Commit 66aa99df authored by Richard Oudkerk's avatar Richard Oudkerk

Issue 16998: Clarify that += on a shared value is not atomic.

parent 0f319cfd
......@@ -1006,12 +1006,24 @@ inherited by child processes.
ctypes type or a one character typecode of the kind used by the :mod:`array`
module. *\*args* is passed on to the constructor for the type.
If *lock* is ``True`` (the default) then a new lock object is created to
synchronize access to the value. If *lock* is a :class:`Lock` or
:class:`RLock` object then that will be used to synchronize access to the
value. If *lock* is ``False`` then access to the returned object will not be
automatically protected by a lock, so it will not necessarily be
"process-safe".
If *lock* is ``True`` (the default) then a new recursive lock
object is created to synchronize access to the value. If *lock* is
a :class:`Lock` or :class:`RLock` object then that will be used to
synchronize access to the value. If *lock* is ``False`` then
access to the returned object will not be automatically protected
by a lock, so it will not necessarily be "process-safe".
Operations like ``+=`` which involve a read and write are not
atomic. So if, for instance, you want to atomically increment a
shared value it is insufficient to just do ::
counter.value += 1
Assuming the associated lock is recursive (which it is by default)
you can instead do ::
with counter.get_lock():
counter.value += 1
Note that *lock* is a keyword-only argument.
......
Markdown is supported
0%
or
You are about to add 0 people to the discussion. Proceed with caution.
Finish editing this message first!
Please register or to comment