On Mon, Jan 19, 2009 at 8:16 AM, Frédéric Sagnes <spee...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Jan 19, 11:53 am, Frédéric Sagnes <spee...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Jan 17, 11:32 am, "Gabriel Genellina" <gagsl-...@yahoo.com.ar> >> wrote: >> >> >> >> > En Fri, 16 Jan 2009 14:41:21 -0200, escribiste en el grupo >> > gmane.comp.python.general >> >> > > I ran a few tests on the new Python 2.6multiprocessingmodule before >> > > migrating a threading code, and found out the locking code is not >> > > working well. In this case, a pool of 5 processes is running, each >> > > trying to get the lock and releasing it after waiting 0.2 seconds >> > > (action is repeated twice). It looks like themultiprocessinglock >> > > allows multiple locking after the second pass. Running the exact same >> > > code with threads works correctly. >> >> > I've tested your code on Windows and I think the problem is on the Queue >> > class. If you replace the Queue with some print statements or write to a >> > log file, the sequence lock/release is OK. >> > You should file a bug report onhttp://bugs.python.org/ >> >> > -- >> > Gabriel Genellina >> >> Thanks for your help gabriel, I just tested it without the queue and >> it works! I'll file a bug about the queues. >> >> Fred >> >> For those interested, the code that works (well, it always did, but >> this shows the real result): >> >> class test_lock_process(object): >> def __init__(self, lock): >> self.lock = lock >> self.read_lock() >> >> def read_lock(self): >> for i in xrange(5): >> self.lock.acquire() >> logging.info('Got lock') >> time.sleep(.2) >> logging.info('Released lock') >> self.lock.release() >> >> if __name__ == "__main__": >> logging.basicConfig(format='[%(process)0...@%(relativeCreated)04d] % >> (message)s', level=logging.DEBUG) >> >> lock = Lock() >> >> processes = [] >> for i in xrange(2): >> processes.append(Process(target=test_lock_process, args= >> (lock,))) >> >> for t in processes: >> t.start() >> >> for t in processes: >> t.join() > > Opened issue #4999 [http://bugs.python.org/issue4999] on the matter, > referencing this thread. >
Thanks, I've assigned it to myself. Hopefully I can get a fix put together soonish, time permitting. -jesse -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
