in reply to ithreads, locks, shared data: is that OK?

Too many questions and lines of code in one post :-)

Locking a Thread::Queue shouldn't be needed, that's what the module does for you.

If you need the dictionary to be fast, there's no other option than to share it or duplicate it. If it could be slow, you can create another worker with its own queues that would update the dictionary and answer queries about its content. Basically, when you use Thread::Queue, you shouldn't need threads::shared at all.

($q=q:Sq=~/;[c](.)(.)/;chr(-||-|5+lengthSq)`"S|oS2"`map{chr |+ord
}map{substrSq`S_+|`|}3E|-|`7**2-3:)=~y+S|`+$1,++print+eval$q,q,a,

[download]

Replies are listed 'Best First'.
Re^2: ithreads, locks, shared data: is that OK?
by bliako (Abbot) on Sep 20, 2018 at 09:35 UTC

    Sorry, I wanted to post the complete program.

    Regarding the locking of Thread::Queue, I saw in their doc (Advanced Methods) how to lock queue. And decided to do the same. Do you know what is the purpose of the lock() in the manual?

    As for the dictionary, thanks for the suggestion. I will investigate if the performance is OK.

    So, thanks for the info and sorry for the long code, bliako.

[reply]
      You don't need to lock the queue for enqueue and dequeue. You need it for peek, but why do you need peek? Enqueue and dequeue should be all you need :-)

      ($q=q:Sq=~/;[c](.)(.)/;chr(-||-|5+lengthSq)`"S|oS2"`map{chr |+ord
}map{substrSq`S_+|`|}3E|-|`7**2-3:)=~y+S|`+$1,++print+eval$q,q,a,

      [download]
[reply]
[d/l]

        got it thanks

        well, I need to peek() because one of my queues is not a "work" queue: i.e. enqueue() any data for processing by the thread. Rather, it is a list of all data (=dictionary words) currently being processed by threads (call it CWq queue). And another one is a list of all the words that already have been processed and done with (call it REq). So, before a thread processes word W, it must peek() queue CWq and see if W is in there. In which case it will skip it. Also it will skip if the word is in the REq, so another peek() there.

        Ideally CWq and REq should have been a hash but I find sharing a hash way too complicated than lock() and peek() a queue. A queue is definetely a weird hammer for that sort of nail. Any suggestions?

[reply]

In Section Seekers of Perl Wisdom