I am in a situation where I have two endpoints I can ask for a value, and one may be faster than the other. The calls to the endpoints are blocking. I want to wait for one to complete and take that result without waiting for the other to complete.
My solution was to issue the requests in separate threads and have those threads set a flag to true when they complete. In the main thread, I continuously check the flags (I know it is a busy wait, but that is not my primary concern right now) and when one completes it takes that value and returns it as the result.
The issue I have is that I never clean up the other thread. I can't find any way to do it without using .join(), which would just block and defeat the purpose of this whole thing. So, how can I clean up that other, slower thread that is blocking without joining it from the main thread?
What you want is to make your threads daemons, so when you get the result and finish your main, the other running thread will be forced to finish. You do that by changing the daemon keyword to True:
tr = threading.Thread(daemon=True)
From the threading docs:
The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits
when only daemon threads are left.
Although:
Daemon threads are abruptly stopped at shutdown. Their resources (such
as open files, database transactions, etc.) may not be released
properly. If you want your threads to stop gracefully, make them
non-daemonic and use a suitable signalling mechanism such as an Event.
I don't have any particular experience with Events so can't elaborate on that. Feel free to click the link and read on.
One bad and dirty solution is to implement a methode for the threads which close the socket which is blocking. Now you have to catch the exception in the main thread.
Related
This is a two part question,
After I cancel my script it still continues run, what I'm doing is queering an exchange api and saving the data for various assets.
My parent script can be seen here you can see i'm testing it out with just 3 assets, a sample of one of the child scripts can be seen here.
After I cancel the script the script for BTC seems to still be running and new .json files are still being generated in it's respective folder. The only way to stop it is to delete the folder and create it again.
This is really a bonus, my code was working with two assets but now with the addition of another it seems to only take in data for BTC and not the other 2.
Your first problem is that you are not really creating worker threads.
t1 = Thread(target=BTC.main()) executes BTC.main() and uses its return code to try to start a thread. Since main loops forever, you don't start any other threads.
Once you fix that, you'll still have a problem.
In python, only the root thread sees signals such as ctrl-c. Other threads will continue executing no matter how hard you press the key. When python exits, it tries to join non-daemon threads and that can cause the program to hang. The main thread is waiting for a thread to terminate, but the thread is happily continuing with its execution.
You seem to be depending on this in your code. Your parent starts a bunch of threads (or will, when you fix the first bug) and then exits. Really, its waiting for the threads to exit. If you solve the problem with daemon threads (below), you'll also need to add code for your thread to wait and not exit.
Back to the thread problem...
One solution is to mark threads as "daemon" (do mythread.daemon = True before starting the thread). Python won't wait for those threads and the threads will be killed when the main thread exits. This is great if you don't care about what state the thread is in while terminating. But it can do bad things like leave partially written files laying around.
Another solution is to figure out some way for the main thread to interrupt the thread. Suppose the threads waits of socket traffic. You could close the socket and the thread would be woken by that event.
Another solution is to only run threads for short-lived tasks that you want to complete. Your ctrl-c gets delayed a bit but you eventually exit. You could even set them up to run off of a queue and send a special "kill" message to them when done. In fact, python thread pools are a good way to go.
Another solution is to have the thread check a Event to see if its time to exit.
I'm using Python with wxPython for writing an app.
The method I'm considering to accomplish this may not be the best - if that's the case, let me know because I'm open to refactoring.
Right now, I have one GUI form. The main program start point instantiates an instance of the GUI form then runs wx.mainLoop(), which causes the app's main initial thread to block for the lifetime of the app.
We of course know that when events happen in the UI, the UI thread runs the code for them.
Now, I have another thread - a worker thread. This thread needs to sit idle, and then when something happens in the UI thread, e.g. a button is clicked, I want the worker thread to stop idling and do something else - run a function, say.
I can't envision this right now but I could see as the app gets more complex also having to signal the worker thread while it's actually busy doing something.
I have two questions about this setup:
How can I make my worker thread idle without using up CPU time? Doing something like while True: pass will suck CPU time, while something like while True: time.sleep(0.1) will not allow instantaneous reaction to events.
What's the best way to signal into the worker thread to do something? I don't want the UI thread to execute something, I want the worker thread to be signaled, by the UI thread, that it should change what it's doing. Ideally, I'd have some way for the worker thread to register a callback with the UI itself, so that when a button is clicked or any other UI Event happens, the worker thread is signalled to change what it's doing.
So, is this the best way to accomplish this? And what's the best way to do it?
Thanks!
First: Do you actually need a background thread to sit around idle in the first place?
On most platforms, starting a new thread is cheap. (Except on Windows and Linux, where it's supercheap.) So, why not just kick off a thread whenever you need it? (It's just as easy to keep around a list of threads as a single thread, right?)
Alternatively, why not just create a ThreadPoolExecutor, and just submit jobs to it, and let the executor worry about when they get run and on which thread. Any time you can just think in terms of "tasks that need to get run without blocking the main thread" instead of "worker threads that need to wait on work", you're making your life easier. Under the covers, there's still one or more worker threads waiting on a queue, or something equivalent, but that part's all been written (and debugged and optimized) for you. All you have to write are the tasks, which are just regular functions.
But, if you want to write explicit background threads, you can, so I'll explain that.
How can I make my worker thread idle without using up CPU time? … What's the best way to signal into the worker thread to do something?
The way to idle a thread until a value is ready is to wait on a synchronization object. On any modern OS, waiting on a synchronization object means the operating system stops giving you any CPU time until the object is ready for you.*
There are a variety of different options you can see in the Threading module docs, but the obvious one to use in most cases like this is a Condition. The way to signal the worker thread is then to notify the Condition.
However, often a Queue is a lot simpler. To wait on a Queue, just call its get method with block=True. To signal another thread to wake up, just put something on the Queue. (Under the covers, a Queue wraps up a list or deque or other collection, a Lock, and a Condition, so you just tell it what you want to do—check for a value, block until there's a value, add a value—instead of dealing with waiting and signaling and protecting the collection.)
See the answer to controlling UI elements in wxPython using threading for how to signal in both directions, from a worker thread to a UI thread and vice-versa.
I'd have some way for the worker thread to register a callback with the UI itself, so that when a button is clicked or any other UI Event happens, the worker thread is signalled to change what it's doing.
You can do it this way if you want. Just pass self.queue.put or def callback(value): self.value = value; self.condition.notify() or whatever as a callback, and the GUI thread doesn't even have to know that the callback is triggering another thread.
In fact, that's a pretty nice design that may make you very happy later, when you decide to move some code back and forth between inline and background-threaded, or move it off to a child process instead of a background thread, or whatever.
I can't envision this right now but I could see as the app gets more complex also having to signal the worker thread while it's actually busy doing something.
But what do you want to happen if it's busy?
If you just want to say "If you're idle, wake up and do this task; otherwise, hold onto it and do it whenever you're ready", that's exactly what a Queue, or an Executor, will do for you automatically.
If you want to say, "If you're idle, wake up, otherwise, don't worry about it", that's what a Condition or Event will do.
If you want to say, "If you're idle, wake up and do this, otherwise, cancel what you're doing and do this instead", that's a bit more complicated. You pretty much need to have the background thread periodically check an "interrupt_me" variable while it's busy (and put a Lock around it), and then you'll set that flag as well as notifying the Condition… although in some cases, you can merge the idle and busy cases into a single Condition or Event (by calling an infinite wait() when idle, and a quick-check wait(timeout=0) when busy).
* In some cases—e.g., a Linux futex or a Windows CriticalSection—it may actually spin off a little bit of CPU time in some cases, because that happens to be a good optimization. But the point is, you're not asking for any CPU time until you're ready to use it.
This question already has answers here:
Is there any way to kill a Thread?
(31 answers)
Closed 6 years ago.
I start a thread using the following code.
t = thread.start_new_thread(myfunction)
How can I kill the thread t from another thread. So basically speaking in terms of code, I want to be able to do something like this.
t.kill()
Note that I'm using Python 2.4.
In Python, you simply cannot kill a Thread.
If you do NOT really need to have a Thread (!), what you can do, instead of using the threading package (http://docs.python.org/2/library/threading.html), is to use the multiprocessing package (http://docs.python.org/2/library/multiprocessing.html). Here, to kill a process, you can simply call the method:
yourProcess.terminate() # kill the process!
Python will kill your process (on Unix through the SIGTERM signal, while on Windows through the TerminateProcess() call). Pay attention to use it while using a Queue or a Pipe! (it may corrupt the data in the Queue/Pipe)
Note that the multiprocessing.Event and the multiprocessing.Semaphore work exactly in the same way of the threading.Event and the threading.Semaphore respectively. In fact, the first ones are clones of the latters.
If you REALLY need to use a Thread, there is no way to kill your threads directly. What you can do, however, is to use a "daemon thread". In fact, in Python, a Thread can be flagged as daemon:
yourThread.daemon = True # set the Thread as a "daemon thread"
The main program will exit when no alive non-daemon threads are left. In other words, when your main thread (which is, of course, a non-daemon thread) will finish its operations, the program will exit even if there are still some daemon threads working.
Note that it is necessary to set a Thread as daemon before the start() method is called!
Of course you can, and should, use daemon even with multiprocessing. Here, when the main process exits, it attempts to terminate all of its daemonic child processes.
Finally, please, note that sys.exit() and os.kill() are not choices.
If your thread is busy executing Python code, you have a bigger problem than the inability to kill it. The GIL will prevent any other thread from even running whatever instructions you would use to do the killing. (After a bit of research, I've learned that the interpreter periodically releases the GIL, so the preceding statement is bogus. The remaining comment stands, however.)
Your thread must be written in a cooperative manner. That is, it must periodically check in with a signalling object such as a semaphore, which the main thread can use to instruct the worker thread to voluntarily exit.
while not sema.acquire(False):
# Do a small portion of work…
or:
for item in work:
# Keep working…
# Somewhere deep in the bowels…
if sema.acquire(False):
thread.exit()
You can't kill a thread from another thread. You need to signal to the other thread that it should end. And by "signal" I don't mean use the signal function, I mean that you have to arrange for some communication between the threads.
I am trying to write a unix client program that is listening to a socket, stdin, and reading from file descriptors. I assign each of these tasks to an individual thread and have them successfully communicating with the "main" application using synchronized queues and a semaphore. The problem is that when I want to shutdown these child threads they are all blocking on input. Also, the threads cannot register signal handlers in the threads because in Python only the main thread of execution is allowed to do so.
Any suggestions?
There is no good way to work around this, especially when the thread is blocking.
I had a similar issue ( Python: How to terminate a blocking thread) and the only way I was able to stop my threads was to close the underlying connection. Which resulted in the thread that was blocking to raise and exception and then allowed me to check the stop flag and close.
Example code:
class Example(object):
def __init__(self):
self.stop = threading.Event()
self.connection = Connection()
self.mythread = Thread(target=self.dowork)
self.mythread.start()
def dowork(self):
while(not self.stop.is_set()):
try:
blockingcall()
except CommunicationException:
pass
def terminate():
self.stop.set()
self.connection.close()
self.mythread.join()
Another thing to note is commonly blocking operations generally offer up a timeout. If you have that option I would consider using it. My last comment is that you could always set the thread to deamonic,
From the pydoc :
A thread can be flagged as a “daemon thread”. The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits when only daemon threads are left. The initial value is inherited from the creating thread. The flag can be set through the daemon property.
Also, the threads cannot register signal handlers
Signals to kill threads is potentially horrible, especially in C, especially if you allocate memory as part of the thread, since it won't be freed when that particular thread dies (as it belongs to the heap of the process). There is no garbage collection in C, so if that pointer goes out of scope, it's gone out of scope, the memory remains allocated. So just be careful with that one - only do it that way in C if you're going to actually kill all the threads and end the process so that the memory is handed back to the OS - adding and removing threads from a threadpool for example will give you a memory leak.
The problem is that when I want to shutdown these child threads they are all blocking on input.
Funnily enough I've been fighting with the same thing recently. The solution is literally don't make blocking calls without a timeout. So, for example, what you want ideally is:
def threadfunc(running):
while running:
blockingcall(timeout=1)
where running is passed from the controlling thread - I've never used threading but I have used multiprocessing and with this you actually need to pass an Event() object and check is_set(). But you asked for design patterns, that's the basic idea.
Then, when you want this thread to end, you run:
running.clear()
mythread.join()
and your main thread should then allow your client thread to handle its last call, and return, and the whole program folds up nicely.
What do you do if you have a blocking call without a timeout? Use the asynchronous option, and sleep (as in call whatever method you have to suspend the thread for a period of time so you're not spinning) if you need to. There's no other way around it.
See these answers:
Python SocketServer
How to exit a multithreaded program?
Basically, don't block on recv() by using select() with a timeout to check for readability of the socket, and poll a quit flag when select() times out.
I am creating a thread in my Python app with thread.start_new_thread.
How do I stop it if it hasn't finished in three seconds time?
You can't do that directly. Anyway aborting a thread is not good practice - rather think about using synchronization mechanisms that let you abort the thread in a "soft" way.
But daemonic threads will automatically be aborted if no non-daemonic threads remain (e.g. if the only main thread ends). Maybe that's what you want.
If you really need to do this (e.g. the thread calls code that may hang forever) then consider rewriting your code to spawn a process with the multiprocessing module. You can then kill the process with the Process.terminate() method. You will need 2.6 or later for this, of course.
You cannot. Threads can't be killed from outside. The only thing you can do is add a way to ask the thread to exit. Obviously you won't be able to do this if the thread is blocked in some systemcall.
As noted in a related question, you might be able to raise an exception through ctypes.pythonapi, but not while it's waiting on a system call.