locks

Jeff Shannon jeff at ccvcorp.com
Wed Oct 13 22:07:24 CEST 2004


Diez B. Roggisch wrote:

>But so far in my expirience, explicit serialization of access to certain
>data structures was only necessary when more complicated structural
>modifications where under way - but the usual suspects, as appending to
>lists, insertion of values in dicts and the like never needed this. And
>that I wanted to point out.
>  
>

... provided, of course, that no thread expects to maintain internal 
consistency.  For example, a thread doing something like:

    foo_list.append(foo)
    assert(foo == foo_list[-1])

The assertion here is *not* guaranteed to be true, and if one is 
modifying and then reading a mutable object, it can be somewhat tricky 
to ensure that no such assumptions creep into code. 

Similarly, in

    if foo_list[-1] is not None:
        foo = foo_list.pop()

Here, foo may indeed be None, because another thread may have appended 
to the list in between the test and the call to pop() -- but this is 
getting into the "more complicated structural modifications" that you 
mention. 

A slightly trickier example, though:

    foo_list[-1] == foo_list[-1]

I believe that this can't be guaranteed to always evaluate to True in a 
(non-locking) multithreaded case, because foo_list can be modified in 
between the two lookups.

Thus, while it's pretty safe to assume that accessing shared objects 
won't, in and of itself, cause an exception, the case about "mangled 
data" is hazier and depends on how exactly you mean "mangled".

I expect that most of us know this and would never assume otherwise, I 
just wanted to make that explicit for the benefit of the O.P. and others 
who're unfamiliar with threading, as it seems to me that this point 
might've gotten a bit confused for those who didn't already understand 
it well.  :)

Jeff Shannon
Technician/Programmer
Credit International




More information about the Python-list mailing list