GV

GeezerVison

The World Wide Web, restored to 800 pixels of glory.

Home|About|Gaming cabinet|Archives|How it works|Starter sites

On this site

  • Sign in
  • ActionsCI/CD and automation
  • CodespacesCloud development environments
  • All Features
  • Documentation
  • Training
  • Certifications
  • Build with Copilot
  • Customize Copilot
  • Integrations
  • Trending repos
  • GitHub Sponsors
  • Developer articles
  • Enterprises

This view

  • Original page
  • New address

GeezerVison is showing github.com — [3.12] gh-104341: Add a Separate "Running" Lock for Each Thread (gh-104754) by miss-islington · Pull Request #104817 · python/cpython

Conversation

@miss-islington

@miss-islington miss-islington commented May 23, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Having a separate lock means Thread.join() doesn't need to wait for the thread to be cleaned up first. It can wait for the thread's Python target to finish running. This gives us some flexibility in how we clean up threads.

(This is a minor cleanup as part of a fix for gh-104341.)
(cherry picked from commit 097b783)

Co-authored-by: Eric Snow [email protected]

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

All reactions
@ericsnowcurrently @miss-islington
pythongh-104341: Add a Separate "Running" Lock for Each Thread (pytho…
a2ff409
…ngh-104754)

Having a separate lock means Thread.join() doesn't need to wait for the thread to be cleaned up first.  It can wait for the thread's Python target to finish running.  This gives us some flexibility in how we clean up threads.

(This is a minor cleanup as part of a fix for pythongh-104341.)
(cherry picked from commit 097b783)

Co-authored-by: Eric Snow <[email protected]>
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added the awaiting review label May 23, 2023
This was referenced May 23, 2023
test__xxsubinterpreters is Occasionally Crashing #104341
Closed
gh-104341: Add a Separate "Running" Lock for Each Thread #104754
Merged
@bedevere-bot bedevere-bot added the skip news label May 23, 2023
@gpshead gpshead added the DO-NOT-MERGE label May 24, 2023
@gpshead

gpshead commented May 24, 2023

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

this broke main.

All reactions

Sorry, something went wrong.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

@ericsnowcurrently ericsnowcurrently closed this May 24, 2023
@miss-islington
miss-islington deleted the backport-097b783-3.12 branch May 24, 2023 15:35
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

No reviews

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

awaiting review DO-NOT-MERGE skip news

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

Uh oh!

There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.

4 participants

@miss-islington @gpshead @ericsnowcurrently @bedevere-bot
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.
You are visitor 01402503 — GeezerVison does not store the pages you look up.
Best viewed with Netscape Navigator 4.7 or Internet Explorer 6 at 800×600. No cookies required.