Skip to content
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

taskvine worker binary copy breaks because it belongs to multiple work flows #3609

Open
benclifford opened this issue Sep 6, 2024 · 0 comments
Labels

Comments

@benclifford
Copy link
Collaborator

Describe the bug

If I run two parsl-perfs in quick succession, or two taskvine workflows at once, I get this error at startup of the later workflow:

RuntimeError: Could not execute vine_factory. Exited with status: 1
cp: cannot create regular file '/home/benc/parsl/src/parsl/runinfo/TaskVineExecutor/vine_worker': Text file busy
vine_factory: Could not Access specified worker binary.

I think this is because the ownership of the path runinfo/TaskVineExecutor/vine_worker is unclear: the 2nd workflow expects that it can put whatever worker executable it wants there, but at the same time the 1st workflow expects that whatever vine worker the 1st workflow wants can also be there. The text file busy error is (I think) a unixism for "you can't copy a new executable over the top of an executable that is currently running"

In the "two parsl-perfs in quick succession" situation, when using Parsl block management that is supposed to make sure everything is shut down before the workflow ends - but I guess the vine factory mode I'm using is slightly different there. In the "two vine workflows at once" situation, I don't think it matters which scaling/factory mode is used - this is still an ownership confusion.

To Reproduce

parsl-perf --time 20 --config parsl/tests/configs/taskvine_ex.py  &  sleep 1s; parsl-perf --time 20 --config parsl/tests/configs/taskvine_ex.py

Expected behavior
workflows shouldn't interfere with each other

Environment
my laptop, parsl master 3a256de

@benclifford benclifford added the bug label Sep 6, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

1 participant