How do I check whether a channel has a value for me to read?
I don't want to block when reading a channel. I want to see whether it has a value. If it does have one, I'll read it. If it doesn't have one (yet), I'll do something else and check back again later.
The only non-blocking operation I know of to read from a channel is inside a select block having a default case :
select {
case x, ok := <-ch:
if ok {
fmt.Printf("Value %d was read.\n", x)
} else {
fmt.Println("Channel closed!")
}
default:
fmt.Println("No value ready, moving on.")
}
Please try the non-blocking here
Note about previous answers: the receive operator itself is now a blocking operation, as of Go 1.0.3 . The spec has been modified. Please try the blocking here (deadlock)
If you're doing this often then it's probably not a great design and you might be better off spawning another goroutine to do whatever work you're planning to do when there isn't anything to read from the channel. The synchronous/blocking nature of Go's channels make code easier to read and reason about while the scheduler and cheap goroutines means that async calls are unnecessary since waiting goroutines take up very little resources.
Unfortunately, the previous answers are incorrect. The spec clearly says that you CAN use channels this way using len() function, but only if you specified the channel capacity - the buffer length for a channel while making it. If you omitted a channel capacity while making it - the channel operations are always blocking.
You don't, at least not for synchronous (unbuffered) channels. There is no way to tell if a value is waiting without asking to take the value from the channel.
For buffered channels, you technically can use the len function to do what you describe, but you really, really shouldn't. Your technique is invalid.
The reason is that it represents a race condition. Given channel ch, your goroutine might see that len(ch) > 0 and conclude that there is a value waiting. It cannot conclude however, that it can read from the channel without blocking--another goroutine might empty the channel between the time you check len and the time your receive operation runs.
For the purpose you described, use select with a default case as Ripounet showed.
WARNING: This is no longer accurate, see the answer below.
From the docs:
If a receive expression is used in an
assignment or initialization of the
form
x, ok = <-ch
x, ok := <-ch
var x, ok = <-ch
the receive operation becomes
non-blocking. If the operation can
proceed, the boolean variable ok will
be set to true and the value stored in
x; otherwise ok is set to false and x
is set to the zero value for its type
In most cases relying on such information is a really bad design choice. Not even saying about how it's dirty in it's implementation.
So, do not implement the following steps to detect if channel is ready for read at runtime:
define hchan waitq sudog structs as defined here - https://golang.org/src/runtime/chan.go
use "unsafe" package to cast channel to pointer to hchan struct
read sendq field of this struct to get listeners
read first sudog and read msg field from there.
cast msg to the appropriate type for the channels using "reflect" and "unsafe"
Related
This page on a Go Tutorial about channels seems to be missing a word(s) or was just not edited. I can't tell what it is supposed to say about sending and receiving through channels.
By default, sends and receives block until the other side is ready.
Is a block something within Go? I haven't seen it before. Is block being used as a noun?
I tried searching for clarification. The only other page that has similar wording is educative.io
Moreover, by default, channels send and receive until the other side is ready
But it doesn't make sense. Do they mean:
Channels send and receive regardless of whether or not the other side is ready? Doesn't this seem wasteful?
Or is "don't" missing in the statement above?
"Block" means that the goroutine will wait. You could write it this way:
By default, sends and receives wait until the other side is ready.
"Block" is just the normal term for this. It is not specific to Go. It is possible to use a channel in Go in a non-blocking manner:
You can create a channel with a buffer. As long as there is space in the buffer, a write is non-blocking (but it will block if the buffer is full). As long as there is data in the buffer, a read is non-blocking (but it will block if the buffer is empty).
You can use a select statement with a default branch.
var readch chan int
var writech chan int
var value int
select {
case n := <- readch:
// Received data.
case writech <- value:
// Sent data.
default:
// Didn't send or receive data.
}
In this code, instead of blocking (waiting), the goroutine will go to the default branch.
I've wrapped a queue to implement the Writer and Reader interfaces (for pushing and popping, respectively).
I need to continuously listen to the queue, and handle every message that comes through. This is simple when the queue is represented as a channel, but more difficult otherwise:
loop:
for {
var data []byte
select {
case <-done:
break loop
case _, err := queue.Read(data):
fmt.Println(string(data))
}
}
What's the proper way to do this? Read here is blocking - it waits until the queue has a message.
Is there a better, more idiomatic way to achieve this?
It’s harder to take a synchronous API (like queue.Read as you described above) and make it asynchronous than it is to do the opposite.
The idea would be to create a new goroutine (using, for example go func() {...}) and have that goroutine execute the read and write the output to a channel.
Then the first goroutine would block on that channel and the one it’s already blocking on.
This has the potentially to leave orphaned resources for a little while if the read takes to long but if you have a synchronous API, it’s the best you can do.
Golang newbie here.
Is there a functional difference between
func randomNumberGenerator() <-chan int {
and
func randomNumberGenerator() chan int {
I've tried using both and they seem to work fine for me.
I've seen the former used by Rob Pike (one of Go creators) in his Go Concurrency Patterns talk at Google IO 2012. I've also seen it used in Go's official website. Why add 2 extra characters ("<-") when you can omit it? I've tried looking for the difference on the web, but couldn't find it.
Both will work indeed. But one will be more constraining. The form with the arrow pointing away from the chan keyword means that the returned channel will only be able to be pulled from by client code. No pushing allowed : the pushing will be done by the random number generator function. Conversely, there's a third form with the arrow pointing towards chan, that makes said channel write-only to clients.
chan // read-write
<-chan // read only
chan<- // write only
These added constraints can improve the expression of intent and tighten the type system : attempts to force stuff into a read-only channel will leave you with a compilation error, and so will attempts to read from a write-only channel. These constraints can be expressed in the return type, but they can also be part of the parameter signature. Like in :
func log(<-chan string) { ...
There you can know, just by the signature, that the log function will consume data from the channel, and not send any to it.
This is an example of a receive-only channel.
The optional <- operator specifies the channel direction, send or receive. If no direction is given, the channel is bidirectional. A channel may be constrained only to send or only to receive by conversion or assignment.
It's useful to tell the users of your API that they should only receive from that channel and never send, otherwise bad things happen. It is considered a good practice to specify the direction of your channels in public APIs. See also: Principles of designing Go APIs with channels.
Is there a (non destructive) way to list all the element in a buffered channel?
The only thing I can think about is to cycle all of them, reinserting them at the end. This doesn't seem the smartest approach.
Link to playground
c := make(chan int, 100)
c <- 111
c <- 222
for i:=0;i<2;i++ {
element := <- c
fmt.Println(element)
c <- element
}
fmt.Println(len(c))
No you can't, you can write your own blocking queue based on a list if you want to do that.
This thread from 2011 offered some wrapper around a channel in order to enable a Peek() function, but that was more a workaround than anything else.
type PeekChanInt struct {
in <-chan int
out chan int
}
The general conclusion was:
A synchronous channel has no head (it's like a zero-length slice)
You can't do that because
a) it gets put back at the tail of the queue rather than the end and
b) a writer may have got there first, so the put may block.
I have wanted a feature like this in the past. It can make sense when there is only one consumer of the channel (I wanted it to peek at the first mouse event to do hit testing before deciding whether to consume it)
You can simulate it with a process acting as intermediary, but you'd have to do it for each channel type or lose type safety.
Remember there is no buffering, so if you peek at a value, you'd have to get the value from the other side, which would be equivalent to reading it - but that's wrong because peeking should have no side effects.
You can't really. What you have is the only way, but don't do that if there's any concurrent access to the chan (and then why are you using a chan?).
Items could be inserted or removed after you check len, and during your for loop.
After (briefly) reviewing the Go language spec, effective Go, and the Go memory model, I'm still a little unclear as to how Go channels work under the hood.
What kind of structure are they? They act kind of like a thread-safe queue /array.
Does their implementation depend on the architecture?
The source file for channels is (from your go source code root) in /src/pkg/runtime/chan.go.
hchan is the central data structure for a channel, with send and receive linked lists (holding a pointer to their goroutine and the data element) and a closed flag. There's a Lock embedded structure that is defined in runtime2.go and that serves as a mutex (futex) or semaphore depending on the OS. The locking implementation is in lock_futex.go (Linux/Dragonfly/Some BSD) or lock_sema.go (Windows/OSX/Plan9/Some BSD), based on the build tags.
Channel operations are all implemented in this chan.go file, so you can see the makechan, send and receive operations, as well as the select construct, close, len and cap built-ins.
For a great in-depth explanation on the inner workings of channels, you have to read Go channels on steroids by Dmitry Vyukov himself (Go core dev, goroutines, scheduler and channels among other things).
Here is a good talk that describes roughly how channels are implemented:
https://youtu.be/KBZlN0izeiY
Talk description:
GopherCon 2017: Kavya Joshi - Understanding Channels
Channels provide a simple mechanism for goroutines to communicate, and a powerful construct to build sophisticated concurrency patterns. We will delve into the inner workings of channels and channel operations, including how they're supported by the runtime scheduler and memory management systems.
You asked two questions:
What kind of structure are they?
Channels in go are indeed "kind of like a thread-safe queue", to be more precise, channels in Go have the following properties:
goroutine-safe
Provide FIFO semantics
Can store and pass values between goroutines
Cause goroutines to block and unblock
Every time you create a channel, an hchan struct is allocated on the heap, and a pointer to the hchan memory location is returned represented as a channel, this is how go-routines can share it.
The first two properties described above are implemented similarly to a queue with a lock.
The elements that the channel can pass to different go-routines are implemented as a circular queue (ring buffer) with indices in the hchan struct, the indices account for the position of elements in the buffer.
Circular queue:
qcount uint // total data in the queue
dataqsiz uint // size of the circular queue
buf unsafe.Pointer // points to an array of dataqsiz elements
And the indices:
sendx uint // send index
recvx uint // receive index
Every time a go-routine needs to access the channel structure and modify it's state it holds the lock, e.g: copy elements to/ from the buffer, update lists or an index. Some operations are optimized to be lock-free, but this is out of the scope for this answer.
The block and un-block property of go channels is achieved using two queues (linked lists) that hold the blocked go-routines
recvq waitq // list of recv waiters
sendq waitq // list of send waiters
Every time a go-routine wants to add a task to a full channel (buffer is full), or to take a task from an empty channel (buffer is empty), a pseudo go-routine sudog struct is allocated and the go-routine adds the sudog as a node to the send or receive waiters list accordingly. Then the go-routine updates the go runtime scheduler using special calls, which hints when they should be taken out of execution (gopark) or ready to run (goready).
Notice this is a very simplified explanations that hides some complexities.
Does their implementation depend on the architecture?
Besides the lock implementation that is OS specific as #mna already explained, I'm not aware of any architecture specific constraints optimizations or differences.
A simpler way to look at channels is as such, in that you may like to hold a program up while waiting for a condition to complete, typically used to prevent RACE condition, which means a thread might not finish before another, and then something your later thread or code depends on sometimes does not complete.
An example could be, you have a thread to retrieve some data from a database or other server and place the data into a variable, slice or map, and for some reason it gets delayed. then you have a process that uses that variable, but since it hasn't been initialised, or its not got its data yet. the program fails.
So a simple way to look at it in code is as follows:
package main
import "fmt"
var doneA = make(chan bool)
var doneB = make(chan bool)
var doneC = make(chan bool)
func init() { // this runs when you program starts.
go func() {
doneA <- true //Give donA true
}()
}
func initB() { //blocking
go func() {
a := <- doneA //will wait here until doneA is true
// Do somthing here
fmt.Print(a)
doneB <- true //State you finished
}()
}
func initC() {
go func() {
<-doneB // still blocking, but dont care about the value
// some code here
doneC <- true // Indicate finished this function
}()
}
func main() {
initB()
initC()
}
So hope this helps. not the selected answer above, but i believe should help to remove the mystery. I wonder if I should make a question and self answer?