On 8 October 2011 04:16, Lisper <[email protected]> wrote: > I've dug into this some more, and this issue seems to be quite a rabbit > hole. The TL;DR version seems to be that calling fork() from a process that > has threads is a Really Bad Idea (tm) and cannot be reasonably expected to > work reliably.
If all the process is then doing is subsequent exec then it is generally not a problem. It is when it wants to do mored complicate stuff that it becomes an issue. So to blanket say it is a really bad idea is plain wrong. Sorry that haven't responded in this issue properly. Been tied up doing other changes in mod_wsgi related to work that have been trying to get on top of first. I will try and investigate it soon. If someone wants to see if they can come up with a test program that doesn't involve subprocess module and uses just fork/exec directly then that would help. The subprocess module has been a source of problems in the past with assumptions it makes, such as flushing stdout/stderr after the fork, ignoring the fact that there may be buffered data that parent would also flush. End result is duplicated content in logs. Graham > If anyone wants details let me know. > > -- > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups > "modwsgi" group. > To view this discussion on the web visit > https://groups.google.com/d/msg/modwsgi/-/ocxE7791-QgJ. > To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > [email protected]. > For more options, visit this group at > http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en. > -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "modwsgi" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/modwsgi?hl=en.
