Related
I'm using ConcurrentQueue for a shared data structure which purpose is holding the last N objects passed to it (kind of history).
Assume we have a browser and we want to have the last 100 browsed Urls. I want a queue which automatically drop (dequeue) the oldest (first) entry upon new entry insertion (enqueue) when the capacity gets full (100 addresses in history).
How can I accomplish that using System.Collections ?
I would write a wrapper class that on Enqueue would check the Count and then Dequeue when the count exceeds the limit.
public class FixedSizedQueue<T>
{
readonly 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)) ;
}
}
}
I'd go for a slight variant... extend ConcurrentQueue so as to be able to use Linq extensions on FixedSizeQueue
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);
}
}
}
}
For anyone who finds it useful, here is some working code based on Richard Schneider's answer above:
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);
}
}
}
For what its worth, here's a lightweight circular buffer with some methods marked for safe and unsafe use.
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
}
I like to use the Foo()/SafeFoo()/UnsafeFoo() convention:
Foo methods call UnsafeFoo as a default.
UnsafeFoo methods modify state freely without a lock, they should only call other unsafe methods.
SafeFoo methods call UnsafeFoo methods inside a lock.
Its a little verbose, but it makes obvious errors, like calling unsafe methods outside a lock in a method which is supposed to be thread-safe, more apparent.
My version is just a subclass of normal Queue ones.. nothing special but seeing everyone participating and it still goes with the topic title I might as well put it here. It also returns the dequeued ones just in case.
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;
}
}
Just because no one's said it yet.. you can use a LinkedList<T> and add the thread safety:
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;
}
}
One thing to note is the default enumeration order will be LIFO in this example. But that can be overridden if necessary.
Here's my take on the fixed size Queue
It uses regular Queue, to avoid the synchronization overhead when the Count property is used on ConcurrentQueue. It also implements IReadOnlyCollection so that LINQ methods can be used. The rest is very similar to the other answers here.
[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();
}
}
Let's add one more answer. Why this over others?
1) Simplicity. Trying to guarantee size is well and good but leads to unneeded complexity that can exhibit its own problems.
2) Implements IReadOnlyCollection, meaning you can use Linq on it and pass it into a variety of things that expect IEnumerable.
3) No locking. Many of the solutions above use locks, which is incorrect on a lockless collection.
4) Implements the same set of methods, properties, and interfaces ConcurrentQueue does, including IProducerConsumerCollection, which is important if you want to use the collection with BlockingCollection.
This implementation could potentially end up with more entries than expected if TryDequeue fails, but the frequency of that occurring doesn't seem worth specialized code that will inevitably hamper performance and cause its own unexpected problems.
If you absolutely want to guarantee a size, implementing a Prune() or similar method seems like the best idea. You could use a ReaderWriterLockSlim read lock in the other methods (including TryDequeue) and take a write lock only when pruning.
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();
}
Just for fun, here is another implementation that I believe addresses most of the commenters' concerns. In particular, thread-safety is achieved without locking and the implementation is hidden by the wrapping class.
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();
}
}
Well it depends upon the use I have noticed that some of above solution may exceed the size when used in multip-threaded environment. Anyway my use case was to display last 5 events and there are multiple threads writing events into the queue and one other thread reading from it and displaying it in a Winform Control. So this was my solution.
EDIT: Since we already using locking within our implementation we don't really need ConcurrentQueue it may improve the performance.
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();
}
}
}
EDIT: We don't really need syncObject in above example and we can rather use queue object since we are not re-initializing queue in any function and its marked as readonly anyway.
The accepted answer is going to have avoidable side-effects.
Links below are references that I used when I wrote my example below.
While the documentation from Microsoft is a bit misleading as they do use a lock they however lock the segement classes. The segment classes themselves use Interlocked.
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace Lib.Core
{
// Sources:
// https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/collections/thread-safe/
// https://learn.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;
}
}
}
For your coding pleasure I submit to you the '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();
}
}
}
Example Usage:
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);
}
Here is yet another implementation that uses the underlying ConcurrentQueue as much as possible while providing the same interfaces made available via ConcurrentQueue.
/// <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);
}
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
public class FixedSizeQueue<T>
{
ConcurrentQueue<T> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();
private void Enque(T obj)
{
T temp;
if (_queue.Count > 99)
{
// Remove one of the oldest added items.
_queue.TryDequeue(out temp);
}
_queue.Enqueue(obj);
}
private bool Dequeue(out T obj)
{
return _queue.TryDequeue(out obj);
}
private void Clear()
{
T obj;
// It does not fall into an infinite loop, and clears the contents of the present time.
int cnt = _queue.Count;
for (; cnt > 0; cnt--)
{
_queue.TryDequeue(out obj);
}
}
}
This is my version of the queue:
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();
}
}
I find it useful to have a constructor that is built upon an IEnumerable and I find it useful to have a GetSnapshot to have a multithread safe list (array in this case) of the items at the moment of the call, that doesn't rise errors if the underlaying collection changes.
The double Count check is to prevent the lock in some circumstances.
I have a list of List<object>. How can I limit that only Class1 and Class2 should be used there is list?
Class1 and Class2 are basically different. I would guess what there is basic class for both this classes and restrict List to only work with it, but really don't know.
Make an interface that both classes implement
public interface MyInterface
{
}
public class Class1 : MyInterface
{
}
public class Class2 : MyInterface
{
}
List<MyInterface> myList = new List<MyInterface>();
The only instances of classes that can be referenced in the list are those that implement the MyInterface interface. In this case only Class1 and Class2.
I'm convinced that Bazz's answer is the correct way to handle such requirement.
There's however, another approach, that you can try :
public class MyCustomList : ArrayList
{
public override void Add(object item){
if(item is Class1 || item is Class2) {
base.Add(item);
}
else {
throw BadaboomException();
}
}
}
Or you can ensure signatures by wrapping the collection completely
public class MyCustomList : ICollection
{
private readonly ArrayList m_InnerList = new ArrayList();
public virtual void Add(Class1 item) {
this.m_InnerList.Add(item);
}
public virtual void Add(Class2 item) {
this.m_InnerList.Add(item);
}
public void CopyTo(Array array, int index) {
m_InnerList.CopyTo(array, index);
}
public int Count { get { return m_InnerList.Count; } }
public bool IsSynchronized { get{ return m_InnerList.IsSynchronized; } }
public object SyncRoot { get{ return m_InnerList.SyncRoot; } }
public IEnumerator GetEnumerator(){
return m_InnerList.GetEnumerator();
}
}
I have a list where it is entries can be updated, new data inserted or removed from 2 different threads.
Is it ok to use a public readonly object to lock when it is being used to interact to the other thread as to when it is locked or not or what would be the correct way to use this list across the 2 threads ?
You should always use a lock when accessing the list on different threads.
public class Sample
{
object synch = new object();
List<Something> list = new List<Something>();
void Add(Something something)
{
lock (synch) { list.Add(something); }
}
// Add the methods for update and delete.
}
You should wrap this in a class that handles the locking for you, or use a thread-safe collection, such as ConcurrentQueue<T> or one of the other collections in System.Collections.Concurrent.
Exposing the synchronization object to a public API is dangerous, and not a good practice.
First, read this article to understand why it's bad: http://blogs.msdn.com/b/jaredpar/archive/2009/02/11/why-are-thread-safe-collections-so-hard.aspx
Then, do it anyway like I did:
public abstract class ConcurrentCollection<T> : ICollection<T>
{
private List<T> List { get; set; }
public ConcurrentCollection()
{
this.List = new List<T>();
}
public T this[int index]
{
get
{
return this.List[index];
}
}
protected virtual void AddUnsafe(T item)
{
this.List.Add(item);
}
protected virtual void RemoveUnsafe(T item)
{
this.List.Remove(item);
}
protected virtual void ClearUnsafe()
{
this.List.Clear();
}
public void Add(T item)
{
lock (this.List)
{
this.AddUnsafe(item);
}
}
public bool Remove(T item)
{
lock (this.List)
{
this.RemoveUnsafe(item);
return true;
}
}
public void Clear()
{
lock (this.List)
{
this.ClearUnsafe();
}
}
public int Count
{
get
{
lock (this.List)
{
return this.List.Count;
}
}
}
public bool IsReadOnly
{
get
{
return false;
}
}
public bool Contains(T item)
{
lock (this.List)
{
return this.List.Contains(item);
}
}
public void CopyTo(T[] array, int arrayIndex)
{
lock (this.List)
{
this.List.CopyTo(array, arrayIndex);
}
}
public IEnumerator<T> GetEnumerator()
{
return new ConcurrentEnumerator<T>(this.List, this.List);
}
IEnumerator IEnumerable.GetEnumerator()
{
throw new NotImplementedException("Abstract concurrent enumerators not implemented.");
}
}
public class ConcurrentEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T>
{
private int Position = -1;
private List<T> Duplicate;
private object Mutex;
private ICollection<T> NonConcurrentCollection;
internal ConcurrentEnumerator(ICollection<T> nonConcurrentCollection, object mutex)
{
this.NonConcurrentCollection = nonConcurrentCollection;
this.Mutex = mutex;
lock (this.Mutex)
{
this.Duplicate = new List<T>(this.NonConcurrentCollection);
}
}
public T Current
{
get
{
return this.Duplicate[this.Position];
}
}
object IEnumerator.Current
{
get
{
return this.Current;
}
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
this.Position++;
lock (this.Mutex)
{
while (this.Position < this.Duplicate.Count && !this.NonConcurrentCollection.Contains(this.Current))
{
this.Position++;
}
}
return this.Position < this.Duplicate.Count;
}
public void Reset()
{
this.Position = -1;
}
public void Dispose() { }
}
// Standards have List as derived Collection...
public class ConcurrentList<T> : ConcurrentCollection<T> { }
This code is still not fully safe, for instance the Count example may still crash, but it allows for iteration, adding and removing across threads. If you want to expose the mutex, do so, then lock around it for your other code constructs like count and contains.
But it's still a bad idea.
Edit: Example usage.
ConcurrentList<string> list = new ConcurrentList<string>();
list.Add("hello");
list.Add("world");
list.Add("foo");
list.Add("bar");
foreach (string word in list)
{
if (word == "world")
{
list.Remove("bar"); // Will not crash the foreach!
}
Console.WriteLine(word);
}
Output:
hello
world
foo
I'm using ConcurrentQueue for a shared data structure which purpose is holding the last N objects passed to it (kind of history).
Assume we have a browser and we want to have the last 100 browsed Urls. I want a queue which automatically drop (dequeue) the oldest (first) entry upon new entry insertion (enqueue) when the capacity gets full (100 addresses in history).
How can I accomplish that using System.Collections ?
I would write a wrapper class that on Enqueue would check the Count and then Dequeue when the count exceeds the limit.
public class FixedSizedQueue<T>
{
readonly 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)) ;
}
}
}
I'd go for a slight variant... extend ConcurrentQueue so as to be able to use Linq extensions on FixedSizeQueue
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);
}
}
}
}
For anyone who finds it useful, here is some working code based on Richard Schneider's answer above:
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);
}
}
}
For what its worth, here's a lightweight circular buffer with some methods marked for safe and unsafe use.
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
}
I like to use the Foo()/SafeFoo()/UnsafeFoo() convention:
Foo methods call UnsafeFoo as a default.
UnsafeFoo methods modify state freely without a lock, they should only call other unsafe methods.
SafeFoo methods call UnsafeFoo methods inside a lock.
Its a little verbose, but it makes obvious errors, like calling unsafe methods outside a lock in a method which is supposed to be thread-safe, more apparent.
My version is just a subclass of normal Queue ones.. nothing special but seeing everyone participating and it still goes with the topic title I might as well put it here. It also returns the dequeued ones just in case.
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;
}
}
Just because no one's said it yet.. you can use a LinkedList<T> and add the thread safety:
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;
}
}
One thing to note is the default enumeration order will be LIFO in this example. But that can be overridden if necessary.
Here's my take on the fixed size Queue
It uses regular Queue, to avoid the synchronization overhead when the Count property is used on ConcurrentQueue. It also implements IReadOnlyCollection so that LINQ methods can be used. The rest is very similar to the other answers here.
[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();
}
}
Let's add one more answer. Why this over others?
1) Simplicity. Trying to guarantee size is well and good but leads to unneeded complexity that can exhibit its own problems.
2) Implements IReadOnlyCollection, meaning you can use Linq on it and pass it into a variety of things that expect IEnumerable.
3) No locking. Many of the solutions above use locks, which is incorrect on a lockless collection.
4) Implements the same set of methods, properties, and interfaces ConcurrentQueue does, including IProducerConsumerCollection, which is important if you want to use the collection with BlockingCollection.
This implementation could potentially end up with more entries than expected if TryDequeue fails, but the frequency of that occurring doesn't seem worth specialized code that will inevitably hamper performance and cause its own unexpected problems.
If you absolutely want to guarantee a size, implementing a Prune() or similar method seems like the best idea. You could use a ReaderWriterLockSlim read lock in the other methods (including TryDequeue) and take a write lock only when pruning.
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();
}
Just for fun, here is another implementation that I believe addresses most of the commenters' concerns. In particular, thread-safety is achieved without locking and the implementation is hidden by the wrapping class.
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();
}
}
Well it depends upon the use I have noticed that some of above solution may exceed the size when used in multip-threaded environment. Anyway my use case was to display last 5 events and there are multiple threads writing events into the queue and one other thread reading from it and displaying it in a Winform Control. So this was my solution.
EDIT: Since we already using locking within our implementation we don't really need ConcurrentQueue it may improve the performance.
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();
}
}
}
EDIT: We don't really need syncObject in above example and we can rather use queue object since we are not re-initializing queue in any function and its marked as readonly anyway.
The accepted answer is going to have avoidable side-effects.
Links below are references that I used when I wrote my example below.
While the documentation from Microsoft is a bit misleading as they do use a lock they however lock the segement classes. The segment classes themselves use Interlocked.
using System;
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
using System.Collections.Generic;
namespace Lib.Core
{
// Sources:
// https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/standard/collections/thread-safe/
// https://learn.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;
}
}
}
For your coding pleasure I submit to you the '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();
}
}
}
Example Usage:
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);
}
Here is yet another implementation that uses the underlying ConcurrentQueue as much as possible while providing the same interfaces made available via ConcurrentQueue.
/// <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);
}
using System.Collections.Concurrent;
public class FixedSizeQueue<T>
{
ConcurrentQueue<T> _queue = new ConcurrentQueue<T>();
private void Enque(T obj)
{
T temp;
if (_queue.Count > 99)
{
// Remove one of the oldest added items.
_queue.TryDequeue(out temp);
}
_queue.Enqueue(obj);
}
private bool Dequeue(out T obj)
{
return _queue.TryDequeue(out obj);
}
private void Clear()
{
T obj;
// It does not fall into an infinite loop, and clears the contents of the present time.
int cnt = _queue.Count;
for (; cnt > 0; cnt--)
{
_queue.TryDequeue(out obj);
}
}
}
This is my version of the queue:
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();
}
}
I find it useful to have a constructor that is built upon an IEnumerable and I find it useful to have a GetSnapshot to have a multithread safe list (array in this case) of the items at the moment of the call, that doesn't rise errors if the underlaying collection changes.
The double Count check is to prevent the lock in some circumstances.
I have requirement in which I have to back and fort with record. So I am using IEnumerator to that. But I can move forward by movenext but there no way to move back
Here's one way you could wrap an IEnumerator<T>, by capturing its contents in a List<T> as it moves along:
public interface ITwoWayEnumerator<T> : IEnumerator<T>
{
bool MovePrevious();
}
public class TwoWayEnumerator<T> : ITwoWayEnumerator<T>
{
private IEnumerator<T> _enumerator;
private List<T> _buffer;
private int _index;
public TwoWayEnumerator(IEnumerator<T> enumerator)
{
if (enumerator == null)
throw new ArgumentNullException("enumerator");
_enumerator = enumerator;
_buffer = new List<T>();
_index = -1;
}
public bool MovePrevious()
{
if (_index <= 0)
{
return false;
}
--_index;
return true;
}
public bool MoveNext()
{
if (_index < _buffer.Count - 1)
{
++_index;
return true;
}
if (_enumerator.MoveNext())
{
_buffer.Add(_enumerator.Current);
++_index;
return true;
}
return false;
}
public T Current
{
get
{
if (_index < 0 || _index >= _buffer.Count)
throw new InvalidOperationException();
return _buffer[_index];
}
}
public void Reset()
{
_enumerator.Reset();
_buffer.Clear();
_index = -1;
}
public void Dispose()
{
_enumerator.Dispose();
}
object System.Collections.IEnumerator.Current
{
get { return Current; }
}
}
Then I would expose this kind of enumerator using an extension method:
public static class TwoWayEnumeratorHelper
{
public static ITwoWayEnumerator<T> GetTwoWayEnumerator<T>(this IEnumerable<T> source)
{
if (source == null)
throw new ArgumentNullExceptions("source");
return new TwoWayEnumerator<T>(source.GetEnumerator());
}
}
Note that this is definitely overkill if the collection you're dealing with is already an indexed collection such as a T[] or a List<T>. It makes more sense for scenarios such as when you're enumerating over a sequence that isn't already in a conveniently indexed form and you want to be able to go backwards as well as forwards.
The IEnumerator (and IEnumerator<T>) interfaces only implement a forward only enumerator. You'll need to make your own class or interface if you want to allow bi-directional iteration through your collection.
You can't go backwards with IEnumerator. Either suck the entire set into a List or cache the current element on each pass through the loop, so it's available to the next pass.