I wrote some code:
class Program
{
public const int count = 3000;
static List<int> list = new List<int>();
static void DoWork(int i)
{
list.Add(i);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
while (true)
{
Stopwatch s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
Parallel.For(0, count + 1, DoWork);
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("\n Elapsed: " + s.Elapsed.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Expected: {0}", count + 1);
Console.WriteLine("count: {0}", list.Coun开发者_运维技巧t);
Console.ReadKey();
list = new List<int>();
}
}
}
but results are not expected(
Not all of the cycles are finished before Console.WriteLine calls
What is the problem with using Parallel.For?
You're running into what's known as a Race Condition. Since the List collection in .Net isn't thread safe, it's operations such as Add()
aren't atomic. Basically a call to Add() on one thread can destroy another thread's Add() before it is complete. You need a thread-safe concurrent collection for your code.
Try this:
using System.Threading.Tasks;
class Program
{
public const int count = 3000;
static ConcurrentBag<int> bag = new ConcurrentBag<int>();
static void DoWork(int i)
{
bag.Add(i);
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
while (true)
{
Stopwatch s = new Stopwatch();
s.Start();
Parallel.For(0, count + 1, DoWork);
s.Stop();
Console.WriteLine("\n Elapsed: " + s.Elapsed.ToString());
Console.WriteLine("Expected: {0}", count + 1);
Console.WriteLine("count: {0}", bag.Count);
Console.ReadKey();
bag = new ConcurrentBag<int>();
}
}
}
The ConcurrentBag is the closest thing to a thread-safe list. Just remember since we are dealing with unknown scheduling, the integers won't be in order.
The List<>
class is not thread save. You can't modify it in a parallel loop (Without problems). Use a collection form the System.Collections.Concurrent
namespace
List<T>
is not thread-safe class. You should use one of Concurrent collections instead or implement your own synchronization.
See this answer for details on Parallel.For
精彩评论