基于ɲeuroburɳ，测试一个子类用例

class Foo: NSObject {
    func test() {
        print("1")
        objc_sync_enter(self)
        defer {
            objc_sync_exit(self)
            print("3")
        }

        print("2")
    }
}


class Foo2: Foo {
    override func test() {
        super.test()

        print("11")
        objc_sync_enter(self)
        defer {
            print("33")
            objc_sync_exit(self)
        }

        print("22")
    }
}

let test = Foo2()
test.test()

输出:

1
2
3
11
22
33

要添加返回函数，你可以这样做:

func synchronize<T>(lockObj: AnyObject!, closure: ()->T) -> T
{
  objc_sync_enter(lockObj)
  var retVal: T = closure()
  objc_sync_exit(lockObj)
  return retVal
}

随后，你可以调用它使用:

func importantMethod(...) -> Bool {
  return synchronize(self) {
    if(feelLikeReturningTrue) { return true }
    // do other things
    if(feelLikeReturningTrueNow) { return true }
    // more things
    return whatIFeelLike ? true : false
  }
}

我自己也在寻找这个，并得出结论，在swift中还没有对此的原生构造。

我确实根据我从Matt Bridges和其他人那里看到的一些代码编写了这个小的帮助函数。

func synced(_ lock: Any, closure: () -> ()) {
    objc_sync_enter(lock)
    closure()
    objc_sync_exit(lock)
}

用法非常简单

synced(self) {
    println("This is a synchronized closure")
}

我发现了一个问题。在这一点上，传入一个数组作为lock参数似乎会导致一个非常迟钝的编译器错误。除此之外，虽然它似乎工作如所愿。

Bitcast requires both operands to be pointer or neither
  %26 = bitcast i64 %25 to %objc_object*, !dbg !378
LLVM ERROR: Broken function found, compilation aborted!

随着Swift并发的出现，我们将使用actor。

You can use tasks to break up your program into isolated, concurrent pieces. Tasks are isolated from each other, which is what makes it safe for them to run at the same time, but sometimes you need to share some information between tasks. Actors let you safely share information between concurrent code. Like classes, actors are reference types, so the comparison of value types and reference types in Classes Are Reference Types applies to actors as well as classes. Unlike classes, actors allow only one task to access their mutable state at a time, which makes it safe for code in multiple tasks to interact with the same instance of an actor. For example, here’s an actor that records temperatures: actor TemperatureLogger { let label: String var measurements: [Int] private(set) var max: Int init(label: String, measurement: Int) { self.label = label self.measurements = [measurement] self.max = measurement } } You introduce an actor with the actor keyword, followed by its definition in a pair of braces. The TemperatureLogger actor has properties that other code outside the actor can access, and restricts the max property so only code inside the actor can update the maximum value.

要了解更多信息，请参见WWDC视频《使用Swift actor保护可变状态》。

为了完整起见，历史上的替代方案包括:

GCD serial queue: This is a simple pre-concurrency approach to ensure that one one thread at a time will interact with the shared resource. Reader-writer pattern with concurrent GCD queue: In reader-writer patterns, one uses a concurrent dispatch queue to perform synchronous, but concurrent, reads (but concurrent with other reads only, not writes) but perform writes asynchronously with a barrier (forcing writes to not be performed concurrently with anything else on that queue). This can offer a performance improvement over a simple GCD serial solution, but in practice, the advantage is modest and comes at the cost of additional complexity (e.g., you have to be careful about thread-explosion scenarios). IMHO, I tend to avoid this pattern, either sticking with the simplicity of the serial queue pattern, or, when the performance difference is critical, using a completely different pattern. Locks: In my Swift tests, lock-based synchronization tends to be substantially faster than either of the GCD approaches. Locks come in a few flavors: NSLock is a nice, relatively efficient lock mechanism. In those cases where performance is of paramount concern, I use “unfair locks”, but you must be careful when using them from Swift (see https://stackoverflow.com/a/66525671/1271826). For the sake of completeness, there is also the recursive lock. IMHO, I would favor simple NSLock over NSRecursiveLock. Recursive locks are subject to abuse and often indicate code smell. You might see references to “spin locks”. Many years ago, they used to be employed where performance was of paramount concern, but they are now deprecated in favor of unfair locks. Technically, one can use semaphores for synchronization, but it tends to be the slowest of all the alternatives.

我在这里概述了我的一些基准测试结果。

简而言之，现在我在当代代码库中使用actor，在简单的非异步等待代码中使用GCD串行队列，在性能至关重要的极少数情况下使用锁。

不用说，我们经常尝试减少同步的数量。如果可以，我们通常使用值类型，其中每个线程获得自己的副本。在无法避免同步的情况下，我们会尽量减少同步的数量。

斯威夫特3

此代码具有重入能力，可以与异步函数调用一起工作。在这段代码中，someAsyncFunc()被调用之后，串行队列上的另一个函数闭包将被处理，但会被semapore .wait()阻塞，直到signal()被调用。internalQueue。不应该使用sync，因为如果我没有弄错的话，它会阻塞主线程。

let internalQueue = DispatchQueue(label: "serialQueue")
let semaphore = DispatchSemaphore(value: 1)

internalQueue.async {

    self.semaphore.wait()

    // Critical section

    someAsyncFunc() {

        // Do some work here

        self.semaphore.signal()
    }
}

如果没有错误处理，Objc_sync_enter /objc_sync_exit不是一个好主意。

在现代Swift 5中，具有返回功能:

/**
Makes sure no other thread reenters the closure before the one running has not returned
*/
@discardableResult
public func synchronized<T>(_ lock: AnyObject, closure:() -> T) -> T {
    objc_sync_enter(lock)
    defer { objc_sync_exit(lock) }

    return closure()
}

像这样使用它，以利用返回值功能:

let returnedValue = synchronized(self) { 
     // Your code here
     return yourCode()
}

或者像这样:

synchronized(self) { 
     // Your code here
    yourCode()
}