Committed the patch in r62234. Hopefully the work paid off! (He says moments before all the buildbots turn red...)
________________________________ From: Gregory P. Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 08 April 2008 20:58 To: Trent Nelson Cc: python-dev@python.org Subject: Re: [Python-Dev] Changing all network-oriented tests to facilitate (virtually unlimited) parallel test execution [Issue#: 2550] On Tue, Apr 8, 2008 at 5:00 AM, Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> wrote: I've forwarding my most recent update to issue 2550 here such that the proposed patch (and in general, the approach to network-oriented test cases) can be vetted by a wider audience: http://bugs.python.org/file9980/trunk.2550-2.patch This patch works towards fixing a large proportion of the tests that were written in such a way that often leads to buildbot errors when port conflicts arise. With this patch applied, I can run many instances of the test suite in parallel and none of the network-oriented tests fail (which they do currently if you try and do this). Plenty of discussion (mostly me replying to my own comments) on the subject at: http://bugs.python.org/issue2550. Anyone have any issues with this new approach? I'm particularily interested in whether or not people disagree with the assumption I've drawn regarding never using SO_REUSEADDR in tests for TCP/IP sockets (see below). Trent. I think your assumptions are fair. Note that not using SO_REUSEADDR can reserve the port for a few minutes beyond the actual unbinding destruction of the server socket on some OSes but with tens of thousands of ports available and likely not more than 1-200 being needed by a full test suite run and how long the test suite takes to run I think that is acceptable and is not a problem we're likely to ever run into (fix it only iffwe ever do). -gps ________________________________________ From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] On Behalf Of Trent Nelson [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>] Sent: 08 April 2008 12:49 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: [issue2550] SO_REUSEADDR doesn't have the same semantics on Windows as on Unix Trent Nelson <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> added the comment: Invested quite a few cycles on this issue last night. The more time I spent on it, the more I became convinced that every single test working with sockets should be changed in one fell swoop in order to facilitate (virtually unlimited) parallel test execution without fear of port conflicts. I've attached a second patch, trunk.2550-2.patch, which is my progress so far on doing just this. The main changes can be expressed by the following two points: a) do whatever it takes in network-oriented tests to ensure unique ports are obtained (relying on the bind_port() and find_unused_port() methods exposed by test_support) b) never, ever, ever call SO_REUSEADDR on a socket from a test; because we're putting so much effort into obtaining a unique port, this should never be necessary -- in the rare cases that our attempts to obtain a unique port fail, then we absolutely should fail with EADDRINUSE, as the ability to obtain a unique port for the duration of a client/server test is an invariant that we *must* be able to depend upon. If the invariant is broken, fail immediately (don't mask the problem with SO_REUSEADDR). With this patch applied, I can spawn a handful of Python processes and run the entire test suite (without -r, ensuring all tests are run in the same order, which should encourage port conflicts (if there were any)) without any errors*. Doing that now is completely and utterly impossible. [*] Well, almost without error. All the I/O related tests that try and open @test fail. I believe there's still outstanding work to do with this patch with regards to how the intracacies of SO_REUSEADDR and SO_EXCLUSIVEADDRUSE should be handled in the rest of the stdlib. I'm still thinking about the best approach for this. However, the patch as it currently stands is still quite substantial so I wanted to get it out sooner rather than later for review. (I'll forward this to python-dev@ to try and encourage more eyes from people with far more network-fu than I.) Added file: http://bugs.python.org/file9980/trunk.2550-2.patch __________________________________ Tracker <[EMAIL PROTECTED]<mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]>> <http://bugs.python.org/issue2550> __________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/tnelson%40onresolve.com _______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org<mailto:Python-Dev@python.org> http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/greg%40krypto.org
_______________________________________________ Python-Dev mailing list Python-Dev@python.org http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-dev Unsubscribe: http://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com
