From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:18:58 -0700 Message-ID: <5a860f84-bb7e-38e0-fc10-c9d794382b79@dancol.org> References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <83bmy0pl8p.fsf@gnu.org> <831sywp7ew.fsf@gnu.org> <83y413nsjm.fsf@gnu.org> <83funbnngl.fsf@gnu.org> <83d1ifnmto.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478021853 22799 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 17:37:33 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 17:37:33 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 18:37:29 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1czp-0003lf-Bx for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 18:37:13 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49647 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1czr-0006Qa-Um for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:37:15 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:60101) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ciH-0000WK-Cn for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:19:06 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ciE-00069M-8A for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:19:05 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:34220) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ciE-00069A-0X; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:19:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=K0B8d5S1PWUyj9Vp08NEjK7GLEGHEuVaMXpEAqjzu7Y=; b=bE4kCtcQ9GJKYGozfXV7PQQG5LnFsbSNnGZSjlL5w4bbDGUGiUlAYGEdHjoUzR1JMfaGy312KBWtCcUrZmVXGRI3pJ3Hw9Vb3whEW49bSDK9TS6oFvXiwCRSgw870vSWY+uz0e5RwCfWBz4L0mEb1U6l8h9JuaK6YOn2WyrZ7L20BAq0bhgMbPNM2LqAmlmg4/kRwrU2OpU8rQLT5Z/yKDf+YGFUg6SOcBhiHmUSCGf6764ZGBBYbhvTescoivHk2FzOZx/W5Vpm+UVSxooZ34oqd/WaYuCA8+NY1ukbvJmiqE5AVMoIPA0ozDhSck6eMGgBN9E84eYyB3GaklvYpg==; Original-Received: from c-73-97-199-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.199.232] helo=[192.168.1.173]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1ciD-0004PB-4o; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:19:01 -0700 In-Reply-To: <83d1ifnmto.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 Precedence: list List-Id: "Emacs development discussions." List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: "Emacs-devel" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209067 Archived-At: On 11/01/2016 10:15 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: Daniel Colascione >> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:14 -0700 >> >> On 11/01/2016 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >>>> Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >>>> From: Daniel Colascione >>>> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:41 -0700 >>>> >>>> Name one system we support that both _has_ threads and that doesn't have >>>> a thread-safe system malloc. If we're using our own malloc and _that_ >>>> isn't thread-safe, that doesn't count. I insist that on modern systems, >>>> the malloc and free that come with libc are thread safe. >>> >>> You can insist all you like, it won't change my mind: thread-safety in >>> malloc is only now becoming widespread and reliable enough, and older >>> systems where there are various bugs in that regard are still with us >>> in significant numbers. Just google the keywords, and you will see >>> the bug reports and their dates. >> >> Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim is >> extraordinary: it's been common practice for _decades_ to make memory >> allocations from multiple threads in multithreaded programming. > > This is simply incorrect. On _some_ platforms, that is true. But not > on all, not anywhere near that. I'm not asking you to enumerate all platforms with both threads and thread-unsafe malloc. I'm just asking for _one_ platform that a) has threads, b) has thread-unsafe malloc, and that c) Emacs supports today. If you're researched this topic, you should be able to name one. > >>> I think we've lost context: this thread is not about the concurrency >>> branch, where only one thread runs at a time, for which that Python >>> paper is irrelevant. This thread (or at least what I wrote above) is >>> about the proposal to have more than one thread that performs >>> CPU-intensive tasks, so that the main thread could go about its >>> business. For that, you will definitely want CPU preemption, because >>> those tasks don't have to run Lisp. >> >> If those CPU-intensive tasks are not written in Lisp, there is no need >> to hold the GIL while running them, so other threads can run Lisp in >> parallel. > > CPU-intensive threads that cannot manipulate Lisp objects (not run > Lisp, but create and destroy Lisp objects) are not very useful in > Emacs. > Redisplay itself can run without invoking Lisp _most_ of the time, and it can take the GIL when it does. Other tasks, like image decoding and calls into native modules, can also run without invoking Lisp.