-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.7k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
Unable to use concurrent.futures in atexit hook #86813
Comments
Python 3.9 introduced a regression with concurrent.futures. The following program works fine on Python < 3.8 but raises an error on 3.9:
|
b61b818 is the first bad commit
|
Thanks for bringing attention to this, Julien. While the regression is definitely unfortunate, I'm uncertain about whether the behavior is *correct* to allow in the first place. Specifically, allowing the registration of an atexit hook which uses a ThreadPoolExecutor within it means that the finalization of the executor will be done *after* thread finalization occurs, leaving dangling threads which will have to be abruptly killed upon interpreter exit instead of being safely joined. From my perspective at least, this doesn't seem like something to be encouraged. Is there a real-world situation where it's specifically necessary or even beneficial to utilize ThreadPoolExecutor at this point after thread finalization rather than earlier in the program? Not that it doesn't exist, but to me it intuitively seems very odd to utilize an executor within an atexit hook, which are intended to just be resource finalization/cleanup functions called at interpreter shutdown. Assuming there is a genuine use case I'm not seeing, it may be worth weighing against the decision to convert the executors to not use daemon threads, as I presently don't think there's a way to (safely) allow that behavior without reverting back to using daemon threads. That said, I'll admit that I'm more than a bit biased as the author of the commit which introduced the regression, so I'll CC Antoine Pitrou (active expert for threading and concurrent.futures) to help make the final decision. |
To put that in perspective, here is the original issue that trigged this bug for me: Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/root/project/ddtrace/profiling/scheduler.py", line 50, in flush
exp.export(events, start, self._last_export)
File "/root/project/ddtrace/profiling/exporter/http.py", line 186, in export
self._upload(client, self.endpoint_path, body, headers)
File "/root/project/ddtrace/profiling/exporter/http.py", line 189, in _upload
self._retry_upload(self._upload_once, client, path, body, headers)
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/tenacity/__init__.py", line 423, in __call__
do = self.iter(retry_state=retry_state)
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/tenacity/__init__.py", line 360, in iter
return fut.result()
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/concurrent/futures/_base.py", line 433, in result
return self.__get_result()
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/concurrent/futures/_base.py", line 389, in __get_result
raise self._exception
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/tenacity/__init__.py", line 426, in __call__
result = fn(*args, **kwargs)
File "/root/project/ddtrace/profiling/exporter/http.py", line 193, in _upload_once
client.request("POST", path, body=body, headers=headers)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 1255, in request
self._send_request(method, url, body, headers, encode_chunked)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 1301, in _send_request
self.endheaders(body, encode_chunked=encode_chunked)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 1250, in endheaders
self._send_output(message_body, encode_chunked=encode_chunked)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 1010, in _send_output
self.send(msg)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 950, in send
self.connect()
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/http/client.py", line 921, in connect
self.sock = self._create_connection(
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/socket.py", line 88, in create_connection
addrs = list(getaddrinfo(host, port, 0, SOCK_STREAM))
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_socketcommon.py", line 247, in getaddrinfo
addrlist = get_hub().resolver.getaddrinfo(host, port, family, type, proto, flags)
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/hub.py", line 841, in _get_resolver
self._resolver = self.resolver_class(hub=self) # pylint:disable=not-callable
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/resolver/thread.py", line 39, in __init__
self.pool = hub.threadpool
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/hub.py", line 865, in _get_threadpool
self._threadpool = self.threadpool_class(self.threadpool_size, hub=self)
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/hub.py", line 860, in threadpool_class
return GEVENT_CONFIG.threadpool
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_config.py", line 50, in getter
return self.settings[setting_name].get()
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_config.py", line 146, in get
self.value = self.validate(self._default())
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_config.py", line 248, in validate
return self._import_one_of([self.shortname_map.get(x, x) for x in value])
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_config.py", line 223, in _import_one_of
return self._import_one(candidates[-1])
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/_config.py", line 237, in _import_one
module = importlib.import_module(module)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/importlib/__init__.py", line 127, in import_module
return _bootstrap._gcd_import(name[level:], package, level)
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1030, in _gcd_import
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 1007, in _find_and_load
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 986, in _find_and_load_unlocked
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 680, in _load_unlocked
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap_external>", line 790, in exec_module
File "<frozen importlib._bootstrap>", line 228, in _call_with_frames_removed
File "/root/project/.tox/py39-profile-gevent/lib/python3.9/site-packages/gevent/threadpool.py", line 748, in <module>
class ThreadPoolExecutor(concurrent.futures.ThreadPoolExecutor):
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/concurrent/futures/__init__.py", line 49, in __getattr__
from .thread import ThreadPoolExecutor as te
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/concurrent/futures/thread.py", line 37, in <module>
threading._register_atexit(_python_exit)
File "/root/.pyenv/versions/3.9.0/lib/python3.9/threading.py", line 1370, in _register_atexit
raise RuntimeError("can't register atexit after shutdown")
RuntimeError: can't register atexit after shutdown What's happening is that the ddtrace library registers an atexit hook that does an HTTP call. As the application runs using gevent, some gevent modules that were not loaded are loaded during the atexit() hook and the loading of I'm totally fine blaming gevent here if you prefer. The problem is that there's nothing preventing any library call to be made in an atexit() hook, and any library could decide to use At at least, at this stage, it might be the responsibility of Python to make sure all |
I'm running into the same issue after attempting to migrate my code to Python 3.10. My use case is there is a temporary folder full of files. I have an atexit hook which deletes the temporary folder recursively in parallel. The temporary folder is over a network mount and shutil.rmtree runs too slowly. I'm far from a python expert but it seems very odd to remove API functionality simply because a notification has been triggered. I'm not really sure how to work around this other than registering a separate "atexit safe" rmtree implementation. How is a user supposed to know which calls are safe to use in atexit and which are not? In case it is informative this is the implementation for my use-case. I register this function to be called by atexit. (Credit goes to a stackoverflow post I read sometime trying to figure out why shutil.rmtree was so slow)
|
This is necessary for Python >= 3.9 due to an issue referenced in python/cpython#86813
We lack a written rule for this. It would be difficult to write such a rule and have it bear an accurate resemblance to reality. In general things like It may be possible to make some atexit using libraries like concurrent.futures detect and avoid this specific problem. If we do that we definitely need a regression test for the scenario. |
If the behavior cannot be documented something is wrong. Nothing in the documentation of atexit communicates any interpreter or language capabilities will be missing. It is reasonable for a programmer to expect atexit callbacks execute prior to any shutdown procedure to ensure the interpreter and built-in libraries are fully capable. There seem to be two atexit consumers. One is for the programmer to perform cleanup and the second is the interpreter and built-in packages performing shutdown. It really seems those need to be kept separate. I'm a bit confused about execution order too since atexit claims to call registered functions in reverse order. How is my atexit call being invoked after ThreadPoolExecutor if atexit registrations are last-in-first-out? Even so, perhaps a fix could be allowing registering an atexit inside an atexit call. If the user's atexit function invokes a library which also requires atexit the interpreter would call the libraries atexit function in the documented order after the user function exits. Or have an internal atexit system for built-ins and the interpreter that runs afterword. |
Workaround for the original problem: Test and documentation improvement contributions welcome if you want to see that changed.
Best not assume that silence on a topic means anything goes. Assumptions are made by libraries all over the place about the program being in a fully usable state. Those assumptions are often no longer true by the time any form of finalizers is running. So when you call into any library, expecting it to be usable in that context is not always reasonable. Code defensively in finalizers. When unsure something working, include a test of the capability in your own test suite to notice regressions early so new workarounds can be adopted.
It isn't. [old comment:]
We can't do that. This would require us to import every library up front. Interpreter startup time and resource consumption would skyrocket. Unconditional imports of things that won't be used are highly undesirable. That is one reason why concurrent.futures switched to on demand imports of needed functionality in Python 3.7. |
To close out this issue it's just a documentation update and an added unittest:
|
Is this issue fixed in latest versions of Python? |
Given the direction things are going over in #104690 we're quite likely to block the ability to create new threads or forked processes from within an atexit handler. |
For what it's worth, I thought I'd add my use-case here since I've been affected by the new behaviour after upgrading to Python 3.10. We use In general, I imagine it's a fairly common usage pattern to have exit handlers to do some communication over a network in order to save diagnostics or some such. And such communication is often done in threads, depending on the library being used. I'm personally happy to change/reconfigure the library we're using to upload our file so that it's done in the main thread. But I would humbly request caution over any further limitations placed on exit handlers, especially any which limit network communication in any way. My workaround if you're interestedJust in case anyone else is doing the same thing as me (uploading a file to S3 using boto3 from within an exit handler), I've got you covered. To force boto3 to upload the file from the main thread, you can pass a import boto3.s3.transfer
client = boto3.client("s3")
client.upload_file(
Filename="path/to/file",
Bucket="my-bucket",
Key="my-file",
Config=boto3.s3.transfer.TransferConfig(use_threads=False),
) |
Note: these values reflect the state of the issue at the time it was migrated and might not reflect the current state.
Show more details
GitHub fields:
bugs.python.org fields:
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: