Message 69702 - Python tracker

➜

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	Rhamphoryncus, amaury.forgeotdarc, gregory.p.smith, jnoller, mikemccand, pitrou, tzot
Date	2008-07-15.18:33:50
SpamBayes Score	0.0650395
Marked as misclassified	No
Message-id	<1216146832.45.0.429816728859.issue874900@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
In-reply-to

Content
> I still don't like the _after_fork() implementation. Its O(n) where n > == number of threads the parent process had. It may be O(n) but the inner loop looks very cheap. Even with n == 1000 I'm not sure it would make a difference. However, are you sure the system thread identifier stays the same after a fork? I see that in _after_fork() you reuse the old ident for new_active instead of getting it from get_ident().

> I still don't like the _after_fork() implementation.  Its O(n) where n
> == number of threads the parent process had.

It may be O(n) but the inner loop looks very cheap. Even with n == 1000
I'm not sure it would make a difference.

However, are you sure the system thread identifier stays the same after
a fork? I see that in _after_fork() you reuse the old ident for
new_active instead of getting it from get_ident().

History
Date	User	Action	Args
2008-07-15 18:33:52	pitrou	set	spambayes_score: 0.0650395 -> 0.0650395 recipients: + pitrou, gregory.p.smith, mikemccand, tzot, amaury.forgeotdarc, Rhamphoryncus, jnoller
2008-07-15 18:33:52	pitrou	set	spambayes_score: 0.0650395 -> 0.0650395 messageid: <1216146832.45.0.429816728859.issue874900@psf.upfronthosting.co.za>
2008-07-15 18:33:51	pitrou	link	issue874900 messages
2008-07-15 18:33:50	pitrou	create