Maor Kleinberger <kma...@gmail.com> added the comment:
I wrote a small script that checks the behavior of asyncio.sleep when called with small amounts of time (starting from 0). For each amount I checked 500 times whether SleepTest has stopped when interrupted with SIGINT. Below are the results: SLEEP TIME SIGINT FAILURE PERCENT 0 26.6% 1e-06 9.8% 2e-06 11.8% 3e-06 11.2% 4e-06 9.6% 5e-06 13.8% 6e-06 5.6% 7e-06 2.6% 8e-06 1.4% 9e-06 1.6% 1e-05 2.2% 1.1e-05 2.2% 1.2e-05 2.0% 1.3e-05 1.8% 1.4e-05 0.8% It is worth mentioning that the failure amount increased when my CPU was busier. Maybe it is because of false positives in my script (although I think I used relatively generous timeouts when waiting for the ioloop to start running and for the process to die after a SIGINT) and maybe it is because of the nature of the bug in asyncio. I didn't put a lot of effort into distinguishing between the two, as increasing the timeouts also made my CPU less busy. Anyway, there is definitely a weird behavior here, and I still think there is a specific piece of code in asyncio that's causing it. Maybe I'll look at the code a bit, or try to think of other ways to approach this. ---------- _______________________________________ Python tracker <rep...@bugs.python.org> <https://bugs.python.org/issue39622> _______________________________________ _______________________________________________ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.python.org/mailman/options/python-bugs-list/archive%40mail-archive.com
