bpo-39584: raise ValueError when creating shared memory of size greater than 1TB by vinay0410 · Pull Request #21877 · python/cpython · GitHub
Skip to content

bpo-39584: raise ValueError when creating shared memory of size greater than 1TB#21877

Closed
vinay0410 wants to merge 1 commit into
python:mainfrom
vinay0410:fix-issue-39584
Closed

bpo-39584: raise ValueError when creating shared memory of size greater than 1TB#21877
vinay0410 wants to merge 1 commit into
python:mainfrom
vinay0410:fix-issue-39584

Conversation

@vinay0410

@vinay0410 vinay0410 commented Aug 14, 2020 •
edited by bedevere-bot
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

@vinay0410 vinay0410 requested a review from tiran as a code owner August 14, 2020 09:11
@vinay0410 vinay0410 changed the title bpo-39584: raise ValueError when creating shared memory of greater than 1TB bpo-39584: raise ValueError when creating shared memory of size greater than 1TB Aug 15, 2020
@vinay0410

vinay0410 commented Aug 28, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

@vinay0410 vinay0410 closed this Aug 28, 2020
@vinay0410

vinay0410 commented Aug 28, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

reopened PR to re-trigger CI

@vinay0410 vinay0410 reopened this Aug 28, 2020
ZackerySpytz
ZackerySpytz reviewed Aug 31, 2020
View reviewed changes
Comment thread Misc/NEWS.d/next/Library/2020-08-14-14-31-04.bpo-39584.P1Rs2u.rst Outdated

@ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz Aug 31, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think this is a valid use of the code role.

@vinay0410 vinay0410 Aug 31, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Can you have a look at this: #21556 (comment)

@ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz Sep 1, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Hmm. Okay. But double backquotes are usually used in cases like this (as specified by the developer's guide https://devguide.python.org/documenting/#inline-markup).

@vinay0410 vinay0410 Sep 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I guess both of them work. See this https://devguide.python.org/documenting/#module-specific-markup .
I was going for this because it is tried and tested.
Although, if you still want me to change to double back ticks, I will make changes.

Comment thread Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py Outdated
Comment thread Lib/test/_test_multiprocessing.py Outdated

@ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz Aug 31, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I don't think there's a need for this comment.

@vinay0410 vinay0410 Sep 3, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I added this comment because similar tests around this test use such comments.

Comment thread Lib/test/_test_multiprocessing.py Outdated

@ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz Aug 31, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

There's no need for a variable here.

@vinay0410 vinay0410 Sep 3, 2020 •
edited
Loading

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Totally agree, I will remove that.
But, if you see there are similar tests around this test assigning an unnecessary variable, should I remove those too ? Or should raise another pull request removing those.

Comment thread Doc/library/multiprocessing.shared_memory.rst Outdated
@vinay0410 vinay0410 force-pushed the fix-issue-39584 branch 2 times, most recently from 6eaa6da to 691f27c Compare September 3, 2020 10:40
ronaldoussoren
ronaldoussoren requested changes Oct 20, 2020
View reviewed changes

@ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This PR changes the limit for all systems, not just on macOS. I'd prefer to have the limit only on macOS, the behaviour of other unix-y systems (and in particular Linux) is different and likely don't need this artificial limit.

Comment thread Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py
if not isinstance(item, (str, bytes))
else self._types_mapping[type(item)] % (
self._alignment * (len(item) // self._alignment + 1),
)

@ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren Oct 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please don't mix actual changes with formatting changes.

Comment thread Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py
try:
offset = self._offset_data_start + self._allocated_offsets[position]
offset = self._offset_data_start + \
self._allocated_offsets[position]

@ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren Oct 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Likewise

Comment thread Lib/multiprocessing/shared_memory.py
else:
allocated_length = self._allocated_offsets[position + 1] - item_offset
allocated_length = self._allocated_offsets[position +
1] - item_offset

@ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren Oct 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Likewise

@bedevere-bot

bedevere-bot commented Oct 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown

A Python core developer has requested some changes be made to your pull request before we can consider merging it. If you could please address their requests along with any other requests in other reviews from core developers that would be appreciated.

Once you have made the requested changes, please leave a comment on this pull request containing the phrase I have made the requested changes; please review again. I will then notify any core developers who have left a review that you're ready for them to take another look at this pull request.

@ronaldoussoren

ronaldoussoren commented Oct 20, 2020

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Also: I don't feel qualified to approve changes to multiprocessing. This is a complex library that I don't use myself.

tiran
tiran requested changes Nov 17, 2020
View reviewed changes

@tiran tiran left a comment

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please read my most recent comment on bpo. 1 TB is arbitrary and far too low.

@vinay0410 vinay0410 mannequin mentioned this pull request Apr 10, 2022
Closed
@iritkatriel

iritkatriel commented Nov 23, 2022

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Reviewers

@tiran tiran tiran requested changes
@ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren ronaldoussoren requested changes
+1 more reviewer
@ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz ZackerySpytz left review comments
Reviewers whose approvals may not affect merge requirements

Assignees

No one assigned

Labels

awaiting changes

Projects

None yet

Milestone

No milestone

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

8 participants

@vinay0410 @bedevere-bot @ronaldoussoren @iritkatriel @tiran @ZackerySpytz @the-knights-who-say-ni @ezio-melotti