This question already has answers here:
thread.start_new_thread vs threading.Thread.start
(2 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
Level beginner. I have a confusion regarding the thread creation methods in python. To be specific is there any difference between the following two approaches:
In first approach I am using import thread module and later I am creating a thread by this code thread.start_new_thread(myfunction,()) as myfunction() doesn't have any args.
In second approach I am using from threading import Thread and later I am creating threads by doing something like this: t = Thread(target=myfunction)then t.start()
The reason why I am asking is because my programme works fine for second approach but when I use first approach it doesn't works as intended. I am working on a Client-Server programme. Thanks
The code is as below:
#!/usr/bin/env python
import socket
from threading import Thread
import thread
data = 'default'
tcpSocket = ''
def start_server():
global tcpSocket
tcpSocket = socket.socket(socket.AF_INET, socket.SOCK_STREAM)
tcpSocket.setsockopt(socket.SOL_SOCKET, socket.SO_REUSEADDR, 1)
tcpSocket.bind(('',1520))
tcpSocket.listen(3)
print "Server is up...."
def service():
global tcpSocket
(clientSocket,address) = tcpSocket.accept()
print "Client connected with: ", address
# data = 'default'
send_data(clientSocket,"Server: This is server\n")
global data
while len(data):
data = receive_data(clientSocket)
send_data(clientSocket,"Client: "+data)
print "Client exited....\nShutting the server"
clientSocket.close()
tcpSocket.close()
def send_data(socket,data):
socket.send(data)
def receive_data(socket):
global data
data = socket.recv(2048)
return data
start_server()
for i in range(2):
t = Thread(target=service)
t.start()
#thread.start_new_thread(service,())
#immortal can you explain bit more please. I didn't get it sorry. How can main thread die? It should start service() in my code then the server waits for client. I guess it should wait rather than to die.
Your main thread calls:
start_server()
and that returns. Then your main thread executes this:
for i in range(2):
t = Thread(target=service)
t.start()
#thread.start_new_thread(service,())
Those also complete almost instantly, and then your main thread ends.
At that point, the main thread is done. Python enters its interpreter shutdown code.
Part of the shutdown code is waiting to .join() all (non-daemon) threads created by the threading module. That's one of the reasons it's far better not to use thread unless you know exactly what you're doing. For example, if you're me ;-) But the only times I've ever used thread are in the implementation of threading, and to write test code for the thread module.
You're entirely on your own to manage all aspects of a thread module thread's life. Python's shutdown code doesn't wait for those threads. The interpreter simply exits, ignoring them completely, and the OS kills them off (well, that's really up to the OS, but on all major platforms I know of the OS does just kill them ungracefully in midstream).
Related
First of all, I've only started working with Python a month ago, so I don't have deep knowledge about anything.
In a project I'm trying to collect the results of multiple (simultaneous) functions in a database, infinitely until I tell it to stop.
In an earlier attempt, I successfully used multiprocessing to do what I need, but since I now need to collect all the results of those functions for a database within the main, I switched to threading instead.
Basically, what I'm trying to do is:
collect1 = Thread(target=collect_data1)
collect2 = Thread(target=collect_data2)
send1 = Thread(target=send_data1)
send2 = Thread(target=send_data2)
collect = (collect1, collect2)
send = (send1, send2)
while True:
try:
for thread in collect:
thread.start()
for thread in collect:
thread.join()
for thread in send:
thread.start()
for thread in send:
thread.join()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
break
Now, obviously I can't just restart the threads. Nor explicitly kill them. The functions within the threads can theoretically be stopped at any point, so terminate() from multiprocessing was fine.
I was thinking whether something like the following could work (at least PyCharm is fine with it, so it seems to work) or if it creates a memory leak (which I assume), because the threads are never properly closed or deleted, at least as far as I can tell from researching.
Again, I'm new to Python, so I don't know anything about this aspect.
Code:
while True:
try:
collect1 = Thread(target=collect_data1)
collect2 = Thread(target=collect_data2)
send1 = Thread(target=send_data1)
send2 = Thread(target=send_data2)
collect = (collect1, collect2)
send = (send1, send2)
for thread in collect:
thread.start()
for thread in collect:
thread.join()
for thread in send:
thread.start()
for thread in send:
thread.join()
except KeyboardInterrupt:
break
I feel like this approach seems too good to be true, especially since I've never came across a similar solution during my research.
Anyways, any input is appreciated.
Have a good day.
You explicitly await the threads' termination in loops containing thread.join(), so no memory leak takes place, and your code is fine. If you're worried that you don't dispose of the thread objects in any way after they terminate, it will be done automatically as soon as they aren't used anymore, so this souldn't be a concern neither.
EDIT 9/15/16: In my original code (still posted below) I tried to use .join() with a function, which is a silly mistake because it can only be used with a thread object. I am trying to
(1) continuously run a thread that gets data and saves it to a file
(2) have a second thread, or incorporate queue, that will stop the program once a user enters a flag (i.e. "stop"). It doesn't interrupt the data gathering/saving thread.
I need help with multithreading. I am trying to run two threads, one that handles data and the second checks for a flag to stop the program.
I learned by trial and error that I can't interrupt a while loop without my computer exploding. Additionally, I have abandoned my GUI code because it made my code too complicated with the mulithreading.
What I want to do is run a thread that gathers data from an Arduino, saves it to a file, and repeats this. The second thread will scan for a flag -- which can be a raw_input? I can't think of anything else that a user can do to stop the data acquisition program.
I greatly appreciate any help on this. Here is my code (much of it is pseudocode, as you can see):
#threading
import thread
import time
global flag
def monitorData():
print "running!"
time.sleep(5)
def stopdata(flag ):
flag = raw_input("enter stop: ")
if flag == "stop":
monitorData.join()
flag = "start"
thread.start_new_thread( monitorData,())
thread.start_new_thread( stopdata,(flag,))
The error I am getting is this when I try entering "stop" in the IDLE.
Unhandled exception in thread started by
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "c:\users\otangu~1\appdata\local\temp\IDLE_rtmp_h_frd5", line 16, in stopdata
AttributeError: 'function' object has no attribute 'join'
Once again I really appreciate any help, I have taught myself Python so far and this is the first huge wall that I've hit.
The error you see is a result of calling join on the function. You need to call join on the thread object. You don't capture a reference to the thread so you have no way to call join anyway. You should join like so.
th1 = thread.start_new_thread( monitorData,())
# later
th1.join()
As for a solution, you can use a Queue to communicate between threads. The queue is used to send a quit message to the worker thread and if the worker does not pick anything up off the queue for a second it runs the code that gathers data from the arduino.
from threading import Thread
from Queue import Queue, Empty
def worker(q):
while True:
try:
item = q.get(block=True, timeout=1)
q.task_done()
if item == "quit":
print("got quit msg in thread")
break
except Empty:
print("empty, do some arduino stuff")
def input_process(q):
while True:
x = raw_input("")
if x == 'q':
print("will quit")
q.put("quit")
break
q = Queue()
t = Thread(target=worker, args=(q,))
t.start()
t2 = Thread(target=input_process, args=(q,))
t2.start()
# waits for the `task_done` function to be called
q.join()
t2.join()
t.join()
It's possibly a bit more code than you hoped for and having to detect the queue is empty with an exception is a little ugly, but this doesn't rely on any global variables and will always exit promptly. That wont be the case with sleep based solutions, which need to wait for any current calls to sleep to finish before resuming execution.
As noted by someone else, you should really be using threading rather than the older thread module and also I would recommend you learn with python 3 and not python 2.
You're looking for something like this:
from threading import Thread
from time import sleep
# "volatile" global shared by threads
active = True
def get_data():
while active:
print "working!"
sleep(3)
def wait_on_user():
global active
raw_input("press enter to stop")
active = False
th1 = Thread(target=get_data)
th1.start()
th2 = Thread(target=wait_on_user)
th2.start()
th1.join()
th2.join()
You made a few obvious and a few less obvious mistakes in your code. First, join is called on a thread object, not a function. Similarly, join doesn't kill a thread, it waits for the thread to finish. A thread finishes when it has no more code to execute. If you want a thread to run until some flag is set, you normally include a loop in your thread that checks the flag every second or so (depending on how precise you need the timing to be).
Also, the threading module is preferred over the lower lever thread module. The latter has been removed in python3.
This is not possible. The thread function has to finish. You can't join it from the outside.
The problem I've got right now is one concerning this chat client I've been trying to get working for some days now. It's supposed to be an upgrade of my original chat client, that could only reply to people if it received a message first.
So after asking around and researching people I decided to use select.select to handle my client.
Problem is it has the same problem as always.
*The loop gets stuck on receiving and won't complete until it receives something*
Here's what I wrote so far:
import select
import sys #because why not?
import threading
import queue
print("New Chat Client Using Select Module")
HOST = input("Host: ")
PORT = int(input("Port: "))
s = socket(AF_INET,SOCK_STREAM)
print("Trying to connect....")
s.connect((HOST,PORT))
s.setblocking(0)
# Not including setblocking(0) because select handles that.
print("You just connected to",HOST,)
# Lets now try to handle the client a different way!
while True:
# Attempting to create a few threads
Reading_Thread = threading.Thread(None,s)
Reading_Thread.start()
Writing_Thread = threading.Thread()
Writing_Thread.start()
Incoming_data = [s]
Exportable_data = []
Exceptions = []
User_input = input("Your message: ")
rlist,wlist,xlist = select.select(Incoming_data,Exportable_data,Exceptions)
if User_input == True:
Exportable_data += [User_input]
Your probably wondering why I've got threading and queues in there.
That's because people told me I could solve the problem by using threading and queues, but after reading documentation, looking for video tutorials or examples that matched my case. I still don't know at all how I can use them to make my client work.
Could someone please help me out here? I just need to find a way to have the client enter messages as much as they'd like without waiting for a reply. This is just one of the ways I am trying to do it.
Normally you'd create a function in which your While True loop runs and can receive the data, which it can write to some buffer or queue to which your main thread has access.
You'd need to synchronize access to this queue so as to avoid data races.
I'm not too familiar with Python's threading API, however creating a function which runs in a thread can't be that hard. Lemme find an example.
Turns out you could create a class with a function where the class derives from threading.Thread. Then you can create an instance of your class and start the thread that way.
class WorkerThread(threading.Thread):
def run(self):
while True:
print 'Working hard'
time.sleep(0.5)
def runstuff():
worker = WorkerThread()
worker.start() #start thread here, which will call run()
You can also use a simpler API and create a function and call thread.start_new_thread(fun, args) on it, which will run that function in a thread.
def fun():
While True:
#do stuff
thread.start_new_thread(fun) #run in thread.
I wrote this minimum code to explain my case:
import threading
import time
import eventlet
eventlet.monkey_patch()
def printing_function():
while True:
# here i want to do some work
print "printing"
time.sleep(1)
if __name__ == '__main__':
thread = threading.Thread(target=printing_function)
thread.start()
while True:
# here i want to wait for users input
raw_input("raw input\n")
print "inside main loop"
time.sleep(1)
Even i have 2 threads, both of them are blocked when i call raw_input. When i comment out eventlet.monkey_patch(), only one thread is blocked and another keep printing "printing". Why and what should i do?
I'd say that there are a couple of things to note here:
raw_input isn't patched by eventlet, so its calls are blocking
threading is patched by eventlet, so threads are acting as coroutines
One way to workaround this would be to avoid patching threading, so that threads are real threads. To do that, you just need to replace:
eventlet.monkey_patch()
with:
eventlet.monkey_patch(os=True,
select=True,
socket=True,
thread=False,
time=True)
Note that when thread is True the following modules are patched: thread, threading, Queue.
Edit: If you want to patch threading and have an asynchronous raw_input, then I suggest the following implementation:
def raw_input(message):
sys.stdout.write(message)
select.select([sys.stdin], [], [])
return sys.stdin.readline()
This will poll sys.stdin to check if it's ready for reading. If that's not the case, it will yield control to eventlet to let other coroutine execute.
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).