[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: I don't mind, sorry. Feel free to make a pull request with the fix though. -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Géry added the comment: @Andrew Svetlov > Adding a new state for "not running and not pending but something in between" > is useless I have not suggested that. I have just reported that when the number of submitted calls is strictly greater than the number of pool worker processes, the numb

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: I concur with Andrew -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscri

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Andrew Svetlov added the comment: Adding a new state for "not running and not pending but something in between" is useless, it can make .running() result a little more accurate but doesn't improve the real functionality. The easy "fix" is documentation updating to point that the value return

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Géry added the comment: @Pablo Galindo Salgado Thank you for the debugging information. I would have expected 8 "Adding a new item to the call_queue" instead of 3, since I submitted 8 calls to the process pool. The concurrent.futures._base module defines 5 future states: > _FUTURE_STATES =

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Pablo Galindo Salgado added the comment: All the pending work items are added to a call queue that the processes consume (_add_call_item_to_queue) and the status is set before adding it to said queue (by calling set_running_or_notify_cancel()). Notice that the fact that future.running() == T

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Géry added the comment: @Ned Deily Okay, I did not know if I had to list the potentially interested people (according to their Github contribution on the module for instance) or let them do it themselves. Thank you for clarifying. @Carol Willing The number of RUNNING futures is always `max_

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Carol Willing added the comment: I've run the code snippet several times on Mac 10.14.5 with Python 3.7.3. I'm not able to replicate your result for the `ProcessPoolExecutor` but can replicate results for `ThreadPoolExecutor`. Do you have another example where you are seeing this behavior?

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Change by Ned Deily : -- nosy: -ned.deily ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.pytho

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Ned Deily added the comment: @maggyero, Please do not spam a list of people by add their names to issues; it will not speed a resolution. Let the people doing bug triage evaluate the issue and, if necessary, nosy the appropriate developers. -- __

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Géry added the comment: Initial post: https://stackoverflow.com/q/56587166/2326961 -- ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list ma

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

Change by STINNER Victor : -- nosy: -vstinner ___ Python tracker ___ ___ Python-bugs-list mailing list Unsubscribe: https://mail.p

[issue37276] Incorrect number of running calls in ProcessPoolExecutor

New submission from Géry : In the `concurrent.futures` standard module, the number of running calls in a `ProcessPoolExecutor` is `max_workers + 1` (unexpected) instead of `max_workers` (expected) like in a `ThreadingPoolExecutor`. The following code snippet which submits 8 calls to 2 workers