Bugs item #1643738, was opened at 2007-01-24 19:14
Message generated for change (Comment added) made by loewis
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1643738&group_id=5470
Please note that this message will contain a full copy of the comment thread,
including the initial issue submission, for this request,
not just the latest update.
Category: Python Library
Group: Python 2.5
Status: Open
Resolution: None
Priority: 5
Private: No
Submitted By: Ulisses Furquim (ulissesf)
Assigned to: Nobody/Anonymous (nobody)
Summary: Problem with signals in a single-threaded application
Initial Comment:
I'm aware of the problems with signals in a multithreaded application, but I
was using signals in a single-threaded application and noticed something that
seemed wrong. Some signals were apparently being lost, but when another signal
came in the python handler for that "lost" signal was being called.
The problem seems to be inside the signal module. The global variable
is_tripped is incremented every time a signal arrives. Then, inside
PyErr_CheckSignals() (the pending call that calls all python handlers for
signals that arrived) we can return immediately if is_tripped is zero. If
is_tripped is different than zero, we loop through all signals calling the
registered python handlers and after that we zero is_tripped. This seems to be
ok, but what happens if a signal arrives after we've returned from its handler
(or even after we've checked if that signal arrived) and before we zero
is_tripped? I guess we can have a situation where is_tripped is zero but some
Handlers[i].tripped are not. In fact, I've inserted some debugging output and
could see that this actually happens and then I've written the attached test
program to reproduce the problem.
When we run this program, the handler for the SIGALRM isn't called after we
return from the SIGIO handler. We return to our main loop and print 'Loop!'
every 3 seconds aprox. and the SIGALRM handler is called only when another
signal arrives (like when we hit Ctrl-C).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
>Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2007-01-29 23:04
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=21627
Originator: NO
rhamphoryncus, see the discussion on #1564547 about that patch. I believe
there are better ways to address the issues it raises, in particular by
means of pthread_kill. It's certainly more reliable than a pipe (which
wakes up the main thread only if it was polling the pipe).
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Adam Olsen (rhamphoryncus)
Date: 2007-01-29 22:45
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=12364
Originator: NO
To my knowledge, a pipe is the *only* way to reliably wakeup the main
thread from a signal handler in another thread. It's not necessary here
simply because this bug only names a subset of the signal problems, whereas
#1564547 attempts to fix all of them. Dropping it would be silly unless it
were officially declared that the signal module and the threading module
were incompatible.
You're right about the .tripped/Py_AddPendingCall order. I got myself
confused as to what Py_AddPendingCall did.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Martin v. Löwis (loewis)
Date: 2007-01-29 09:13
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=21627
Originator: NO
What I dislike about #1564547 is the introduction of the pipe. I don't
think this is an appropriate change, and unnecessary to fix the problems
discussed here. So if one of the patches is dropped, I'd rather drop
#1564547.
Also, I don't think it is necessary to set .tripped after
Py_AddPendingCall. If there is a CheckSignals invocation already going on,
it will invoke the handler just fine. What *is* necessary (IMO) is to set
is_tripped after setting .tripped: Otherwise, an in-progress CheckSignals
call might clear is_tripped before .tripped gets set, and thus not invoke
the signal handler. The subsequent CheckSignals would quit early because
is_tripped is not set.
So I think "a" right sequence is
Handlers[SIGINT].tripped = 1;
is_tripped = 1; /* Set is_tripped after setting .tripped, as it gets
cleared before .tripped. */
Py_AddPendingCall((int (*)(void *))PyErr_CheckSignals, NULL);
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Adam Olsen (rhamphoryncus)
Date: 2007-01-28 13:02
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=12364
Originator: NO
Augh, bloody firefox messed up my focus.
Your PyErr_SetInterrupt needs to set the flags after, like so:
Py_AddPendingCall((int (*)(void *))PyErr_CheckSignals, NULL);
Handlers[SIGINT].tripped = 1;
is_tripped = 1;
The reason is that the signal handler run in a thread while the main
thread goes through PyErr_CheckSignals, the main thread may notice the
flags, clear them flags, find nothing, then exit. You need the signal
handler to supply all the data before setting the flags.
Really though, if you fix enough signal problems you'll converge with the
patch at
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=1564547&group_id=5470&atid=305470
No need for two patches that do the same thing.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Adam Olsen (rhamphoryncus)
Date: 2007-01-28 12:57
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=12364
Originator: NO
Your PyErr_SetInterrupt needs to set is_tripped twice, like so:
is_tripped = 1;
Handlers[SIGINT].tripped = 1;
Py_AddPendingCall((int (*)(void *))PyErr_CheckSignals, NULL);
is_tripped = 1;
The reason is that the signal handler run in a thread while the main
thread goes through check
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Ulisses Furquim (ulissesf)
Date: 2007-01-24 22:09
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1578960
Originator: YES
Yep, you're right, Tony Nelson. We overlooked this case but we can zero
is_tripped after the test for threading as you've already said. The patch
was updated and it also includes the code comment Tim Peters suggested.
Please, I don't know if the wording is right so feel free to comment on it.
I still plan to write a test case for the problem being solved (as soon as
I understand how test_signals.py work :-).
File Added: signals-v1.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tony Nelson (tony_nelson)
Date: 2007-01-24 21:24
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1356214
Originator: NO
ISTM that is_tripped should be zeroed after the test for threading, so
that signals will finally get handled when the proper thread is running.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Tim Peters (tim_one)
Date: 2007-01-24 21:19
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=31435
Originator: NO
Very nice! I'd add a description of the minor pathology remaining you
described here as a code comment, at the point is_tripped is set to 0. If
this stuff were screamingly obvious, the bug you fixed wouldn't have
persisted for 15 years ;-)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment By: Ulisses Furquim (ulissesf)
Date: 2007-01-24 20:46
Message:
Logged In: YES
user_id=1578960
Originator: YES
This patch is very simple. We didn't want to remove the is_tripped
variable because PyErr_CheckSignals() is called several times directly so
it would be nice if we could return immediately if no signals arrived. We
also didn't want to run the registered handlers with any set of signals
blocked. Thus, we thought of zeroing is_tripped as soon as we know there
are signals to be handled (after we test is_tripped). This way most of the
times we can return immediately because is_tripped is zero and we also
don't need to block any signals. However, with this approach we can have a
situation where is_tripped isn't zero but we have no signals to handle, so
we'll loop through all signals and no registered handler will be called.
This happens when we receive a signal after we zero is_tripped and before
we check Handlers[i].tripped for that signal. Any comments?
File Added: signals-v0.patch
----------------------------------------------------------------------
You can respond by visiting:
https://sourceforge.net/tracker/?func=detail&atid=105470&aid=1643738&group_id=5470
_______________________________________________
Python-bugs-list mailing list
Unsubscribe:
http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
