Interrput a thread

[gervaz]

On 3 Gen, 22:17, Adam Skutt <ask... at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jan 3, 4:06 pm, Jean-Paul Calderone <calderone.jeanp... at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> > > Multiple processes, ok, but then regarding processes' interruption
> > > there will be the same problems pointed out by using threads?
>
> > No.  Processes can be terminated easily on all major platforms.  See
> > `os.kill`.
>
> Yes, but that's not the whole story, now is it?  It's certainly much
> more reliable and easier to kill a process.  It's not any easier to do
> it and retain defined behavior, depending on exactly what you're
> doing.  For example, if you kill it while it's in the middle of
> updating shared memory, you can potentially incur undefined behavior
> on the part of any process that can also access shared memory.
>
> In short, taking a program that uses threads and shared state and
> simply replacing the threads with processes will likely not gain you a
> thing.  It entirely depends on what those threads are doing and how
> they do it.
>
> Adam

As per the py3.1 documentation, os.kill is only available in the Unix
os. Regarding the case pointed out by Adam I think the best way to
deal with it is to create a critical section so that the shared memory
will be updated in an atomic fashion. Btw it would be useful to take a
look at some actual code/documentation in order to understand how
others dealt with the problem...

Ciao,

Mattia