Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
On Fri, May 30, 2014 at 1:59 PM, Ethan Furman wrote: > Given the use-case (must shut down, cannot risk a hung process, orphan files > be damned) I don't think having a daemon thread die because it raised an > exception trying to access a missing global is a big deal. It's certainly suboptimal. Subprocesses are better in every way. -- Devin -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
On 05/30/2014 01:47 PM, Devin Jeanpierre wrote: Don't use daemon threads, they are inherently un-thread-safe: any global access you do anywhere inside a daemon thread can fail, because daemon threads are still potentially run during interpreter shutdown, when globals are being deleted from every module. Most functions you might call are not safe in a daemon thread at shutdown. Given the use-case (must shut down, cannot risk a hung process, orphan files be damned) I don't think having a daemon thread die because it raised an exception trying to access a missing global is a big deal. -- ~Ethan~ -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
Don't use daemon threads, they are inherently un-thread-safe: any global access you do anywhere inside a daemon thread can fail, because daemon threads are still potentially run during interpreter shutdown, when globals are being deleted from every module. Most functions you might call are not safe in a daemon thread at shutdown. -- Devin On Wed, May 28, 2014 at 6:20 PM, Carl Banks wrote: > Ok, so I have an issue with cleaning up threads upon a unexpected exit. I > came up with a solution but I wanted to ask if anyone has any advice or > warnings. > > Basically I am writing a Python library to run certain tasks. All of the > calls in the library start worker threads to do the actual work, and some of > the worker threads are persistent, others not. Most threads have cleanup > work to do (such as deleting temporary directories and killing spawned > processes). > > For better or worse, one of the requirements is that the library can't cause > the program to hang no matter what, even if it means you have to forego > cleanup in the event of an unexpected exit. Therefore all worker threads run > as daemons. Nevertheless, I feel like the worker threads should at least be > given a fair opportunity to clean up; all threads can be communicated with > and asked to exit. > > One obvious solution is to ask users to put all library calls inside a > with-statement that cleans up on exit, but I don't like it for various > reasons. > Using atexit doesn't work because it's called after the daemon threads are > killed. > > Here's the solution I came up with: in the library's init function, it will > start a non-daemon thread that simply joins the main thread, and then asks > all existing worker threads to exit gracefully before timing out and leaving > them to be killed. So if an exception ends the main thread, there is still a > chance to clean up properly. > > Does anyone see a potential problem with this approach? It it possible that > this will cause the program to hang in any case? We can assume that all > calls to the library will occur from the main thread, or at least from the > same thread. (If that isn't the case, then the caller has taken > responsibility to ensure the program doesn't hang.) > > This is Python 2.7, and it's only ever going to run on Windows. > > Thanks for any advice/warnings. > > Carl Banks > -- > https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
On Thursday, May 29, 2014 1:15:35 AM UTC-7, Chris Angelico wrote: > On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Carl Banks wrote: > > > Most threads have cleanup work to do (such as deleting temporary > > directories and killing spawned processes). > > > > > > For better or worse, one of the requirements is that the library can't > > cause the program to hang no matter what... > > > > This ma y be a fundamental problem. I don't know how Windows goes with > > killing processes (can that ever hang?), but certainly you can get > > unexpected delays deleting a temp dir, although it would probably > > require some deliberate intervention, like putting your %temp% on a > > remote drive and then bringing that server down. But believe you me, > > if there is a stupid way to do something, someone WILL have done it. > > (Have you ever thought what it'd be like to have your > > swapfile/pagefile on a network drive? I mean, there's acres of room on > > the server, why waste some of your precious local space?) > > > > So you may want to organize this as a separate spin-off process that > > does the cleaning up. [snip rest] Thanks, that's good information. Even if the temp directories do fail to be removed before the join times out (which probably won't happen much) the situation is still no worse than the situation where the daemon thread is just killed without any chance to clean up. And subprocesses would be a more reliable way to ensure cleanup and might be the direction I take it in the future. Carl Banks -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
On Thu, May 29, 2014 at 11:20 AM, Carl Banks wrote: > Most threads have cleanup work to do (such as deleting temporary directories > and killing spawned processes). > > For better or worse, one of the requirements is that the library can't cause > the program to hang no matter what... This ma y be a fundamental problem. I don't know how Windows goes with killing processes (can that ever hang?), but certainly you can get unexpected delays deleting a temp dir, although it would probably require some deliberate intervention, like putting your %temp% on a remote drive and then bringing that server down. But believe you me, if there is a stupid way to do something, someone WILL have done it. (Have you ever thought what it'd be like to have your swapfile/pagefile on a network drive? I mean, there's acres of room on the server, why waste some of your precious local space?) So you may want to organize this as a separate spin-off process that does the cleaning up. That way, the main process has completely ended, but the cleanup daemon is still busy. And if you're going to do that, then the easiest way, IMO, would be to have your worker threads be themselves in a separate process; your library passes work across to this other process via a pipe or socket (this being Windows, that would have to be a TCP socket, not a Unix domain socket, but a named pipe would also work), and when the pipe/socket connection is broken, the other end knows that it should clean up. That way, you get to clean up perfectly even if the process terminates abruptly (segfault, system kill, whatever), although possibly delayed until the system notices that the other end is gone. ChrisA (sometimes I feel I suggest TCP/IP sockets the way Grant Imahara suggests building a robot... enthusiastically and maybe too often) -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
On 28May2014 18:20, Carl Banks wrote: Here's the solution I came up with: in the library's init function, it will start a non-daemon thread that simply joins the main thread, and then asks all existing worker threads to exit gracefully before timing out and leaving them to be killed. So if an exception ends the main thread, there is still a chance to clean up properly. Does anyone see a potential problem with this approach? It it possible that this will cause the program to hang in any case? We can assume that all calls to the library will occur from the main thread, or at least from the same thread. (If that isn't the case, then the caller has taken responsibility to ensure the program doesn't hang.) That sounds safe to me, unless any of the subthreads call some C-level library routine that hangs even in a daemon thread. Which I assume either isn't the case or isn't a bug addressable this way anyway. That's probably the best you can do from the sound of it, given that you may not hang (for longer than your timeout choice) and the calls are all at the whim of an external caller. BTW, what were your dislikes of the with statement? Disclaimer: I'm not a Windows guy. Cheers, Cameron Simpson -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
Re: daemon thread cleanup approach
Greetings, > Ok, so I have an issue with cleaning up threads upon a unexpected exit. What do you mean by "unexpected exit"? Uncaught exception? SIGTERM? ... > Using atexit doesn't work because it's called after the daemon threads are > killed. I don't follow. Who is killing the daemon threads? > ... > It it possible that this will cause the program to hang in any case? If due to a bug in the cleanup thread it hangs - the program will hang as well. All the best, -- Miki -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
