Thread Safety

I'm an experienced developer starting to learn Ruby. On the whole I
think Ruby is a great language. My concerns are with thread safety...

1) An exception is stored in a global variable, "$!". If multiple
threads have exceptions thrown, is the the thread guaranteed to get
it's own exception (not another threads) when evaluating the "$!". (I
know there is a work around by naming the exception.)

2) Does ruby commonly use global values to pass values...which is not
thread safe (unless it's somehow "thread-local").

3) Is there any plan to use OS-level threads in Ruby 2.0? A simple
thread example I wrote was incredibly slow and I think it was because
many "slow-to-return" OS calls were being made...

thanks,
Justin

1) An exception is stored in a global variable, "$!". If multiple
threads have exceptions thrown, is the the thread guaranteed to get
it's own exception (not another threads) when evaluating the "$!". (I
know there is a work around by naming the exception.)

2) Does ruby commonly use global values to pass values...which is not
thread safe (unless it's somehow "thread-local").

Don't use globals. I can't think of a single instance where one needs to use
them, though maybe someone else can. So, if you do want to use them, use a
mutex.synchronize block around them.

3) Is there any plan to use OS-level threads in Ruby 2.0? A simple
thread example I wrote was incredibly slow and I think it was because
many "slow-to-return" OS calls were being made...

Yes. OS level threads are going to be supported in Ruby 2.0.

At the current time, if one has code that is making a lot of calls which will
block, the best alternative is to use a multiprocess model instead of a
multithreaded model.

Kirk Haines

···

On Thursday 10 November 2005 10:42 am, jwesley wrote:

1) An exception is stored in a global variable, "$!". If multiple
threads have exceptions thrown, is the the thread guaranteed to get
it's own exception (not another threads) when evaluating the "$!". (I
know there is a work around by naming the exception.)

2) Does ruby commonly use global values to pass values...which is not
thread safe (unless it's somehow "thread-local").

Don't use globals. I can't think of a single instance where one needs to use them, though maybe someone else can. So, if you do want to use them, use a mutex.synchronize block around them.

But, yes, variables like $&, $`, $', $1..$n and I've no doubt $! are
really thread-local.

Regards,

Bill

···

From: "Kirk Haines" <khaines@enigo.com>

On Thursday 10 November 2005 10:42 am, jwesley wrote:

According to Matz(?), these globals are thread independent:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/2b1c2aa6f429e269/88c2a5ad1f47bf68?q="thread+independent"&rnum=1#88c2a5ad1f47bf68

Which is cool, I agree, but in general, my position is still to not use
globals, and just sidestep the whole issue.

Kirk Haines

···

On Thursday 10 November 2005 11:09 am, Bill Kelly wrote:

But, yes, variables like $&, $`, $', $1..$n and I've no doubt $! are
really thread-local.

But, yes, variables like $&, $`, $', $1..$n and I've no doubt $! are
really thread-local.

$1..$n are even method-local, I believe.

greetings, Florian Pflug

Is he saying "thread independent" == "thread local"...?

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/2b1c2aa6f429e269/88c2a5ad1f47bf68?q="thread+independent"&rnum=1#88c2a5ad1f47bf68

all the vars derived from $~

···

On Fri, Nov 11, 2005 at 04:13:27AM +0900, Florian G. Pflug wrote:

>But, yes, variables like $&, $`, $', $1..$n and I've no doubt $! are
>really thread-local.

$1..$n are even method-local, I believe.

--
Mauricio Fernandez

jwesley wrote:

Is he saying "thread independent" == "thread local"...?

Yes.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.lang.ruby/browse_thread/thread/2b1c2aa6f429e269/88c2a5ad1f47bf68?q="thread+independent"&rnum=1#88c2a5ad1f47bf68

    robert