[Python-Dev] Signals+Threads (PyGTK waking up 10x/sec).

Guido van Rossum guido at python.org
Sun Dec 9 01:21:14 CET 2007


On Dec 8, 2007 3:57 PM, Adam Olsen <rhamph at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> On Dec 8, 2007 4:28 PM, Guido van Rossum <guido at python.org> wrote:
> >
> > On Dec 8, 2007 2:36 PM, Adam Olsen <rhamph at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 8, 2007 2:56 PM,  <glyph at divmod.com> wrote:
> > > > On 05:20 pm, guido at python.org wrote:
> > > > >The best solution I can think of is to add a new API that takes a
> > > > >signal and a file descriptor and registers a C-level handler for that
> > > > >signal which writes a byte to the file descriptor. You can then create
> > > > >a pipe, connect the signal handler to the write end, and add the read
> > > > >end to your list of file descriptors passed to select() or poll(). The
> > > > >handler must be written in C in order to avoid the race condition
> > > > >referred to by Glyph (signals arriving after the signal check in the
> > > > >VM main loop but before the select()/poll() system call is entered
> > > > >will not be noticed until the select()/poll() call completes).
> > > >
> > > > This paragraph jogged my memory.  I remember this exact solution being
> > > > discussed now, a year ago when I was last talking about these issues.
> > > >
> > > > There's another benefit to implementing a write-a-byte C signal handler.
> > > > Without this feature, it wouldn't make sense to have passed the
> > > > SA_RESTART flag to sigaction, because and GUIs written in Python could
> > > > have spent an indefinite amount of time waiting to deliver their signal
> > > > to Python code.  So, if you had to handle SIGCHLD in Python, for
> > > > example, calls like file().write() would suddenly start raising a new
> > > > exception (EINTR).  With it, you could avoid a whole class of subtle
> > > > error-handling code in Twisted programs.
> > >
> > > SA_RESTART still isn't useful.  The low-level poll call (not write!)
> > > must stop and call back into python.  If that doesn't indicate an
> > > error you can safely restart your poll call though, and follow it with
> > > a (probably non-blocking) write.
> >
> > Can't say I understand all of this, but it does reiterate that there
> > are more problems with signals than just the issue that Gustavo is
> > trying to squash. The possibility of having *any* I/O interrupted is
> > indeed a big worry. Though perhaps this could be alleviated by rigging
> > things so that signals get delivered (at the C level) to the main
> > thread and the rest of the code runs in a non-main thread?
>
> That's the approach my threading patch will take, although reversed
> (signals are handled by a background thread, leaving the main thread
> as the *main* thread.)

Hm... Does this mean you're *always* creating an extra thread to handle signals?

> I share your concern about interrupting whatever random syscalls (not
> even limited to I/O!) that a library happens to use.
>
>
> > > Note that the only reason to use C for a low-level handler here is
> > > give access to sigatomic_t and avoid needing locks.  If you ran the
> > > signal handler in a background thread (using sigwait to trigger them)
> > > you could use a python handler.
> >
> > I haven't seen Gustavo's patch yet, but *my* reason for using a C
> > handler was different -- it was because writing a byte to a pipe in
> > Python would do nothing to fix Gustavo's issue.
> >
> > Looking at the man page for sigwait()  it could be an alternative
> > solution, but I'm not sure how it would actually allow PyGTK to catch
> > KeyboardInterrupt.
>
> My mail at [1] was referring to this.  Option 1 involved writing to a
> pipe that gets polled while option 2 requires we generate a new signal
> targeting the specific thread we want to interrupt.
>
> I'd like to propose an interim solution though: pygtk could install
> their own SIGINT handler during the gtk mainloop (or all gtk code?),
> have it write to a pipe monitored by gtk, and have gtk raise
> KeyboardInterrupt if it gets used.  This won't allow custom SIGINT
> handlers or any other signal handlers to run promptly, but it should
> be good enough for OLPC's use case.
>
>
> [1] http://mail.python.org/pipermail/python-dev/2007-December/075607.html

Since OLPC has to use 2.5 they don't really have another choice
besides this or making the timeout (perhaps much) larger -- I'm not
going to risk a change as big as anything proposed here for 2.5.2, so
nothing will change before 2.6.

I've got to say that all the cross-referencing and asynchronous
discussion here makes it *very* difficult to wrap my head around the
various proposals. It also doesn't help that different participants
appear to have different use cases in mind. E.g. do we care about
threads started directly from C++ code? (These happen all the time at
Google, but we don't care much about signals.) And what about
restarting system calls (like Glyph brought up)?

I've seen references to bug #1643738 which got a thumbs up from Tim
Peters -- Adam, what do you think of that? I know it doesn't address
Gustavo's issue but it seems useful in its own right.

Gustavo, at some point you suggested making changes to Python so that
all signals are blocked in all threads except for the main thread. I
think I'd be more inclined to give that the green light than the patch
using pipes for all signal handling, as long as we can make sure that
this blocking of all signals isn't inherited by fork()'ed children --
we had serious problems with that in 2.4 where child processes were
unkillable (except for SIGKILL). I'd also be OK with a patch that
leaves the existing signal handling code intact but *adds* a way to
have a signal handler written in C that writes one byte to one end of
a pipe -- where the pipe is provided by Python code.

Does any of this make sense still?

Anyway, I would still like to discuss this on #python-dev Monday.
Adam, in what time zone are you? (I'm PST.) Who else is interested?

-- 
--Guido van Rossum (home page: http://www.python.org/~guido/)


More information about the Python-Dev mailing list