[IPython-dev] Coordinating the XREQ and SUB channels

Evan Patterson epatters at enthought.com
Fri Jul 16 10:40:55 EDT 2010

On Fri, Jul 16, 2010 at 12:25 AM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM, Fernando Perez <fperez.net at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 15, 2010 at 11:07 AM, Brian Granger <ellisonbg at gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> Definitely hard to get right and terminal based frontends will
> >> definitely need something like flush.  Let's see how it goes with this
> >> approach.
> >
> > Though absent a real event loop with a callback model, there it will
> > need to be implemented with a real sleep(epsilon) and a total timeout.
> >  Terminal frontends will always simply be bound to flushing what they
> > can and then moving on if nothing has come in a given window they wait
> > for.  Such is life when your 'event loop' is the human hitting the
> > RETURN key...
> >
> > Evan, quick question: when I open your frontend_widget, I see 100% cpu
> > utilization all the time.  Do you see this on your end?
> We should make sure we understand this. Min and I found that our new
> Tornado event loop in pyzmq was using 100% CPU because of a bug in the
>  poll timeout (units problems).  We have fixed this (so we think!), so
> I am hopeful the current issue is coming from the flush logic.

Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case. I have confirmed that the
problem is indeed with the IOLoops. They have the the CPU pegged at 100%
even when the console is idle, i.e. when no flushing or communication of any
sort occurring.

Did you commit your fix to the main branch of PyZMQ? Maybe I am not using
the right stuff.

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.python.org/pipermail/ipython-dev/attachments/20100716/9af6d851/attachment.html>

More information about the IPython-dev mailing list