Kyle Stanley <aeros...@gmail.com> added the comment:
No problem at all, and thanks for clarifying. > If enlarging the timeout works in some of your cases, that really inspires me > on a potential cause of the issue in the test. To simulate the race condition > specifically for loop.sock_sendall(), I needed a connected socket with a full > send buffer so that the next sock_sendall() call would block. To achieve > this, I wrote something like this: > It might be that it cost too much time in these loops (especially the 2nd one > because the logs showed that it was blocked on calling sock_sendall()). But > that's just a guess yet, let me add some more debug logs and test locally. That seems reasonable to me and would make the most sense at a glance. If this is confirmed to be the source of the issue, we should be able to just reduce the size of the socket's send buffer via SO_SNDBUF before sending to it so that it fills up much more quickly. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue30064> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
