Jeffrey Barish wrote:
> Several methods in Queue.Queue have warnings in their doc strings that they
> are not reliable (e.g., qsize). I note that the code in all these methods
> is bracketed with lock acquire/release. These locks are intended to
> protect the enclosed code from collisions with other threads. I am
> wondering whether I understand correctly that the reason these methods are
> still not reliable is that from the point where a thread calls qsize (for
> example) to the point in Queue where a thread acquires a lock there is a
> bunch of code, none of which is protected by a lock, (and moreover there is
> another bunch of code between the point where a thread releases a lock and
> then actually returns to the calling program) and so despite the locks in
> Queue it is still possible for values to change before a thread acts on
> them.
That warnings are quite meaningless: If you get a certain q size, it
might be changed the next moment/OP anyway.
simply len() is the same as that
def qsize(self):
"""Return the approximate size of the queue (not reliable!)."""
self.mutex.acquire()
n = self._qsize()
self.mutex.release()
return n
...
def _qsize(self):
return len(self.queue)
All that time-consuming locking in Queue is quite unnecessary. As
assumed in many other locations in the std lib, list.append() / .pop() /
len() are atomic. Thus doing in a single location a IndexError-catch on
a .pop() race, and all care is done.
(the only additional guarantee through that lock's ( at .append() time)
is that the q size is never one over the exact "maximum" - but thats
pedantic in a threaded multi-producer mess.)
The whole CallQueue in
http://aspn.activestate.com/ASPN/Cookbook/Python/Recipe/491281 for
example doesn't use a single lock - though its an inter-thread
communication hot spot.
-robert
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
