Path: csiph.com!usenet.pasdenom.info!weretis.net!feeder1.news.weretis.net!feeder.erje.net!newsfeed.xs4all.nl!newsfeed6.news.xs4all.nl!xs4all!news2.euro.net!newsgate.cistron.nl!newsgate.news.xs4all.nl!post.news.xs4all.nl!not-for-mail Return-Path: X-Original-To: python-list@python.org Delivered-To: python-list@mail.python.org X-Spam-Status: OK 0.000 X-Spam-Evidence: '*H*': 1.00; '*S*': 0.00; 'else:': 0.03; 'retrieved': 0.05; '"__main__":': 0.07; '__name__': 0.07; 'try:': 0.07; 'ugly': 0.07; 'any.': 0.09; 'loop.': 0.09; 'skip:[ 30': 0.09; 'subject:()': 0.09; 'def': 0.10; 'thread': 0.11; '24,': 0.16; 'oct': 0.16; 'subject:lock': 0.16; 'test()': 0.16; 'test():': 0.16; 'threading': 0.16; 'threads': 0.16; 'threads:': 0.16; 'zero,': 0.16; 'wed,': 0.16; 'wrote:': 0.17; 'bit': 0.21; 'import': 0.21; 'cheers,': 0.23; 'second': 0.24; 'header:In-Reply- To:1': 0.25; 'values': 0.26; 'first,': 0.27; 'order.': 0.27; 'first.': 0.27; 'thoughts': 0.27; 'message-id:@mail.gmail.com': 0.27; 'went': 0.28; 'priority': 0.29; 'queue': 0.29; 'second,': 0.29; 'skip:_ 10': 0.29; 'class': 0.29; 'received:209.85.215.46': 0.30; 'seconds': 0.30; 'running': 0.32; 'skip:s 30': 0.33; 'rid': 0.33; 'to:addr:python-list': 0.33; 'received:google.com': 0.34; 'false': 0.35; 'pm,': 0.35; 'subject:?': 0.35; 'received:209.85': 0.35; 'there': 0.35; 'next': 0.35; 'except': 0.36; 'but': 0.36; 'too': 0.36; 'skip:p 20': 0.36; 'two': 0.37; 'being': 0.37; 'received:209': 0.37; 'subject:: ': 0.38; 'skip:l 20': 0.38; 'to:addr:python.org': 0.39; 'header:Received:5': 0.40; 'most': 0.61; 'lower': 0.61; 'first': 0.61; 'maximum': 0.63; 'importance.': 0.84; 'random,': 0.84; 'to:name:python': 0.84; 'virtue': 0.84; 'average': 0.93 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:from:date:message-id:subject:to :content-type; bh=WQ0B0yxpPNoxCftLNTpIscNsp4ZUdqmJXDTy/SdrgZ8=; b=sRuH508GbibZGejKWfMPZc8yG4kiE+kGIkiQsa/SQyJzEnLsM/5V6AY/QSVe9iwmtS g3nFItUf64tE9V1HKDfNBc07ycZP3jCZc9dQaMMYausJgo4lT5Q1I/VwEzBSMgv1bAif I43myHkglQBimqk6JGCpjTZQTtDZe2q4UgoY0ngkxQV/ufUhxFWu6j4D0xmSlYMEXoNn kjHzKTutWW0ESp/IIAImSWQ8qXFguYsuTb2saHaiOfnu/c8f3mrO6VwAj41TLIwvqZpd CFMo273yhzmnS2OimzABlnySUY6rf4+g2DlyO2jJOrr6ZdMhnqItqGrXjCovwZXh0ay0 Qjmg== MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: References: From: Ian Kelly Date: Wed, 24 Oct 2012 14:19:28 -0600 Subject: Re: A lock that prioritizes acquire()s? To: Python Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 X-BeenThere: python-list@python.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.15 Precedence: list List-Id: General discussion list for the Python programming language List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Newsgroups: comp.lang.python Message-ID: Lines: 88 NNTP-Posting-Host: 2001:888:2000:d::a6 X-Trace: 1351110001 news.xs4all.nl 6983 [2001:888:2000:d::a6]:56667 X-Complaints-To: abuse@xs4all.nl Xref: csiph.com comp.lang.python:32065 On Wed, Oct 24, 2012 at 12:54 PM, David M Chess wrote: > Seeking any thoughts on other/better ways to do this, or whether the > inefficiency will be too eyerolling if we get say one request per second > with an average service time a bit under a second but maximum service time > well over a second, and most of them are importance zero, but every (many) > seconds there will be one or two with higher importance. I used a PriorityQueue and Conditions to get rid of the ugly while True loop. import threading from Queue import PriorityQueue, Empty class PriorityLock(object): def __init__(self): self._is_available = True self._mutex = threading.Lock() self._waiter_queue = PriorityQueue() def acquire(self, priority=0): self._mutex.acquire() # First, just check the lock. if self._is_available: self._is_available = False self._mutex.release() return True condition = threading.Condition() condition.acquire() self._waiter_queue.put((priority, condition)) self._mutex.release() condition.wait() condition.release() return True def release(self): self._mutex.acquire() # Notify the next thread in line, if any. try: _, condition = self._waiter_queue.get_nowait() except Empty: self._is_available = True else: condition.acquire() condition.notify() condition.release() self._mutex.release() def test(): import random, time def thread(lock, priority): lock.acquire(priority) print("Thread %d running" % priority) time.sleep(1) lock.release() lock = PriorityLock() threads = [threading.Thread(target=thread, args=(lock, x)) for x in range(10)] random.shuffle(threads) for thread in threads: thread.start() for thread in threads: thread.join() if __name__ == "__main__": test() Output: Thread 9 running Thread 0 running Thread 1 running Thread 2 running Thread 3 running Thread 4 running Thread 5 running Thread 6 running Thread 7 running Thread 8 running Note that with the PriorityQueue, lower priority values are retrieved first. Thread 9 ran first just by virtue of being first to the gate, and after that you can see that everything went in order. Cheers, Ian