New submission from Gregory P. Smith <g...@krypto.org>:
In Python 2.7 our threading implementation was so poor that a thread join ultimately called our lock wait implementation that busy looped polling and sleeping to check for a lock acquisition success. calling thread.interrupt_main() which is just PyErr_SetInterrupt() C API in disguise successfully broke out of that lock wait loop. In Python 3 with our drastically improved threading implementation, a lock wait is a pthreads sem_timedwait() or sem_trywait() API call, blocking within the pthreads library or OS kernel. PyErr_SetInterrupt() obviously has no effect on that. Only an actual signal arriving can interrupt that. Thus instead of code using _thread.interrupt_main() - in 2and3 compatible applications, six.moves._thread.interrupt_main() - they should instead write: os.kill(os.getpid(), signal.SIGINT) Given that _thread is a private module making _thread.interrupt_main() a private API, do we need to keep it? If we do, we should at least document this behavior and recommend actually sending the signal. It is less capable of actually interrupting the main thread from some common blocking operations today. Sending the signal seems like it would always be better. ---------- assignee: docs@python components: Documentation, Extension Modules, Library (Lib) messages: 339518 nosy: docs@python, gregory.p.smith priority: normal severity: normal stage: needs patch status: open title: _thread.interrupt_main() no longer interrupts Lock.wait type: behavior versions: Python 3.8 _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue36538> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
