brian at sweetapp.com
Sat Oct 24 11:23:51 CEST 2009
On 24 Oct 2009, at 19:49, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
> En Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:48:38 -0300, Brian Quinlan
> <brian at sweetapp.com> escribió:
>> On 24 Oct 2009, at 14:10, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
>>> En Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:18:32 -0300, Brian Quinlan <brian at sweetapp.com
>>> > escribió:
>>> I don't like a few things in the code:
>> I'm actually not looking for workarounds. I want to know if this is
>> a multiprocessing bug or if I am misunderstanding the
>> multiprocessing docs somehow and my demonstrated usage pattern is
>> somehow incorrect.
> Those aren't really workarounds, but things to consider when trying
> to narrow down what's causing the problem. The example is rather
> long as it is, and it's hard to tell what's wrong since there are
> many places thay might fail.
I agree that the multiprocessing implementation is complex is there
are a lot of spinning wheels. At this point, since no one has pointed
out how I am misusing the module, I think that I'll just file a bug.
> The busy wait might be relevant, or not; having a thousand zombie
> processes might be relevant, or not.
According to the docs:
"""On Unix when a process finishes but has not been joined it becomes
a zombie. There should never be very many because each time a new
process starts (or active_children() is called) all completed
processes which have not yet been joined will be joined. Also calling
a finished process’s Process.is_alive() will join the process. Even
so it is probably good practice to explicitly join all the processes
that you start."""
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Python-list