nogil violation of atomicity on set operations
Nessuno ha ancora preso questa issue.
- Lingua principale
- Python
- Stelle
- 77.2k
- Fork
- 35.9k
- Metriche di merge delle PR
- Metriche PR in attesa
Descrizione
Bug report
Bug description:
Hi,
We're a research group focused on testing concurrent runtimes. Our work-in-progress prototype found a violation of atomicity on the current nogil build when using concurrent operations on the same set. The program below shows the wrong behavior.
from threading import Thread,Barrier
def t1(b1,s):
b1.wait()
s.intersection_update({1,5})
def t2(b1,s):
b1.wait()
s.symmetric_difference_update({1, 8, 7, 5, 9})
def normalSetTest(i):
s = {1,2,3,4,5,6}
setCombos = [{7,8,9}, set()] # all possible results
barrier = Barrier(2)
threads = [ Thread(target= t1, args=(barrier,s,)), Thread(target= t2, args=(barrier,s,)) ]
for t in threads:
t.start()
for t in threads:
t.join()
if s not in setCombos:
print("\tfound bug on iter " + str(i) + ": " + str(s))
print("test begin...")
for n in range(0,2000):
threads = []
if n % 100 == 0:
print(n)
for i in range(0,100):
threads.append(Thread(target= normalSetTest, args=(n,)))
for t in threads:
t.start()
for t in threads:
t.join()
print("test done")
A set starts with {1,2,3,4,5,6} and two threads each make a concurrent operation on it: intersection_update({1,5}) and symmetric_difference_update({1, 8, 7, 5, 9}).
Depending on the order of execution, the possible results are either {7,8,9} or {} (the empty set).
Running the test harness above shows that the (incorrect) result {1, 5} is sometimes possible.
If you have trouble observing this behavior, feel free to increase the first range's last argument to a large integer (e.g., from 2000 to 10000).
We replicated this bug on 3 different machines with varying numbers of cores; and we were able to find it even using a single pair of threads (i.e., the second range's argument from 100 to 1). The current harness uses 100 pairs of threads operating on unrelated sets to speed up bug discovery.
We're happy to provide more details about this bug, and to help developers reproducing it.
Output of python -VV: Python 3.14.0a1+ experimental free-threading build (heads/main:faa3272fb8d, Oct 29 2024, 09:14:25) [GCC 14.2.1 20240805]
Example output:
test begin...
0
100
200
300
found bug on iter 346: {1, 5}
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
1100
1200
1300
1400
1500
1600
found bug on iter 1678: {1, 5}
1700
1800
found bug on iter 1864: {1, 5}
found bug on iter 1882: {1, 5}
1900
test Done
@flypoodles and @overlorde are part of the team, adding them so they get notified about further discussion.
CPython versions tested on:
3.13, 3.14, CPython main branch
Operating systems tested on:
Linux
Guida per i contributori
Apri la guida per i contributori
Come iniziare
- Leggi tutta la issue e poi la guida ai contributi del progetto.
- Commenta sulla issue per dire che te ne occupi tu — evita che due persone facciano lo stesso lavoro.
- Fai un fork del repository e lavora su un branch.
- Apri una pull request che faccia riferimento al numero della issue.
Direzione di ricerca
Inizia eseguendo il threading harness fornito su una build free-threading di CPython e analizza gli entry point delle operazioni sugli insiemi coinvolti in intersection_update e symmetric_difference_update. Riproduci il risultato errato {1, 5}, quindi aggiungi un test di regressione mirato che copra gli aggiornamenti concorrenti; il lavoro è completo solo quando vengono osservati esclusivamente i due risultati documentati, {7, 8, 9} oppure {}.
Scritto dal modello di indicizzazione a partire dal testo della issue.
Valutazione
- Stack tecnologico
- python
- Ambito
- backend
- Tipo di issue
- Bug
- Difficoltà
- 4/5
- Tempo stimato
- 3-5 giorni
- Stato di attività
- Ferma
- Chiarezza
- Abbastanza chiara
- Idoneità per principianti
- 38/100