Message135028
| Author |
pitrou |
| Recipients |
Albert.Strasheim, aljungberg, asksol, bquinlan, gdb, gkcn, hongqn, jnoller, pitrou, vlasovskikh, vstinner |
| Date |
2011年05月03日.11:34:30 |
| SpamBayes Score |
1.6021299e-06 |
| Marked as misclassified |
No |
| Message-id |
<1304422462.3567.3.camel@localhost.localdomain> |
| In-reply-to |
<8AEE276D-BC19-4B9C-BC8F-2BB6B94A0E0E@sweetapp.com> |
| Content |
> > Killed by the user, or by an automatic device (such as the Linux OOM
> > killer), or crashed.
>
> Crashed would be bad - it would indicate a bug in the
> ProcessPoolExecutor code.
I meant a crash in Python itself, or any third-party extension module.
> >> If the user kills a child then maybe all we want to do is raise an
> >> exception rather than deadlock as a convenience.
> >
> > That's what the patch does, roughly.
>
> Right. But instead of trying to recover, it might be better to fail
> very loudly i.e.
> - fail every non-finished future
> - kill every child process in the ProcessPoolExecutor
> - set the ProcessPoolExecutor as shutdown so no new work can be
> scheduled
Yes, I think that's better (see my message about the internal state of
queues). |
|
History
|
|---|
| Date |
User |
Action |
Args |
| 2011年05月03日 11:34:31 | pitrou | set | recipients:
+ pitrou, bquinlan, vstinner, jnoller, hongqn, asksol, vlasovskikh, gdb, Albert.Strasheim, aljungberg, gkcn |
| 2011年05月03日 11:34:30 | pitrou | link | issue9205 messages |
| 2011年05月03日 11:34:30 | pitrou | create |
|