On 04:43 pm, malig...@gmail.com wrote:
The main part of my script is a function that does many long reads
(urlopen, it's looped). Since I'm hell-bent on employing SIGINFO to
display some stats, I needed to run foo() as a seperate thread to
avoid getting errno 4 (interrupted system call) errors (which occur if
SIGINFO is received while urlopen is setting itself up/waiting for a
response). This does the job, SIGINFO is handled without ever brutally
interrupting urlopen.
The problem is that after starting foo as a thread, my main thread has
nothing left to do - unless it receives a signal, and I am forced to
keep it in some sort of loop so that ANY signal handling can still
occur. I thought I'd just occupy it with a simple while 1: pass loop
but that, unfortunately, means 100% CPU usage.
Is there any way I could put the main thread to sleep? Or perhaps my
approach is totally wrong?
I don't think those two options are mutually exclusive. ;)
MRAB suggested you time.sleep() in a loop, which is probably fine.
However, if you want to have even /less/ activity than that in the main
thread, take a look at signal.pause().
Also, perhaps not terribly interesting, signal.siginterrupt() was
recently introduced, which will let you avoid EINTR if SIGINFO is
received while urlopen is in a syscall (but will also prevent the signal
from being handled until the syscall returns on its own).
And there's always Twisted & friends. :)
Jean-Paul
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
