gh-76785: Add concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor #116430
Closed
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
ericsnowcurrently
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2024
…on (gh-116431) Any cross-interpreter mechanism for passing objects between interpreters must be very careful to respect isolation, even when the object is effectively immutable (e.g. int, str). Here this especially relates to when an interpreter sends one of its objects, and then is destroyed while the inter-interpreter machinery (e.g. queue) still holds a reference to the object. When I added interpreters.Queue, I dealt with that case (using an atexit hook) by silently removing all items from the queue that were added by the finalizing interpreter. Later, while working on concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor (gh-116430), I noticed it was somewhat surprising when items were silently removed from the queue when the originating interpreter was destroyed. (See my comment on that PR.) It took me a little while to realize what was going on. I expect that users, which much less context than I have, would experience the same pain. My approach, here, to improving the situation is to give users three options: 1. return a singleton (interpreters.queues.UNBOUND) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 2. raise an exception (interpreters.queues.ItemInterpreterDestroyed) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 3. existing behavior: silently remove each item (i.e. Queue.get() skips each one) The default will now be (1), but users can still explicitly opt in any of them, including to the silent removal behavior. The behavior for each item may be set with the corresponding Queue.put() call. and a queue-wide default may be set when the queue is created. (This is the same as I did for "synconly".)
miss-islington
pushed a commit
to miss-islington/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2024
…lization (pythongh-116431) Any cross-interpreter mechanism for passing objects between interpreters must be very careful to respect isolation, even when the object is effectively immutable (e.g. int, str). Here this especially relates to when an interpreter sends one of its objects, and then is destroyed while the inter-interpreter machinery (e.g. queue) still holds a reference to the object. When I added interpreters.Queue, I dealt with that case (using an atexit hook) by silently removing all items from the queue that were added by the finalizing interpreter. Later, while working on concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor (pythongh-116430), I noticed it was somewhat surprising when items were silently removed from the queue when the originating interpreter was destroyed. (See my comment on that PR.) It took me a little while to realize what was going on. I expect that users, which much less context than I have, would experience the same pain. My approach, here, to improving the situation is to give users three options: 1. return a singleton (interpreters.queues.UNBOUND) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 2. raise an exception (interpreters.queues.ItemInterpreterDestroyed) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 3. existing behavior: silently remove each item (i.e. Queue.get() skips each one) The default will now be (1), but users can still explicitly opt in any of them, including to the silent removal behavior. The behavior for each item may be set with the corresponding Queue.put() call. and a queue-wide default may be set when the queue is created. (This is the same as I did for "synconly".) (cherry picked from commit 6b98b27) Co-authored-by: Eric Snow <[email protected]>
ericsnowcurrently
added a commit
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 15, 2024
…alization (gh-121807) Any cross-interpreter mechanism for passing objects between interpreters must be very careful to respect isolation, even when the object is effectively immutable (e.g. int, str). Here this especially relates to when an interpreter sends one of its objects, and then is destroyed while the inter-interpreter machinery (e.g. queue) still holds a reference to the object. When I added interpreters.Queue, I dealt with that case (using an atexit hook) by silently removing all items from the queue that were added by the finalizing interpreter. Later, while working on concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor (gh-116430), I noticed it was somewhat surprising when items were silently removed from the queue when the originating interpreter was destroyed. (See my comment on that PR.) It took me a little while to realize what was going on. I expect that users, which much less context than I have, would experience the same pain. My approach, here, to improving the situation is to give users three options: 1. return a singleton (interpreters.queues.UNBOUND) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 2. raise an exception (interpreters.queues.ItemInterpreterDestroyed) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 3. existing behavior: silently remove each item (i.e. Queue.get() skips each one) The default will now be (1), but users can still explicitly opt in any of them, including to the silent removal behavior. The behavior for each item may be set with the corresponding Queue.put() call. and a queue-wide default may be set when the queue is created. (This is the same as I did for "synconly".) (cherry picked from commit 6b98b27, AKA gh-116431) Co-authored-by: Eric Snow <[email protected]>
estyxx
pushed a commit
to estyxx/cpython
that referenced
this pull request
Jul 17, 2024
…lization (pythongh-116431) Any cross-interpreter mechanism for passing objects between interpreters must be very careful to respect isolation, even when the object is effectively immutable (e.g. int, str). Here this especially relates to when an interpreter sends one of its objects, and then is destroyed while the inter-interpreter machinery (e.g. queue) still holds a reference to the object. When I added interpreters.Queue, I dealt with that case (using an atexit hook) by silently removing all items from the queue that were added by the finalizing interpreter. Later, while working on concurrent.futures.InterpreterPoolExecutor (pythongh-116430), I noticed it was somewhat surprising when items were silently removed from the queue when the originating interpreter was destroyed. (See my comment on that PR.) It took me a little while to realize what was going on. I expect that users, which much less context than I have, would experience the same pain. My approach, here, to improving the situation is to give users three options: 1. return a singleton (interpreters.queues.UNBOUND) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 2. raise an exception (interpreters.queues.ItemInterpreterDestroyed) from Queue.get() in place of each removed item 3. existing behavior: silently remove each item (i.e. Queue.get() skips each one) The default will now be (1), but users can still explicitly opt in any of them, including to the silent removal behavior. The behavior for each item may be set with the corresponding Queue.put() call. and a queue-wide default may be set when the queue is created. (This is the same as I did for "synconly".)
|
I merged gh-124548 instead. |
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
I don't plan on merging this (or spending much more time on it or requesting reviews) before PEP 734 is accepted. I suppose a form of it could stand on its own without a PEP, but I'd rather avoid doing that.