Chris Friesen wrote:
On 05/16/2017 10:45 AM, Joshua Harlow wrote:
So fyi,
If you really want something like this:
Just use:
http://fasteners.readthedocs.io/en/latest/api/lock.html#fasteners.lock.ReaderWriterLock
And always get a write lock.
It is a slightly different way of getting those locks (via a context
manager)
but the implementation underneath is a deque; so fairness should be
assured in
FIFO order...
I'm going ahead and doing this. Your docs for fastener don't actually
say that lock.ReaderWriterLock.write_lock() provides fairness. If you're
going to ensure that stays true it might make sense to document the fact.
Sounds great, I was starting to but then got busy with other stuff :-P
Am I correct that fasteners.InterProcessLock is basically as fair as the
underlying OS-specific lock? (Which should be reasonably fair except for
process scheduler priority.)
Yup that IMHO would be fair, its just fnctl under the covers (at least
for linux). Though from what I remember at
https://github.com/harlowja/fasteners/issues/26#issuecomment-253543912
the lock class here seemed a little nicer (though more complex). That
guy I think was going to propose some kind of merge, but that never
seemd to appear.
Chris
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
__________________________________________________________________________
OpenStack Development Mailing List (not for usage questions)
Unsubscribe: openstack-dev-requ...@lists.openstack.org?subject:unsubscribe
http://lists.openstack.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/openstack-dev
