Yes Please post the code i will be very thankful to you. On Thu, Mar 1, 2012 at 4:35 PM, Kristján Valur Jónsson < [email protected]> wrote:
> This has come up over here. We have been thining, for example, that > tasklets should be able themselves to break out of "run", withough the > currently hacky way of stackless.main.run() > Also, some sort of "break" callback which can be called regularly to see > if we ought to break, rather than rely on this weird "instruction count" > thingie. > > In fact, with some slight modifications to stackless, it ought to be > possible to write your own scheduler in a simple way. (The problem is that > tasklet.run() leaves the caller runnable. Something like > tasklet.run(remove=true) would be helpful as an atomic switching operation, > allowing one to write one's own scheduler.) > > I wrote something like this once, can post the source if anyone is > interested. > > > K > > > -----Original Message----- > > From: [email protected] [mailto:stackless- > > [email protected]] On Behalf Of Richard Tew > > Sent: 29. febrúar 2012 19:21 > > To: The Stackless Python Mailing List > > Subject: Re: [Stackless] tasklet time out > > > > On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 11:06 PM, piyush singhai > > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Now suppose one of the tasklet stuck in while true loop or infinite > > > loop because of the code bug you can say. Then no other tasklet will > > > get the turn to execute. I want to avoid this scenario. I am trying > > > to do using > > > stackless.run(timeout) but this timeout is number of instruction. > > > > You will have to make do with the instruction count timeout. There is no > > support for actual time-based timeouts. > > > > In my experience the instruction count timeout has been perfectly fine > for > > this purpose. When you are pumping the scheduler, the theory is that > > tasklets spend most of their time outside of the scheduler blocked on > > channels. So the scheduler is expected to never block for very long, > time- > > wise or instruction count-wise. Just decide on a low enough instruction > > count and you should be fine, a bit of experimentation should determine a > > suitable value. > > > > In practice, I've never seen our infinite loop detection kick in. I > know it > > definitely works, but infinite loops never happen in practice. > > > > Cheers, > > Richard. > > > > _______________________________________________ > > Stackless mailing list > > [email protected] > > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless > > > > _______________________________________________ > Stackless mailing list > [email protected] > http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless >
_______________________________________________ Stackless mailing list [email protected] http://www.stackless.com/mailman/listinfo/stackless
