I was attempting to create a thread class that could be terminated by an exception (since I am trying to have the thread wait on an event) when I created the following:
import sys
class testThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self):
super(testThread,self).__init__()
self.daemon = True
def run(self):
try:
print('Running')
while 1:
pass
except:
print('Being forced to exit')
test1 = testThread()
test2 = testThread()
print(test1.daemon)
test1.run()
test2.run()
sys.exit()
However, running the program will only print out one Running message, until the other is terminated. Why is that?
The problem is that you're calling the run method.
This is just a plain old method that you implement, which does whatever you put in its body. In this case, the body is an infinite loop, so calling run just loops forever.
The way to start a thread is the start method. This method is part of the Thread class, and what it does is:
Start the thread’s activity.
It must be called at most once per thread object. It arranges for the object’s run() method to be invoked in a separate thread of control.
So, if you call this, it will start a new thread, make that new thread run your run() method, and return immediately, so the main thread can keep doing other stuff.1 That's what you want here.
1. As pointed out by Jean-François Fabre, you're still not going to get any real parallelism here. Busy loops are never a great idea in multithreaded code, and if you're running this in CPython or PyPy, almost all of that busy looping is executing Python bytecode while holding the GIL, and only one thread can hold the GIL at a time. So, from a coarse view, things look concurrent—three threads are running, and all making progress. But if you zoom in, there's almost no overlap where two threads progress at once, usually not even enough to make up for the small scheduler overhead.
Related
Simply put, I want to properly implement threading in a Python GTK application. This is in order to prevent UI freezing due to functions/code taking a long time to finish running. Hence, my approach was to move all code which took a long time to run into separate functions, and run them in their separate threads as needed. This however posed a problem when trying to run the functions in sequence.
For example, take a look at the following code:
class Main(Gtk.Window):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self.button = Gtk.Button(label='button')
self.add(self.button)
self.button.connect('clicked', self.main_function)
def threaded_function(self):
time.sleep(20)
print('this is a threaded function')
def first_normal_function(self):
print('this is a normal function')
def second_normal_function(self):
print('this is a normal function')
def main_function(self, widget):
self.first_normal_function()
self.threaded_function()
self.second_normal_function()
Pressing the button starts main_function which then starts 3 functions in sequence. threaded_function represents a function which would take a long time to complete. Running this as is will freeze the UI. Hence it should be threaded as such:
...
...
def main_function(self, widget):
self.first_normal_function()
thread = threading.Thread(target=self.threaded_function)
thread.daemon = True
thread.start()
self.second_normal_function()
What should happen is that the following first_normal_function should run, then threaded_function in a background thread - the UI should remain responsive as the background thread is working. Finally, second_normal_function should run, but only when threaded_function is finished.
The issue with this is that the functions will not run in sequence. The behaviour I am looking for could be achieved by using thread.join() however this freezes the UI.
So I ask, what's the proper way of doing this? This is a general case, however it concerns the general issue of having code which takes a long time to complete in a graphical application, while needing code to run sequentially. Qt deals with this by using signals, and having a QThread emit a finished signal. Does GTK have an equivalent?
I'm aware that this could be partially solved using Queue , with a put() and get() in relevant functions, however I don't understand how to get this to work if the main thread is calling anything other than functions.
EDIT: Given that it's possible to have threaded_function call second_normal_function using GLib.idle_add, let's take an example where in main_function, the second_normal_function call is replaced with a print statement, such that:
def main_function(self, widget):
self.first_normal_function()
thread = threading.Thread(target=self.threaded_function)
thread.daemon = True
thread.start()
print('this comes after the thread is finished')
...
...
...
#some more code here
With GLib.idle_add, the print statement and all the code afterwards would need to be moved into a separate function. Is it possible to avoid moving the print statement into its own function while maintaining sequentiality, such that the print statement remains where it is and still gets called after threaded_function is finished?
Your suggestion on how to do this was very close to the actual solution, but it's indeed not going to work.
In essence, what you'll indeed want to do, is to run the long-running function in a different thread. That'll mean you get 2 threads: one which is running the main event loop that (amongs other things) updates your UI, and another thread which does the long-running logic.
Of course, that bears the question: how do I notify the main thread that some work is done and I want it to react to that? For example, you might want to update the UI while (or after) some complex calculation is going on. For this, you can use GLib.idle_add() from within the other thread. That function takes a single callback as an argument, which it will run as soon as it can ("on idle").
So a possibility to use here, would be something like this:
class Main(Gtk.Window):
def __init__(self):
super().__init__()
self.button = Gtk.Button(label='button')
self.add(self.button)
self.button.connect('clicked', self.main_function)
thread = threading.Thread(target=self.threaded_function)
thread.daemon = True
thread.start()
def threaded_function(self):
# Really intensive stuff going on here
sleep(20)
# We're done, schedule "on_idle" to be called in the main thread
GLib.idle_add(self.on_idle)
# Note, this function will be run in the main loop thread, *not* in this one
def on_idle(self):
second_normal_function()
return GLib.SOURCE_REMOVE # we only want to run once
# ...
For more context, you might want to read the pygobject documentation on threading and concurrency
Maybe it's a very simple question, but I'm new in concurrency. I want to do a python script to run foo.py 10 times simultaneously with a time limit of 60 sec before automatically abort. The script is a non deterministic algorithm, hence all executions takes different times and one will be finished before the others. Once the first ends, I would like to save the execution time, the output of the algorithm and after that kill the rest of the processes.
I have seen this question run multiple instances of python script simultaneously and it looks very similar, but how can I add time limit and the possibility of when the first one finishes the execution, kills the rest of processes?
Thank you in advance.
I'd suggest using the threading lib, because with it you can set threads to daemon threads so that if the main thread exits for whatever reason the other threads are killed. Here's a small example:
#Import the libs...
import threading, time
#Global variables... (List of results.)
results=[]
#The subprocess you want to run several times simultaneously...
def run():
#We declare results as a global variable.
global results
#Do stuff...
results.append("Hello World! These are my results!")
n=int(input("Welcome user, how much times should I execute run()? "))
#We run the thread n times.
for _ in range(n):
#Define the thread.
t=threading.Thread(target=run)
#Set the thread to daemon, this means that if the main process exits the threads will be killed.
t.setDaemon(True)
#Start the thread.
t.start()
#Once the threads have started we can execute tha main code.
#We set a timer...
startTime=time.time()
while True:
#If the timer reaches 60 s we exit from the program.
if time.time()-startTime>=60:
print("[ERROR] The script took too long to run!")
exit()
#Do stuff on your main thread, if the stuff is complete you can break from the while loop as well.
results.append("Main result.")
break
#When we break from the while loop we print the output.
print("Here are the results: ")
for i in results:
print(f"-{i}")
This example should solve your problem, but if you wanted to use blocking commands on the main thread the timer would fail, so you'd need to tweak this code a bit. If you wanted to do that move the code from the main thread's loop to a new function (for example def main(): and execute the rest of the threads from a primary thread on main. This example may help you:
def run():
pass
#Secondary "main" thread.
def main():
#Start the rest of the threads ( in this case I just start 1).
localT=threading.Thread(target=run)
localT.setDaemon(True)
localT.start()
#Do stuff.
pass
#Actual main thread...
t=threading.Thread(target=main)
t.setDaemon(True)
t.start()
#Set up a timer and fetch the results you need with a global list or any other method...
pass
Now, you should avoid global variables at all costs as sometimes they may be a bit buggy, but for some reason the threading lib doesn't allow you to return values from threads, at least i don't know any methods. I think there are other multi-processing libs out there that do let you return values, but I don't know anything about them so I can't explain you anything. Anyways, I hope that this works for you.
-Update: Ok, I was busy writing the code and I didn't read the comments in the post, sorry. You can still use this method but instead of writing code inside the threads, execute another script. You could either import it as a module or actually run it as a script, here's a question that may help you with that:
How to run one python file in another file?
Suppose I have something like this :
import threading
import time
_FINISH = False
def hang():
while True:
if _FINISH:
break
print 'hanging..'
time.sleep(10)
def main():
global _FINISH
t = threading.Thread(target=hang)
t.setDaemon( True )
t.start()
time.sleep(10)
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
If my thread is daemon, do I need to have a global _FINISH to control exit clause of break loop? I tried and I don't seem to need it - when program exits ( in that case after the sleep ) then program terminates, which closes the thread too.
But I've seen that code too - is it just bad practise? Can I get away with no global flag for controlling the loop?
According to [Python 3.Docs]: threading - Thread Objects (emphasis is mine):
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 or the daemon constructor argument.
Note: 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.
Per above, technically, you don't need the _FINISH logic, as the thread will end when the main one does. But, according to your code, no one (main thread) signals that the thread should end (something like _FINISH = True), so the logic in the thread is useless (therefore it can be removed).
Also, according to the above recommendation, you should implement the synchronization mechanism between your threads, and avoid making them daemons (in most of the cases).
I've wrote a class that inherits from object and has instances of sub-objects that uses some threads for tasks. There are two socket listeners that creates other threads for each accepted connection. They do what they have to do. To finish them, they are looking on a Threading.Event object to know that they have to finish.
I've noticed that, when exit the python console they are not notified (or don't catch the notification) and the exit don't return control to the bash console, unless a Close() is called before.
First idea to fix it has been to implement the '__del__' method to use the garbage collector to clean it when exit.
class ServiceProvider(object):
def __init__(self):
super(ServiceProvider,self).__init__()
#...
self.Open()
def Open(self):
#... Some threads are created.
def Close(self):
#.... Threading.Event to report the threads to finish
def __del__(self):
self.Close()
But the behaviour is the same. If I place a print in those methods, non in '__del__', neither in 'Close' they are written. Unless it is closed before, then the print in the del is wrote.
Then I've implemented the '__enter__' and '__exit__' methods to manage the with statement. And the exit behaves as expected and when the with ends, things are release. But what I really want is to have something like the file descriptors that event if file.close() is not called, it is executed when exits the program.
class ServiceProvider(object):
#...
def __enter__(self):
return self
def __exit__(self):
self.Close()
Searching for more solutions I've tried with atexit but not. I have similar results that doesn't fix the issue. Even I collect all the objects created of this class, the doOnExit only writes its print if the objects in the list are already Close.
import atexit
global objects2Close
objects2Close = []
#atexit.register
def doOnExit():
for obj in objects2Close:
obj.Close()
class ServiceProvider(object):
def __init__(self):
super(ServiceProvider,self).__init__()
objects2Close.append(self)
It's usually a good idea to use with when you have resources that you don't want to leak (files, connections, whatever else you care about).
Somewhere, just outside your main loop you should have something like:
with ServiceProvider(some_params) as service_provider:
rest_of_the_code()
What this does is that regardless of how you exit rest_of_the_code() (except for kill -9) it will call service_provider.Close() at the end. This works for exceptions and interrupts as well. Kill -9 doesn't work because the process is kill at os level and doesn't have a chance to attempt to recover.
I've got a solution for this issue. The posted information in this question was not related with the real issue.
This is as simple as daemon threading.
A the implementation uses some threads for listening remote connections they have to finish their execution when the program goes to exit. But the program ends when all the no daemon thread has finished.
Mistakenly those listeners and talkers where not set to be daemons and that's why the execution waits for them.
I'm using QThread to do some periodic background work, the source code looks something like this
class Worker(QObject):
""" Separate QObject that does the work with affinity of
'DoStuffOnceASecond'"""
def __init__(self):
super(QWorker, self).__init__()
def doWork(self):
#... do work, post signal to consumer
class DoStuffOnceASecond(QThread):
def __init__(self):
super(DoStuffOnceASecond, self).__init__()
def run(self):
""" Setup "pullFiles" to be called once a second"""
self.timer= QTimer()
self.worker = Worker()
self.timer.setSingleShot(False)
self.timer.timeout.connect(self.worker.doWork)
self.timer.start(1000)
self.exec_()
I'm looking for the best way to terminate such a thread. One option would be to post a signal from the main thread to this thread, creating a slot in this thread. Since these slots execute as part of the event loop, they would get safely picked up. But then I'd be self terminating... and I'm not sure if that would work very well.
Or I'm wondering, since the thread should be conscious that its running an event loop, if its safe just to call exit() on this thread? The documentation seems to indicate this is ok:
After calling this function, the thread leaves the event loop and returns from the call to QEventLoop::exec(). The QEventLoop::exec() function returns returnCode.
I think "leaves the event loop" means it will allow the current event to finish processing. Or does the QThread instantly terminate?
The code here is python (pyside 1.10, python 2.7) but this could easily apply to any QT code using QThread.
You don't need to declare any extra slots, if you don't mind that your return code will be 0. Then you can use already defined quit() slot which just calls exit(0) on your thread. About your fear to "self-terminate" - you are not terminating the thread, just quitting its event loop. And you can start it anytime by calling exec() again. You are still very nice to your thread so everything should "work very well". Instant termination is possible by QThread::terminate but is meant as last desperate mean to kill off the thread when the above method has failed.