Use CommandClient for interchange port reporting instead of Queue #3461
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Before this PR, the interchange used a multiprocessing.Queue to send a single message containing the ports it is listening on back to the submitting process. This ties the interchange into being forked via multiprocessing, even though the rest of the interchange is architected to be forked anyhow, as part of earlier remote-interchange work. After this PR, the CommandClient used for other submit-side to interchange communication is used to retrieve this information, removing that reliance on multiprocessing and reducing the number of different communication channels used between the interchange and submit side by one. See issue #3373 for more context on launching the interchange via fork/exec rather than using multiprocessing.
khk-globus
approved these changes
May 28, 2024
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
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Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.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.
Before this PR, the interchange used a multiprocessing.Queue to send a single message containing the ports it is listening on back to the submitting process. This ties the interchange into being forked via multiprocessing, even though the rest of the interchange is architected to be forked anyhow, as part of earlier remote-interchange work.
After this PR, the CommandClient used for other submit-side to interchange communication is used to retrieve this information, removing that reliance on multiprocessing and reducing the number of different communication channels used between the interchange and submit side by one.
See issue #3373 for more context on launching the interchange via fork/exec rather than using multiprocessing.
Changed Behaviour
The CommandClient is not threadsafe - see #3376 - and it is possible that this will introduce a new thread-unsafety, as this will be called from the main thread of execution, and most invocations happen (later on) from the status poller thread.
Type of change