> Great! Will place it in the Demo directory.
Na, put the attached in instead. The implementation of event.wait() is
less surprising, and for the heck of it there's now a semaphore class
One moral: POSIX-style conditions have more machinery than most people
are comfortable with at first sight, but the module shows that it's very
easy to implement barriers, events, semaphores, and Python-style locks on
top of them. That's why I think they're a good candidate for adoption as
a thread built-in: while they're overkill in simple cases, they solve
many _tough_ problems with remarkable ease.
> Now all I need is an application for threads :-)
Given that they don't actually run in parallel, this is a taller order
than it might otherwise have been <wink>. Generators & coroutines are
good applications, and I think Python is a _wonderful_ vehicle for
_learning_ about the headaches of parallel programming. The time-slicing
strategy is effective in provoking the same kinds of problems you get
with "real" parallelism, and coding in Python sidesteps the morass of
declaration and memory-management headaches that are a real drag when
playing with parallelism in other languages. So they're at least a great
"educational" feature as-is.
> > ...
> > [Example using "import" in a thread, where other threads get in
> > trouble; + suggested kludge to work around it]
> Can't we agree that the user is responsible for this?
Yes, if we acknowledge too that this is the time-honored attitude that
keeps the masses scared to death of parallel programming <wink>.
> It would be simple enough (and a more common programming style in any
> case) to import the needed modules in the main thread.
True enough. But it also means that J Random User can't safely *call*
any routine that happens to do this, whether or not they wrote it. In a
large library module, it's not usual for some individual functions to
import a module that isn't needed elsewhere, and if the user ends up
calling one of those ...
> After all, ANYTHING that modifies global variables and doesn't know
> about threads should be serialized by the caller. Only the most basic
> operations are guaranteed to be atomic -- to be exact: everything that
> is one instruction of the Python Virtual Machine and does not call
> other Python code.
Yup! The handbook for most parallel systems clearly states "you're
responsible for not confraginating or glommering a wurstnicht" <grin>.
I.e., most users have no idea what "one instruction of the Python Virtual
Machine and does not call other Python code" _means_, let alone how to
figure out whether they're violating it. To most users, "import" just
binds a _local_ name, and has some side-effects they're not clear about.
I certainly don't think this is _important_, because I don't think
threads in Python are vital (if you dropped them in the next release,
would you get many complaints?). Just restating the principle of least
*shouldn't*-want-to"-ly y'rs - tim
Tim Peters firstname.lastname@example.org
not speaking for Kendall Square Research Corp
# Defines classes that provide synchronization objects. Note that use of
# this module requires that your Python support threads.
# condition() # a POSIX-like condition-variable object
# barrier(n) # an n-thread barrier
# event() # an event object
# semaphore(n=1)# a semaphore object, with initial count n
# A condition object is created via
# import this_module
# your_condition_object = this_module.condition()
# acquire the lock associated with the condition
# release the lock associated with the condition
# block the thread until such time as some other thread does a
# .signal or .broadcast on the same condition, and release the
# lock associated with the condition. The lock associated with
# the condition MUST be in the acquired state at the time
# .wait is invoked.
# wake up exactly one thread (if any) that previously did a .wait
# on the condition; that thread will awaken with the lock associated
# with the condition in the acquired state. If no threads are
# .wait'ing, this is a nop. If more than one thread is .wait'ing on
# the condition, any of them may be awakened.
# wake up all threads (if any) that are .wait'ing on the condition;
# the threads are woken up serially, each with the lock in the
# acquired state, so should .release() as soon as possible. If no
# threads are .wait'ing, this is a nop.
# Note that if a thread does a .wait *while* a signal/broadcast is
# in progress, it's guaranteeed to block until a subsequent
# Secret feature: `broadcast' actually takes an integer argument,
# and will wake up exactly that many waiting threads (or the total
# number waiting, if that's less). Use of this is dubious, though,
# and probably won't be supported if this form of condition is
# reimplemented in C.
# DIFFERENCES FROM POSIX
# + A separate mutex is not needed to guard condition data. Instead, a
# condition object can (must) be .acquire'ed and .release'ed directly.
# This eliminates a common error in using POSIX conditions.
# + Because of implementation difficulties, a POSIX `signal' wakes up
# _at least_ one .wait'ing thread. Race conditions make it difficult
# to stop that. This implementation guarantees to wake up only one,
# but you probably shouldn't rely on that.
# Condition objects are used to block threads until "some condition" is
# true. E.g., a thread may wish to wait until a producer pumps out data
# for it to consume, or a server may wish to wait until someone requests
# its services, or perhaps a whole bunch of threads want to wait until a
# preceding pass over the data is complete. Early models for conditions
# relied on some other thread figuring out when a blocked thread's
# condition was true, and made the other thread responsible both for
# waking up the blocked thread and guaranteeing that it woke up with all
# data in a correct state. This proved to be very delicate in practice,
# and gave conditions a bad name in some circles.
# The POSIX model addresses these problems by making a thread responsible
# for ensuring that its own state is correct when it wakes, and relies
# on a rigid protocol to make this easy; so long as you stick to the
# protocol, POSIX conditions are easy to "get right":
# A) The thread that's waiting for some arbitrarily-complex condition
# (ACC) to become true does:
# while not (code to evaluate the ACC):
# # That blocks the thread, *and* releases the lock. When a
# # condition.signal() happens, it will wake up some thread that
# # did a .wait, *and* acquire the lock again before .wait
# # returns.
# # Because the lock is acquired at this point, the state used
# # in evaluating the ACC is frozen, so it's safe to go back &
# # reevaluate the ACC.
# # At this point, ACC is true, and the thread has the condition
# # locked.
# # So code here can safely muck with the shared state that
# # went into evaluating the ACC -- if it wants to.
# # When done mucking with the shared state, do
# B) Threads that are mucking with shared state that may affect the
# ACC do:
# # muck with shared state
# if it's possible that ACC is true now:
# condition.signal() # or .broadcast()
# Note: You may prefer to put the "if" clause before the release().
# That's fine, but do note that anyone waiting on the signal will
# stay blocked until the release() is done (since acquiring the
# condition is part of what .wait() does before it returns).
# TRICK OF THE TRADE
# With simpler forms of conditions, it can be impossible to know when
# a thread that's supposed to do a .wait has actually done it. But
# because this form of condition releases a lock as _part_ of doing a
# wait, the state of that lock can be used to guarantee it.
# E.g., suppose thread A spawns thread B and later wants to wait for B to
# In A: In B:
# B_done = condition() ... do work ...
# B_done.acquire() B_done.acquire(); B_done.release()
# spawn B B_done.signal()
# ... some time later ... ... and B exits ...
# Because B_done was in the acquire'd state at the time B was spawned,
# B's attempt to acquire B_done can't succeed until A has done its
# B_done.wait() (which releases B_done). So B's B_done.signal() is
# guaranteed to be seen by the .wait(). Without the lock trick, B
# may signal before A .waits, and then A would wait forever.
# A barrier object is created via
# import this_module
# your_barrier = this_module.barrier(num_threads)
# the thread blocks until num_threads threads in all have done
# .enter(). Then the num_threads threads that .enter'ed resume,
# and the barrier resets to capture the next num_threads threads
# that .enter it.
# An event object is created via
# import this_module
# your_event = this_module.event()
# An event has two states, `posted' and `cleared'. An event is
# created in the cleared state.
# Put the event in the posted state, and resume all threads
# .wait'ing on the event (if any).
# Put the event in the cleared state.
# Returns 0 if the event is in the cleared state, or 1 if the event
# is in the posted state.
# If the event is in the posted state, returns immediately.
# If the event is in the cleared state, blocks the calling thread
# until the event is .post'ed by another thread.
# Note that an event, once posted, remains posted until explicitly
# cleared. Relative to conditions, this is both the strength & weakness
# of events. It's a strength because the .post'ing thread doesn't have to
# worry about whether the threads it's trying to communicate with have
# already done a .wait (a condition .signal is seen only by threads that
# do a .wait _prior_ to the .signal; a .signal does not persist). But
# it's a weakness because .clear'ing an event is error-prone: it's easy
# to mistakenly .clear an event before all the threads you intended to
# see the event get around to .wait'ing on it. But so long as you don't
# need to .clear an event, events are easy to use safely.
# A semaphore object is created via
# import this_module
# your_semaphore = this_module.semaphore(count=1)
# A semaphore has an integer count associated with it. The initial value
# of the count is specified by the optional argument (which defaults to
# 1) passed to the semaphore constructor.
# If the semaphore's count is greater than 0, decrements the count
# by 1 and returns.
# Else if the semaphore's count is 0, blocks the calling thread
# until a subsequent .v() increases the count. When that happens,
# the count will be decremented by 1 and the calling thread resumed.
# Increments the semaphore's count by 1, and wakes up a thread (if
# any) blocked by a .p(). It's an (detected) error for a .v() to
# increase the semaphore's count to a value larger than the initial
# the lock actually used by .acquire() and .release()
self.mutex = thread.allocate_lock()
# lock used to block threads until a signal
self.checkout = thread.allocate_lock()
# internal critical-section lock, & the data it protects
self.idlock = thread.allocate_lock()
self.id = 0
self.waiting = 0 # num waiters subject to current release
self.pending = 0 # num waiters awaiting next signal
self.torelease = 0 # num waiters to release
self.releasing = 0 # 1 iff release is in progress
mutex, checkout, idlock = self.mutex, self.checkout, self.idlock
if not mutex.locked():
raise ValueError, \
"condition must be .acquire'd when .wait() invoked"
myid = self.id
self.pending = self.pending + 1
if myid < self.id:
self.waiting = self.waiting - 1
self.torelease = self.torelease - 1
self.releasing = 0
if self.waiting == self.pending == 0:
self.id = 0
def broadcast(self, num = -1):
if num < -1:
raise ValueError, '.broadcast called with num ' + `num`
if num == 0:
self.waiting = self.waiting + self.pending
self.pending = 0
self.id = self.id + 1
if num == -1:
self.torelease = self.waiting
self.torelease = min( self.waiting,
self.torelease + num )
if self.torelease and not self.releasing:
self.releasing = 1
def __init__(self, n):
self.n = n
self.togo = n
self.full = condition()
full = self.full
self.togo = self.togo - 1
self.togo = self.n
self.state = 0
self.posted = condition()
self.state = 1
self.state = 0
answer = self.state
if not self.state:
def __init__(self, count=1):
if count <= 0:
raise ValueError, 'semaphore count %d; must be >= 1' % count
self.count = count
self.maxcount = count
self.nonzero = condition()
while self.count == 0:
self.count = self.count - 1
if self.count == self.maxcount:
raise ValueError, '.v() tried to raise semaphore count above ' \
'initial value ' + `maxcount`
self.count = self.count + 1
# The rest of the file is a test case, that runs a number of parallelized
# quicksorts in parallel. If it works, you'll get about 600 lines of
# tracing output, with a line like
# test passed! 209 threads created in all
# as the last line. The content and order of preceding lines will
# vary across runs.
def _new_thread(func, *args):
tid.acquire(); id = TID = TID+1; tid.release()
io.acquire(); alive.append(id); \
print 'starting thread', id, '--', len(alive), 'alive'; \
thread.start_new_thread( func, (id,) + args )
def _qsort(tid, a, l, r, finished):
# sort a[l:r]; post finished when done
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'qsort', l, r; io.release()
if r-l > 1:
pivot = a[l]
j = l+1 # make a[l:j] <= pivot, and a[j:r] > pivot
for i in range(j, r):
if a[i] <= pivot:
a[j], a[i] = a[i], a[j]
j = j + 1
a[l], a[j-1] = a[j-1], pivot
l_subarray_sorted = event()
r_subarray_sorted = event()
_new_thread(_qsort, a, l, j-1, l_subarray_sorted)
_new_thread(_qsort, a, j, r, r_subarray_sorted)
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'qsort done'; \
def _randarray(tid, a, finished):
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing array'; \
for i in range(1, len(a)):
wh.acquire(); j = randint(0,i); wh.release()
a[i], a[j] = a[j], a[i]
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing done'; \
if a != range(len(a)):
raise ValueError, ('a not sorted', a)
def _run_one_sort(tid, a, bar, done):
# randomize a, and quicksort it
# for variety, all the threads running this enter a barrier
# at the end, and post `done' after the barrier exits
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'randomizing', a; \
finished = event()
_new_thread(_randarray, a, finished)
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'sorting', a; io.release()
_new_thread(_qsort, a, 0, len(a), finished)
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'entering barrier'; \
io.acquire(); print 'thread', tid, 'leaving barrier'; \
io.acquire(); alive.remove(tid); io.release()
bar.enter() # make sure they've all removed themselves from alive
## before 'done' is posted
bar.enter() # just to be cruel
global TID, tid, io, wh, randint, alive
randint = whrandom.randint
TID = 0 # thread ID (1, 2, ...)
tid = thread.allocate_lock() # for changing TID
io = thread.allocate_lock() # for printing, and 'alive'
wh = thread.allocate_lock() # for calls to whrandom
alive =  # IDs of active threads
NSORTS = 5
arrays = 
for i in range(NSORTS):
arrays.append( range( (i+1)*10 ) )
bar = barrier(NSORTS)
finished = event()
for i in range(NSORTS):
_new_thread(_run_one_sort, arrays[i], bar, finished)
print 'all threads done, and checking results ...'
raise ValueError, ('threads still alive at end', alive)
for i in range(NSORTS):
a = arrays[i]
if len(a) != (i+1)*10:
raise ValueError, ('length of array', i, 'screwed up')
print 'test passed!', TID, 'threads created in all'
if __name__ == '__main__':
# end of module