Thread randomly stops in Python - python

I've been playing along with threads in Python, and I came across something interesting with the following code:
import time
import threading
class Update(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.stop_event = threading.Event()
def join(self, timeout=None):
self.stop_event.set()
threading.Thread.join(self, timeout)
def run(self):
while not self.stop_event.isSet():
print("test")
thread = Update()
thread.start()
This code randomly stops even if I don't call the join() method. As a result, I get different outputs like these:
test#debian:~/$ python3 test.py
test
test
test
test
test#debian:~/$ python3 test.py
test
test
test
test
test
test
test
test#debian:~/$ python3 test.py
test
test
Why is this code randomly stopping? I thought that only by setting stop_event this thread would stop.

You already got the essential answer, but there's a detail you need to be aware of: when the main program ends, as part of shutdown processing Python calls .join() on all non-daemon threads created by the threading module. You overrode .join(), so Python calls your .join(). That in turn sets the event, and so your .run() method exits silently.

When the main thread ends the program ends.
The number of times that the thread loops before the main one stops is fairly arbitrary. (up to the OS to schedule)

Related

Implementing threading in a Python GTK application (PyGObject) to prevent UI freezing

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

Python thread run() blocking

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.

Python code to create 2 threads and as soon as first thread finished execution kill the second thread

I am new to python.
I have a stuck with scenario, where i have to create 2 threads, one thread will trigger method1()and parallel execute another thread simultaneously(at the same time) which will execute method2().
As soon as method1() got terminated, it should terminate method2() as well.
Example
import threading
import time
def method1():
#do something
def method2():
#do something

How do I stop a Python process instantly from a Tkinter window?

I have a Python GUI that I use to test various aspects of my work. Currently I have a "stop" button which kills the process at the end of each test (there can be multiple tests set up to run at once). However, some tests take a long time to run and if I need to stop the test I would like it to stop instantly. My thoughts are to use
import pdb; pdb.set_trace()
exit
But I'm not sure how I would inject this into the next run line of code. Is this possible?
If it's a thread, you can use the lower-level thread (or _thread in Python 3) module to kill the thread with an exception by calling thread.exit().
From the documentation:
thread.exit(): Raise the SystemExit exception. When not caught,
this will cause the thread to exit silently.
A cleaner method (depending on how your processing is set up) would be to signal the thread to stop processing and exit using an instance variable, then calling the join() method from your main thread to wait until the thread exits.
Example:
class MyThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self):
super(MyThread, self).__init__()
self._stop_req = False
def run(self):
while not self._stop_req:
pass
# processing
# clean up before exiting
def stop(self):
# triggers the threading event
self._stop_req = True;
def main():
# set up the processing thread
processing_thread = MyThread()
processing_thread.start()
# do other things
# stop the thread and wait for it to exit
processing_thread.stop()
processing_thread.join()
if __name__ == "__main__":
main()

Non blocking python process or thread

I have a simple app that listens to a socket connection. Whenever certain chunks of data come in a callback handler is called with that data. In that callback I want to send my data to another process or thread as it could take a long time to deal with. I was originally running the code in the callback function, but it blocks!!
What's the proper way to spin off a new task?
threading is the threading library usually used for resource-based multithreading. The multiprocessing library is another library, but designed more for running intensive parallel computing tasks; threading is generally the recommended library in your case.
Example
import threading, time
def my_threaded_func(arg, arg2):
print "Running thread! Args:", (arg, arg2)
time.sleep(10)
print "Done!"
thread = threading.Thread(target=my_threaded_func, args=("I'ma", "thread"))
thread.start()
print "Spun off thread"
The multiprocessing module has worker pools. If you don't need a pool of workers, you can use Process to run something in parallel with your main program.
import threading
from time import sleep
import sys
# assume function defs ...
class myThread (threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, threadID):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.threadID = threadID
def run(self):
if self.threadID == "run_exe":
run_exe()
def main():
itemList = getItems()
for item in itemList:
thread = myThread("run_exe")
thread.start()
sleep(.1)
listenToSocket(item)
while (thread.isAlive()):
pass # a way to wait for thread to finish before looping
main()
sys.exit(0)
The sleep between thread.start() and listenToSocket(item) ensures that the thread is established before you begin to listen. I implemented this code in a unit test framework were I had to launch multiple non-blacking processes (len(itemList) number of times) because my other testing framework (listenToSocket(item)) was dependent on the processes.
un_exe() can trigger a subprocess call that can be blocking (i.e. invoking pipe.communicate()) so that output data from the execution will still be printed in time with the python script output. But the nature of threading makes this ok.
So this code solves two problems - print data of a subprocess without blocking script execution AND dynamically create and start multiple threads sequentially (makes maintenance of the script better if I ever add more items to my itemList later).

Categories