On 24 Oct 2009, at 19:49, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Sat, 24 Oct 2009 02:48:38 -0300, Brian Quinlan
<br...@sweetapp.com> escribió:
On 24 Oct 2009, at 14:10, Gabriel Genellina wrote:
En Thu, 22 Oct 2009 23:18:32 -0300, Brian Quinlan <br...@sweetapp.com
> escribió:
I don't like a few things in the code:
I'm actually not looking for workarounds. I want to know if this is
a multiprocessing bug or if I am misunderstanding the
multiprocessing docs somehow and my demonstrated usage pattern is
somehow incorrect.
Those aren't really workarounds, but things to consider when trying
to narrow down what's causing the problem. The example is rather
long as it is, and it's hard to tell what's wrong since there are
many places thay might fail.
I agree that the multiprocessing implementation is complex is there
are a lot of spinning wheels. At this point, since no one has pointed
out how I am misusing the module, I think that I'll just file a bug.
The busy wait might be relevant, or not; having a thousand zombie
processes might be relevant, or not.
According to the docs:
"""On Unix when a process finishes but has not been joined it becomes
a zombie. There should never be very many because each time a new
process starts (or active_children() is called) all completed
processes which have not yet been joined will be joined. Also calling
a finished process’s Process.is_alive() will join the process. Even
so it is probably good practice to explicitly join all the processes
that you start."""
Cheers,
Brian
--
http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
