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.
Related
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.
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 have an OnClick function that is bound to a wx.Button object and when I click it, the function is run, it creates a thread and starts doing work behind the scenes. What should I do after this on the MainThread while the other thread finishes, to make the UI remain responsive? I'm currently doing this (in the main thread):
worker_thread = Thread(target = self.DoWork, name = "Solo Worker Thread")
worker_thread.start()
while worker_thread.is_alive():
self.Update() #self being the class that inherits wx.Panel
However the GUI is still unresponsive. Am I calling the wrong method?
Your example
while worker_thread.is_alive():
# do something
will block your GUI and eat up all available CPU cycles to ask the worker_tread if it is still working. wxPython seems to be not updateable if you block the main thread, even not if you force the update with wx.Yield or ….Update().
Therefore delete your while … statement. You can do the following to determine if the spun-off thread is still alive:
Signal the conclusion of the thread by calling back to the main-thread with the thread-save wx.CallAfter added to the end of the worker
Install a wx.Timer (e.g. every 1000 milliseconds) which polls the worker_thread if it is still alive
I suggest you to use wx.CallAfter(). You may find some useful examples here. Also you can use pubsub module to send messages to your GUI. Then your GUI won't block due to other threads.
Here is a nice blog that I read when I had a similar issue like yours.
You can also find some other questions on SO based that may assist you to understand this concept here, here, & here
You don't have to do anything. As long as the long running process is happening in a different thread, it shouldn't be blocking the GUI's main loop. See the following resources for examples:
http://wiki.wxpython.org/LongRunningTasks
http://www.blog.pythonlibrary.org/2010/05/22/wxpython-and-threads/
If you take a look at those, you will see that you spin up a thread and the thread does not block the UI.
I have a Qt application written in PySide (Qt Python binding). This application has a GUI thread and many different QThreads that are in charge of performing some heavy lifting - some rather long tasks. As such long task sometimes gets stuck (usually because it is waiting for a server response), the application sometimes freezes.
I was therefore wondering if it is safe to call QCoreApplication.processEvents() "manually" every second or so, so that the GUI event queue is cleared (processed)? Is that a good idea at all?
It's safe to call QCoreApplication.processEvents() whenever you like. The docs explicitly state your use case:
You can call this function occasionally when your program is busy
performing a long operation (e.g. copying a file).
There is no good reason though why threads would block the event loop in the main thread, though. (Unless your system really can't keep up.) So that's worth looking into anyway.
A couple of hints people might find useful:
A. You need to beware of the following:
Every so often the threads want to send stuff back to the main thread. So they post an event and call processEvents
If the code runs from the event also calls processEvents then instead of returning to the next statement, python can instead dispatch a worker thread again and that can then repeat this process.
The net result of this can be hundreds or thousands of nested processEvent statements which can then result in a recursion level exceeded error message.
Moral - if you are running a multi-threaded application do NOT call processEvents in any code initiated by a thread which runs in the main thread.
B. You need to be aware that CPython has a Global Interpreter Lock (GIL) that limits threads so that only one can run at any one time and the way that Python decides which threads to run is counter-intuitive. Running process events from a worker thread does not seem to do what it says on the can, and CPU time is not allocated to the main thread or to Python internal threads. I am still experimenting, but it seems that putting worker threads to sleep for a few miliseconds allows other threads to get a look in.
Python have been really bumpy for me, because the last time I created a GUI client, the client seems to hang when spawning a process, calling a shell script, and calling outside application.
This have been my major problem with Python since then, and now I'm in a new project, can someone give me pointers, and a word of advice in order for my GUI python application to still be interactive when spawning another process?
Simplest (not necessarily "best" in an abstract sense): spawn the subprocess in a separate thread, communicating results back to the main thread via a Queue.Queue instance -- the main thread must periodically check that queue to see if the results have arrived yet, but periodic polling isn't hard to arrange in any event loop.
Your main GUI thread will freeze if you spawn off a process and wait for it to completely. Often, you can simply use subprocess and poll it now and then for completion rather than waiting for it to finish. This will keep your GUI from freezing.