Issue2302
Created on 2008-03-16 15:15 by jyasskin, last changed 2022-04-11 14:56 by admin. This issue is now closed.
| Files | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| File name | Uploaded | Description | Edit | |
| race_free_shutdown.patch | jyasskin, 2008-03-16 15:15 | |||
| shutdown.patch | pitrou, 2010-04-17 21:39 | |||
| Messages (6) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| msg63579 - (view) | Author: Jeffrey Yasskin (jyasskin) * ![]() |
Date: 2008-03-16 15:15 | |
With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: any later serve_forever calls would return immediately. A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions? |
|||
| msg66364 - (view) | Author: Rafael Zanella (zanella) | Date: 2008-05-07 18:16 | |
>With the code as it stands, calls to shutdown that happen before >serve_forever enters its loop will deadlock, and there's no simple way >for the user to avoid this. The attached patch prevents the deadlock and >allows multiple serve_forever..shutdown cycles, but it's pretty >complicated. I could make it a lot simpler by making shutdown permanent: >any later serve_forever calls would return immediately. Never thought of using the SocketServer taht way, wouldn't the person doing this bunch of shutdown()s and serve_forever()s be better off using handle_request() on a loop instead ? >A third choice would be to add a .serve_in_thread function that returns >a token that can be used to shut down exactly that loop, instead of >putting .shutdown() on the server. Any opinions? I don't think I understand this part, what loop do you refer to ? |
|||
| msg103431 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * ![]() |
Date: 2010-04-17 20:51 | |
After a bit of investigation, this issue seems to be exactly why test_httpservers sometimes hangs. The patch looks complicated to me, though; I don't think we really have to support the multiple shutdowns case. |
|||
| msg103433 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * ![]() |
Date: 2010-04-17 21:39 | |
Here is a simpler patch. It also fixes the wrong use of a lock instead of an event in test_httpservers. With this patch, test_httpservers runs forever without freezing. |
|||
| msg103626 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * ![]() |
Date: 2010-04-19 19:46 | |
By the way, getting rid of poll_interval for a file descriptor is easy under Unix, but wouldn't work under Windows (where select() only takes sockets, not arbitrary file descriptors). |
|||
| msg104173 - (view) | Author: Antoine Pitrou (pitrou) * ![]() |
Date: 2010-04-25 22:28 | |
Fixed with a test in r80484 (trunk), r80486 (2.6), r80487 (py3k), r80491 (3.1). |
|||
| History | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Date | User | Action | Args |
| 2022-04-11 14:56:31 | admin | set | github: 46555 |
| 2010-04-25 22:28:59 | pitrou | set | status: open -> closed messages: + msg104173 |
| 2010-04-19 19:46:16 | pitrou | set | keywords:
patch, patch messages: + msg103626 |
| 2010-04-17 21:39:04 | pitrou | set | keywords:
patch, patch files: + shutdown.patch messages: + msg103433 |
| 2010-04-17 20:51:23 | pitrou | set | priority: normal versions: + Python 3.1, Python 2.7, Python 3.2 nosy: + pitrou messages: + msg103431 |
| 2008-06-04 02:13:29 | giampaolo.rodola | set | nosy: + giampaolo.rodola |
| 2008-05-07 18:16:15 | zanella | set | nosy:
+ zanella messages: + msg66364 |
| 2008-03-16 22:46:56 | jyasskin | set | keywords:
patch, patch assignee: jyasskin |
| 2008-03-16 17:20:30 | jyasskin | link | issue1193577 superseder |
| 2008-03-16 15:15:55 | jyasskin | create | |
