Using atomic get/set to flag that a channel is closed in go
I have a function that will get called within a goroutine that pushes onto a buffered channel. When my container shuts down, I close the channel and attempt to process the rest of the jobs in the buffered channel and in doing so, I do a atomic.StoreInt32(&r.done, 1). In the function that pushes onto the channel, I have
if atomic.LoadInt32(&r.done) == 1 {
return nil
}
... add job to channel
This is used as a blocker if the channel is closed (performing shutdown) and the function that adds to the queue gets called.
Since there is concurrency involved, I have to use the atomic get/set rather than just setting a simple done boolean to true right?
Does this make sense and is this the proper way to do something like this?
Thank you.
go concurrency
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
add a comment |
I have a function that will get called within a goroutine that pushes onto a buffered channel. When my container shuts down, I close the channel and attempt to process the rest of the jobs in the buffered channel and in doing so, I do a atomic.StoreInt32(&r.done, 1). In the function that pushes onto the channel, I have
if atomic.LoadInt32(&r.done) == 1 {
return nil
}
... add job to channel
This is used as a blocker if the channel is closed (performing shutdown) and the function that adds to the queue gets called.
Since there is concurrency involved, I have to use the atomic get/set rather than just setting a simple done boolean to true right?
Does this make sense and is this the proper way to do something like this?
Thank you.
go concurrency
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
1
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52
add a comment |
I have a function that will get called within a goroutine that pushes onto a buffered channel. When my container shuts down, I close the channel and attempt to process the rest of the jobs in the buffered channel and in doing so, I do a atomic.StoreInt32(&r.done, 1). In the function that pushes onto the channel, I have
if atomic.LoadInt32(&r.done) == 1 {
return nil
}
... add job to channel
This is used as a blocker if the channel is closed (performing shutdown) and the function that adds to the queue gets called.
Since there is concurrency involved, I have to use the atomic get/set rather than just setting a simple done boolean to true right?
Does this make sense and is this the proper way to do something like this?
Thank you.
go concurrency
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
I have a function that will get called within a goroutine that pushes onto a buffered channel. When my container shuts down, I close the channel and attempt to process the rest of the jobs in the buffered channel and in doing so, I do a atomic.StoreInt32(&r.done, 1). In the function that pushes onto the channel, I have
if atomic.LoadInt32(&r.done) == 1 {
return nil
}
... add job to channel
This is used as a blocker if the channel is closed (performing shutdown) and the function that adds to the queue gets called.
Since there is concurrency involved, I have to use the atomic get/set rather than just setting a simple done boolean to true right?
Does this make sense and is this the proper way to do something like this?
Thank you.
go concurrency
go concurrency
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
asked Nov 20 '18 at 22:32
Ian HerbertIan Herbert
56711231
56711231
1
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52
add a comment |
1
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52
1
1
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52
add a comment |
0
active
oldest
votes
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function () {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function () {
StackExchange.snippets.init();
});
});
}, "code-snippets");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "1"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53402587%2fusing-atomic-get-set-to-flag-that-a-channel-is-closed-in-go%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
0
active
oldest
votes
0
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
Thanks for contributing an answer to Stack Overflow!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fstackoverflow.com%2fquestions%2f53402587%2fusing-atomic-get-set-to-flag-that-a-channel-is-closed-in-go%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
No, atomic operations do not guarantee synchronization. There's probably other patterns for what you want to do, but we would need some Minimal, Complete, and Verifiable example demonstrating why the sender can't be responsible for closing the channel, or why the channel needs to be closed at all.
– JimB
Nov 20 '18 at 22:52