This issue tracker has been migrated to GitHub, and is currently read-only.
For more information, see the GitHub FAQs in the Python's Developer Guide.

Author pitrou
Recipients bobbyi, gregory.p.smith, neologix, pitrou
Date 2011-05-03.22:05:36
SpamBayes Score 5.35519e-05
Marked as misclassified No
Message-id <1304460331.3567.18.camel@localhost.localdomain>
In-reply-to <>
> Also, this would imply keeping track of the thread currently owning
> the lock,

Yes, we would need to keep track of the thread id and process id inside
the lock. We also need a global variable of the main thread id after
fork, and a per-lock "taken" flag.


    def _reinit_if_needed(self):
        # Call this before each acquire() or release()
        if != getpid():
            sem_init(self.sem, 0, 1)
            if self.taken:
                if self.tid == main_thread_id_after_fork:
                    # Lock was taken in forked thread, re-take it
                    # It's now released
                    self.taken = False
   = getpid()
            self.tid = current_thread_id()

> and doesn't match the typical pthread_atfork idiom (acquire locks just
> before fork, release just after in parent and child, or just reinit
> them in the child process)

Well, I fail to understand how that idiom can help us. We're not a
self-contained application, we're a whole programming language.
Calling fork() only when no lock is held is unworkable (for example, we
use locks around buffered I/O objects).
Date User Action Args
2011-05-03 22:05:37pitrousetrecipients: + pitrou, gregory.p.smith, bobbyi, neologix
2011-05-03 22:05:36pitroulinkissue6721 messages
2011-05-03 22:05:36pitroucreate