similar to: save.image Non-responsive to Interrupt

? Sat, 29 Apr 2023 00:00:02 +0000 Dario Strbenac via R-devel <r-devel at r-project.org> ?????: > Could save.image() be redesigned so that it promptly responds to > Ctrl+C? It prevents the command line from being used for a number of > hours if the contents of the workspace are large. This is ultimately caused by serialize() being non-interruptible. A relatively simple way to hang

All, At first glance, a recent commit to R-devel ( https://github.com/wch/r-source/commit/2c182014ecc8c2407a89092c9162d86046bd18da) appears to be related to long vector support. But as Henrik Bengtsson points out at https://github.com/HenrikBengtsson/Wishlist-for-R/issues/97#issuecomment-562659134, writeBin() still prohibits long vectors. Are there any plans to add long vector support to R

v2: - Fixes a number of bugs in corner cases. - Uses a 1M block size to fetch from the underlying plugin. This improves performance considerably. I also tested this much more thoroughly and can't find any more bugs. Rich.

Matt asked if xz should really be a filter rather than a plugin. The answer is yes, of course it should be! That's been something in the todo file for a while. The commit converts the xz plugin code into a filter (leaving the plugin around, but deprecating it). plugin: nbdkit xz file.xz filter: nbdkit --filter=xz file file.xz plugin: # can't be done filter: nbdkit

It seems benign, but has implications since checking time is actually not a cheap operation: adding jus ta time check alone incurs a penalty of ca. 700% compared with the time it takes to call R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Generally, it makes no sense to check interrupts at every iteration - you'll find code like if (++i % 10000 == 0) R_CheckUserInterrupt(); in loops to make sure it's not called

This seems like a great idea. Would it help to escalate this to a post on R-bugzilla, so it is less likely to fall through the cracks? On 12/17/24 09:51, Jeroen Ooms wrote: > A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to > R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1000 times > per second if a user has interrupted, but it is difficult for the > caller to

tl;dr: R_CheckUserInterrupt() can be a performance bottleneck within GUIs. This also affects functions in the 'stats' package, which could be improved by changing the position of calls to R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Dear all, Recently I was puzzled because some code in a package under development, which consisted almost entirely of a .Call() to a function written in

On 12/18/24 01:19, Simon Urbanek wrote: > It seems benign, but has implications since checking time is actually not a cheap operation: adding jus ta time check alone incurs a penalty of ca. 700% compared with the time it takes to call R_CheckUserInterrupt(). Generally, it makes no sense to check interrupts at every iteration - you'll find code like if (++i % 10000 == 0)

A more generic solution would be for R to throttle calls to R_CheckUserInterrupt(), because it makes no sense to check 1000 times per second if a user has interrupted, but it is difficult for the caller to know when R_CheckUserInterrupt() has been last called, or do it regularly without over-doing it. Here is a simple patch: https://github.com/r-devel/r-svn/pull/125 See also:

Hello, I am writing an R interface for one of my C++ programs. The computations in C++ are very time consuming (several hours), so the user needs to be able to interrupt them. Currently, the only way I found to do so is calling R_CheckUserInterrupt() frequently. Unfortunately, there are several problems with that: 1. Calling R_CheckUserInterrupt() interrupts immediately, so I have no

There's enough here to need a review; some of it probably needs backporting to stable-1.12. This probably breaks tests on Haiku or other platforms that have not been as on-the-ball about atomic CLOEXEC; feel free to report issues that arise, and I'll help come up with workarounds (even if we end up leaving a rare fd leak on less-capable systems). Meanwhile, I'm still working on my

On Feb 10, 2005, at 7:38 PM, George W. Gilchrist wrote: > Today I was running a graduate level stats lab using R and we > encountered a > major problem while using the current build of the Cocoa GUI: > >> From the GUI: >> system.time(pbinom(80, 1e5, 806/1e6)) > [1] 14.37 4.94 30.29 0.00 0.00 >> > >> From the command line on the same machine: >>

Hello, My problem is that I have an extension in C++ that can be quite time-consuming. I'd like to make it interruptible. The problem is that if I use the recommended R_CheckUserInterrupt() method I have no possibility to cleanup (e.g. free the memory). I've seen an old thread about this, but I wonder if there's a new and definitive answer. I just do not understand why a simple

Hello, I was reading through serialize.c and i couldn't answer something. In readItem, case CHARSXP, rules exists to adjust the read string for string encoding. Q1. I couldn't find where the encoding of the elements of the string vector are written? Is it when writeItem writes out the attributes of the item? But i couldn't find encoding in the attributes field x <-

Hi All, I realize that this is not a really nice reprex, but anyone has an idea why a background R session would "remember" an interrupt (SIGINT) on Unix? rs <- callr::r_session$new() rs$interrupt() # just sends a SIGINT #> [1] TRUE rs$run(function() 1+1) #> Error: interrupt rs$run(function() 1+1) #> [1] 2 It seems that the main loop somehow stores the SIGINT it

Unfortunately --interactive also makes the session interactive(), which is bad for me, as it is a background session. In general, I don't want the interactive behavior, but was wondering if I could send as SIGINT to try to interrupt the computation of the background process, and if that does not work, then I would send a SIGKILL and start up another process. It all works nicely, except for

Yeah, I get that they are async. What happens is that the background process is not doing anything when the process gets a SIGINT. I.e. the background process is just listening on its standard input. AFAICT for an interactive process such a SIGINT is just swallowed, with a newline outputted to the terminal. But apparently, for this background process, it is not swallowed, and it is triggered

Hi, An R package on which I am working makes a series of very computationally-intensive and complex .C() calls, that I would like to make interruptible. However, calling R_CheckUserInterrupt() causes a non-local exit, so the memory allocated by malloc() is never freed. The way the code is structured, it might not be practical to replace all the malloc() calls with R_alloc() calls. The question

Hi, As the subject suggests, I am looking for the most robust way to call an (arbitrary) function from the R API from another but the main POSIX thread in a package's code. I know that, "[c]alling any of the R API from threaded code is ?for experts only? and strongly discouraged. Many functions in the R API modify internal R data structures and might corrupt these data structures if

OK, I managed to create an example without callr, but it is still somewhat cumbersome. Anyway, here it is. Terminal 1: mkfifo fif R --no-readline --slave --no-save --no-restore < fif Terminal 2: cat > fif Sys.getpid() This will make Terminal 1 print the pid of the R process, so we can send a SIGINT: Terminal 3: kill -INT pid The R process is of course still running happily. Terminal 2