[tableId];
if (queue == null)
{
Thread.Sleep(100); // CPU effecient boosts
return;
}
}
string[][] message = queue.Dequeue();
if (message != null)
{
HashSet<ITabularPushCallback> channelCopy = null;
channelCopy = new HashSet<ITabularPushCallback>(callbackChannelList);
foreach (var channel in channelCopy)
{
try
{
channel.NotifyMessage(message, tableId);
}
catch
{
// swallow?
if (!TryRemoveCallbackChannel(channel, tableId))
{
// Logs
}
}
}
}
}
Pretty easy, isn't it?
Actually you can make you own blocking queue with primitives of WaitHandles , something as shown in the references list [0] where you can do something simiar to
class SizeQueue<T>
{
private readonly Queue<T> queue = new Queue<T>();
private readonly int maxSize;
public SizeQueue(int maxSize) { this.maxSize = maxSize; }
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
lock (queue)
{
while (queue.Count >= maxSize)
{
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
queue.Enqueue(item);
if (queue.Count == 1)
{
// wake up any blocked dequeue
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
}
}
public T Dequeue()
{
lock (queue)
{
while (queue.Count == 0)
{
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
T item = queue.Dequeue();
if (queue.Count == maxSize - 1)
{
// wake up any blocked enqueue
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
return item;
}
}
}
The author, Marc Gravell, actually proposed a improved version which enales exiting cleanly. Below is his idea.
bool closing;
public void Close()
{
lock(queue)
{
closing = true;
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
}
public bool TryDequeue(out T value)
{
lock (queue)
{
while (queue.Count == 0)
{
if (closing)
{
value = default(T);
return false;
}
Monitor.Wait(queue);
}
value = queue.Dequeue();
if (queue.Count == maxSize - 1)
{
// wake up any blocked enqueue
Monitor.PulseAll(queue);
}
return true;
}
}
And someone has geniously knocked up with Reactive extension, something such as this:
public class BlockingQueue<T>
{
private readonly Subject<T> _queue;
private readonly IEnumerator<T> _enumerator;
private readonly object _sync = new object();
public BlockingQueue()
{
_queue = new Subject<T>();
_enumerator = _queue.GetEnumerator();
}
public void Enqueue(T item)
{
lock (_sync)
{
_queue.OnNext(item);
}
}
public T Dequeue()
{
_enumerator.MoveNext();
return _enumerator.Current;
}
}
However, we can work more on the synchronization.
References: