2.7 beta 1

Mensanator mensanator at aol.com
Mon Apr 12 22:36:45 CEST 2010


On Apr 12, 11:39 am, Terry Reedy <tjre... at udel.edu> wrote:
> On 4/12/2010 1:57 AM, Mensanator wrote:
>
> > Likewise, I usually don't shut down
> > when I leave work, so I can't allow orphaned processes to accumulate
> > eating up CPU and memory.
>
> So don't.

I don't. I'm complaining about the need to do that.

>
> Orphaned processes only accumulate when you use Restart Shell to abandon
> a process stuck in an infinite loop.

Surely, you don't expect me to beleive that Python
has solved the halting problem and knows when its
in an infinite loop? No, Restart Shell is used whenever
the process is going to take longer than one is willing
to wait.

> I personally very seldom do that.
> Otherwise, the old process dies in a few seconds and the number of
> pythonw processes drops back down from 3 to the normal 2.

You've never written a program that takes more than a
few seconds to execute? Wow.

>
> As I already said, either roboot or use TaskManager to kill such
> zombies.

Do we need to add something to the documentation to explain
this? Something along the lines of:

"Python simply doesn't work properly. You must keep constant
vigilance on the TaskKanager to watch for orphaned processes,
otherwise they will consume all your CPU cycles and eat up your
memory."?

Maybe put it in large red letters under the caption
"WARNING!"?

> When I had a unix desktop machine, I routinely used the command
> line equivalents ps (process status) and kill to do the same thing.

No wonder you don't see the problem! You think it's normal!

>
> Terry Jan Reedy




More information about the Python-list mailing list