-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 32k
bpo-36479: Exit threads when interpreter is finalizing rather than runtime #12679
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Conversation
Python/ceval.c
Outdated
/* _Py_Finalizing is protected by the GIL */ | ||
if (_Py_IsFinalizing() && !_Py_CURRENTLY_FINALIZING(tstate)) { | ||
if (interp->finalizing && !_Py_CURRENTLY_FINALIZING(tstate)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Please check _Py_CURRENTLY_FINALIZING()
. I suspect that it doesn't do the right thing. It may only matter for the main interpreter (e.g. during runtime finalization).
a132f03
to
68bc067
Compare
607a345
to
b8a1690
Compare
5f145b3
to
a19bbd4
Compare
/* _Py_Finalizing is protected by the GIL */ | ||
if (_Py_IsFinalizing() && !_Py_CURRENTLY_FINALIZING(tstate)) { |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
With this change, _Py_CURRENTLY_FINALIZING() becomes even more weird that it was: you rely on a global and unique PyRuntimeState to check which thread is currently being finalized. I don't think that it's correct. It should be possible to finalize 2 interpreters in parallel which both have their own thread.
For me, it would make more sense to move "PyThreadState *finalizing;" from _PyRuntimeState to PyInterpreterState and remove PyInterpreterState.finalizing.
What's your call Eric? @ericsnowcurrently
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
The thread state in finalizing
actually means "This is the thread that is finalizing the runtime", so other threads can easily tell that another thread is responsible for cleaning things up.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
However @pablogsal pointed out a more serious problem here, which is that simply moving the existing check will result in:
- potentially causing threads belonging to other subinterpreters to exit
- potentially causing threads belonging to the embedding application to exit
The latter problem already exists, but moving the cleanup to EndInterpreter makes it easier to hit.
A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated. Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Blocking merge as per https://bugs.python.org/issue36479#msg341882 (we need to actively constrain the cleanup to daemon threads created by the interpreter being cleaned up, and simply report an error to other threads)
I don't understand what is "runtime" here. _PyRuntimeState doesn't contain threads: PyInterpreterState does. IMHO the field should be moved from _PyRuntimeState to PyInterpreterState. Right now, Py_EndInterpreter() doesn't call Py_FinalizeEx(): but that's wrong. To really have isolated interpreter, each interpreter should clear everything it owns. For example, each interpreter should join all threads that it spawned. |
@vstinner However, I also agree that for this PR to work there needs to be a new field in the individual interpreter state that tracks which thread is cleaning up that particular interpreter. And then once we have that per-interpreter field and are using it consistently, then we can ask if we still need a separate runtime level "finalizing" marker, or if the finalizing marker for the main interpreter will be sufficient (which will mean addressing the fact that |
Closing this for now. I may revisit in the future in a new PR. Anyone else can look at this. |
I have added changes to exit threads when the interpreter is finalizing.
I have halted to update this until PR until GH-12667 is merged.
https://bugs.python.org/issue36479