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 gregory.p.smith
Recipients docs@python, gregory.p.smith
Date 2019-04-05.20:07:07
SpamBayes Score -1.0
Marked as misclassified Yes
Message-id <1554494827.92.0.565969475506.issue36538@roundup.psfhosted.org>
In-reply-to
Content
In Python 2.7 our threading implementation was so poor that a thread join ultimately called our lock wait implementation that busy looped polling and sleeping to check for a lock acquisition success.  calling thread.interrupt_main() which is just PyErr_SetInterrupt() C API in disguise successfully broke out of that lock wait loop.

In Python 3 with our drastically improved threading implementation, a lock wait is a pthreads sem_timedwait() or sem_trywait() API call, blocking within the pthreads library or OS kernel.  PyErr_SetInterrupt() obviously has no effect on that.  Only an actual signal arriving can interrupt that.

Thus instead of code using _thread.interrupt_main() - in 2and3 compatible applications, six.moves._thread.interrupt_main() - they should instead write:

 os.kill(os.getpid(), signal.SIGINT)

Given that _thread is a private module making _thread.interrupt_main() a private API, do we need to keep it?  If we do, we should at least document this behavior and recommend actually sending the signal.  It is less capable of actually interrupting the main thread from some common blocking operations today.  Sending the signal seems like it would always be better.
History
Date User Action Args
2019-04-05 20:07:07gregory.p.smithsetrecipients: + gregory.p.smith, docs@python
2019-04-05 20:07:07gregory.p.smithsetmessageid: <1554494827.92.0.565969475506.issue36538@roundup.psfhosted.org>
2019-04-05 20:07:07gregory.p.smithlinkissue36538 messages
2019-04-05 20:07:07gregory.p.smithcreate