-
-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 30.3k
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
3.12 regression: "can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown" from non-daemon threads or atexit handlers #113964
Comments
Can you please provide a full, self-contained reproducer? The provided snippet does not appear to be complete. |
Not easily. The use case is complex, but the error is real, and was not there in 3.10. Maybe you can help me define a case I can get a reproducer for, or help me debug why this is happening now. The process entry point uses importlib.import_module() to load 'external code', starts a thread... class WorkerThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, worker):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.setDaemon(False)
self.stopped = False
self.worker = worker
self.worker_thread = WorkerThread(self)
self.worker_thread.start() ...and starts the timer (which is another thread I guess)... self.timer = None
self.refresh_timer() ...and then, I don't know... exits, but doesn't because the WorkerThread is not a daemon. The WorkerThread uses the the passed in 'worker' to handle all the business logic. Periodically, as in often, the refresh_timer() method will be called from the WorkerThread instance, via the self.worker reference. The initial timer setup is fine in the 'main' thread, but after that thread finishes (but doe not exit due to the non-daemon thread), the refresh_timer() is called again and fails with "can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown". Maybe this is related to work on multiple interpreters in 3.12? Explaining this this way has helped in any case, and maybe I can get these classes setup. I think the module load, which is hard to replicate, may have nothing to do with this and I can try with a main thread,, a worker thread, and a timer thread. However, if the answer is obvious from my use case don't hesitate to save me some work and tell me what's up. |
Voila... import threading
import time
def main():
worker = Worker();
class Worker:
def __init__(self):
self.worker_thread = WorkerThread(self)
self.worker_thread.start()
self.timer = None
self.refresh_timer()
print("worker init complete")
def refresh_timer(self):
if self.timer is not None:
self.timer.cancel()
self.timer = threading.Timer(30 * 60, self.stop_cycle)
self.timer.start()
def stop_cycle(self):
print("!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!")
class WorkerThread(threading.Thread):
def __init__(self, worker):
threading.Thread.__init__(self)
self.setDaemon(False)
self.stopped = False
self.worker = worker
def run(self):
while True:
print("running...")
self.worker.refresh_timer()
time.sleep(3)
main() C:\Users\david\Documents\testme.py:30: DeprecationWarning: setDaemon() is deprecated, set the daemon attribute instead
self.setDaemon(False)
running...
worker init complete
running...
Exception in thread Thread-1:
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "C:\Program Files\Python312\Lib\threading.py", line 1073, in _bootstrap_inner
self.run()
File "C:\Users\david\Documents\testme.py", line 37, in run
self.worker.refresh_timer()
File "C:\Users\david\Documents\testme.py", line 21, in refresh_timer
self.timer.start()
File "C:\Program Files\Python312\Lib\threading.py", line 992, in start
_start_new_thread(self._bootstrap, ())
RuntimeError: can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown |
If I keep the main entry point running, as with timer.sleep(a_long_time), then I don't get the thread creation error. However, that would force me to throw in some waiting loop on a lock to keep the main thread alive until the non-daemon thread terminates, being very careful to trap any error and release the main thread (try/catch/finally). But none of that makes any difference to me. The whole point of designating the second thread as non-daemon is so the main thread does not exit until all the non-daemon threads terminate, so the system is responsible for all that. My guess is that whatever throws "can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown" is checking some attribute of the main thread, but failing to check for any running non-daemon threads. Or, whatever code makes up the main thread is responding that yes, it has terminated, despite the fact that non-demon child threads are still running. So I think this is a python bug. |
On a first glance this behaviour does seem correct:
If you call I'm not an expert on the finer details of interpreter shutdown though. |
The problem is that I want the function to return. I'll agree that a join is better then an event or a barrier, but anything like those will prevent the init function return, which is ugly, But more than that, it's wrong. The first problem with the argument that the main thread should exit the interpreter, but not 'finish' until the non-daemon thread exits, is that this is a significant change in behavior. This works correctly in 3.10 and throws this error in 3.12. That alone is dangerous. The second problem is that it makes no sense. A thread which is 'finalising' in the interpreter has exited as far as any client usage, and the docs on daemon threads say... A thread can be flagged as a “daemon thread”. The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits when only daemon threads are left. So the 'program' can not exit due to the non-daemon thread, but the main thread kind of can? Even if that wasn't vague enough, if the program has not exited, why can't the live thread create a timer, or start another thread? The program has not exited. There is code running in the interpreter. But it's now blocked from creating a new thread? The docs should be amended to say... A thread can be flagged as a “daemon thread”. The significance of this flag is that the entire Python program exits when only daemon threads are left. However, a program running only child non-daemon threads will not be able to create new threads, such as with timer.start(). Does that really make sense? |
by the way, def _shutdown() in threading .py, contains this code... # Join all non-deamon threads
while True:
with _shutdown_locks_lock:
locks = list(_shutdown_locks)
_shutdown_locks.clear()
if not locks:
break
for lock in locks:
# mimic Thread.join()
lock.acquire()
lock.release()
# new threads can be spawned while we were waiting for the other
# threads to complete Note the comments. I really think the problem is the check in timer.start() which s not properly deciding to check for active non-daemon threads. I'm trying to find that code. Any pointers to it would be helpful. |
There should IMHO at least be documentation about this behaviour. I'm therefore reopening the issue. I've done some research. Lines 1823 to 1842 in ac92527
Starting a new thread ends up in cpython/Modules/_threadmodule.c Lines 1249 to 1265 in ac92527
|
This is unfortunately deep as Timer sub-classes Thread, and the error gets thrown in do_start_new_thread() of _threadmodule.c... if (interp->finalizing) {
PyErr_SetString(PyExc_RuntimeError,
"can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown");
return -1;
} So the interpreter is responding that it is finalizing, so I think my contention is either that...
or
There is a specific test for this error being thrown in test_threading.py, but no test that this error is not thrown if there's a non-daemon thread still running. |
And yes, what you saw above. Thank you. |
Hello is there an ETA for a fix? thx |
No. It is not even clear to me that there is a bug in the first place. |
It might simply be an undocumented change in behavior at odds with any proper notion of consistent thread context or the meaning of non-daemon threads. But maybe that's what the python language wants for itself. My workaround for this, if it's helpful, is to pass in from the main method... class Workaround(object):
def set_thread(self, thread):
self.thread = thread
def wait (self):
self.thread.join() Then set the non-daemon thread on this workaround, and in the main method call workaround.wait(). The need to do something like this shows how invalid the current thread model in Python is as the entire point of non-daemon threads is to make a hack like this unnecessary. But it's not my language. |
Try Workaround mentioned in python/cpython#113964
Workaround in python/cpython#113964 worked Now just tuned from 300 sec to 10 sec in the loop, no need to wait 5 min after base.run_dbthread is set false, 10 sec should be plenty, actually 1 would probably be enough. Cut debugging in test back to level 1 Issue #177
Here's a simpler reproducer. We have main() creating a thread which sleeps a bit and then creates another thread. import threading, time
def main():
threading.Thread(target=bloop).start()
def bloop():
time.sleep(0.5)
threading.Thread(target=print, args=("new thread running",)).start()
main() This works, printing "new thread running" in 3.11 (in fact, if you add
Let's focus on that -- is that intentional? Why? Is the solution maybe as simple as first waiting for all non-daemon threads to exit and then setting the finalizing flag? That's the semantics I would have expected, and that might have been what happened previously. |
The discussion in the other issue what that form of simple reproducer came from seemed to me to gloss over reason: The main thread "exiting" by virtue of leaving the main .py file is being considered interpreter shutdown. We should not treat it as such. Users expect the main thread to implicitly block waiting on all non-daemon threads to complete because that has always been our behavior. So adding code that does that before we consider the interpreter to be in a "shutdown" state would solve it. The high level way to do that via @vstinner on #115533 from Python is adding this form of logic as a finally clause on the way out of the main .py file: import threading
for thread in threading.enumerate():
if thread.daemon or thread is threading.current_thread():
continue
thread.join() How we want to implement that is up to us. The "just pretend its surrounded by a try finally with that code" statement might not be wholly accurate in terms of other things that need dealing with order of operations wise after "main code object exiting" but if so, that's just a matter of researching what 3.11 did, and deciding if the same order still makes sense. |
Not at all surprised to see my name on that change. :) This looks like an unintended consequence, we apparently never had test coverage of this feature - and perhaps proper documentation in the threading module describing it rather than implying it by omission. |
…ds exit Starting in Python 3.12, we started preventing fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or fork()) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads.
The current PR is focused on spawning a thread during finalization from a main ended garbage collection-ish context. The We need additional changes to make that work safely. It raises the question of "when do we call atexit handlers?"... if they allow code to launch a thread during an atexit handler... it'll run concurrently and must not re-trigger the same atexit handlers to be called when it is the last thread standing and itself exits. do atexit handlers executing prevent the registration of new atexit handlers? people could setup creative loops registering new ones from such a thread... newly registered ones weren't in the first list to be called, they could remain and get called. ... pondering ... |
recording a use case from the linked duped issue #115219 directly for reference: TL;DR - Subprocess on windows uses a thread thus cannot be used in atexit context in 3.12 there as
|
#116677) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads.
…n threads exit (pythonGH-116677) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads. (cherry picked from commit 60e105c) Co-authored-by: Sam Gross <[email protected]>
…ads exit (GH-116677) (#117029) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads. (cherry picked from commit 60e105c)
…ds exit (python#116677) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads.
…ds exit (python#116677) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads.
…ds exit (python#116677) Starting in Python 3.12, we prevented calling fork() and starting new threads during interpreter finalization (shutdown). This has led to a number of regressions and flaky tests. We should not prevent starting new threads (or `fork()`) until all non-daemon threads exit and finalization starts in earnest. This changes the checks to use `_PyInterpreterState_GetFinalizing(interp)`, which is set immediately before terminating non-daemon threads.
Just to have another reproducer, we have code that sometimes starts a new thread and sometimes gets called from GC during shutdown (actually from C objects that are destructed). This lead to processes hanging during shutdown. Code: from threading import Thread
class CleanupOnDelete:
def __del__(self):
print("Starting thread due to deletion")
thread = Thread(target=lambda: None)
thread.start()
print("Thread started")
thread.join()
print("Thread joined")
foo = CleanupOnDelete() This used to work with Python 3.7, lead to interpreter hangs in intermediate versions and not raises an exception: $ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.7 python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
Thread started
Thread joined
$ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.8 python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
<hangs...>
$ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.10 python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
<hangs...>
$ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.11 python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
<hangs...>
$ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.12 python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
Exception ignored in: <function CleanupOnDelete.__del__ at 0x7f83834f6200>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/src/exit_gc_hang.py", line 7, in __del__
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.12/threading.py", line 992, in start
RuntimeError: can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown
$ docker run -it --rm -v "$PWD":/src -w /src python:3.13-rc-bookworm python exit_gc_hang.py
Starting thread due to deletion
Exception ignored in: <function CleanupOnDelete.__del__ at 0x7fd02488d760>
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "/src/exit_gc_hang.py", line 7, in __del__
File "/usr/local/lib/python3.13/threading.py", line 971, in start
PythonFinalizationError: can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown We can actually live with getting an exception, but it is difficult to deal with processes stuck in shutdown. |
You can try threading.Thread.join() function to block the main thread |
Bug report
Bug description:
I have a single threading.Timer held on a class as self.timer...
As recently as 3.10 this code worked. As of 3.12 it errors with "can't create new thread at interpreter shutdown". The code has not changed, and the interpreter is not shutting down at the time this error is thrown, as in the process is live and code is executing. There are no code changes from where this is working in 3.10 to where it is not in 3.12.1 (upgraded from 3.12 to 3.12.1 and tsted again to see if this had been fixed).
CPython versions tested on:
3.12
Operating systems tested on:
Windows
Linked PRs
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: