From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Eli Zaretskii Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 17:08:02 +0300 Message-ID: <831qhli14t.fsf@gnu.org> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.fsf@yahoo.com> <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> <87cz16o8vz.fsf@yahoo.com> <87jzve8r4m.fsf@localhost> <871qhmo5nv.fsf@yahoo.com> <87bkgq8p5t.fsf@localhost> <831qhmjwk0.fsf@gnu.org> <875y6y8nlr.fsf@localhost> <87h6qhnalc.fsf@yahoo.com> <87ilax71wo.fsf@localhost> Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="32980"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: luangruo@yahoo.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Ihor Radchenko Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 16:08:57 2023 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([209.51.188.17]) by ciao.gmane.io with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.92) (envelope-from ) id 1qHPfF-0008K0-IZ for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 16:08:57 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHPeS-0002nI-9S; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:08:08 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHPeM-0002mg-LA for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:08:03 -0400 Original-Received: from fencepost.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHPeM-0004ec-5P; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:08:02 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gnu.org; s=fencepost-gnu-org; h=References:Subject:In-Reply-To:To:From:Date: mime-version; bh=8VBk8ryf+sR5Hsa4BN7MYdDCPAyXxvm5yvRo0qycHxA=; b=WQPOcRwHDiyp Jls1yHks77E3DnONkNSKsLq0yHtfPbbPDU5u7ZdPgDpo4MdYRvDlAWkd5SY8CAJ667w36Zp2cyQrT LHAbMYc4z2ndcIPsivVjucxkX2vGMtsDLN3ZLk6ZEEt+FXauQLt8Y0pvDj2tLDKfj+YueJV7BWlmo KJfJC1omK1GalLUCjjuhwvVIgA2aSv4N97ruvAtG47vfTNJ/nbGoxlW9C2i2FRoTXyVXuTm8JF631 H+PPOMjXADNrPAt2oQX/+XjiOEueXo7EQeajTeg07aH0f0Wt8ZNfg8ehFKW/eN29Ibr6BAi/L4RRg DOUv8VjKTWBUcnSIbpPhwQ==; Original-Received: from [87.69.77.57] (helo=home-c4e4a596f7) by fencepost.gnu.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHPeL-0003Ni-38; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:08:01 -0400 In-Reply-To: <87ilax71wo.fsf@localhost> (message from Ihor Radchenko on Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:46:47 +0000) X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29 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-mx.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:307507 Archived-At: > From: Ihor Radchenko > Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org > Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 10:46:47 +0000 > > Po Lu writes: > > >> Emm. I meant memory allocation. AFAIK, just like GC allocating heap > >> cannot be asynchronous. > > > > The garbage collector and object allocation can be interlocked, as with > > everything else... > > I may be wrong, but from my previous experience with performance > benchmarks, memory allocation often takes a significant fraction of CPU > time. And memory allocation is a routine process on pretty much every > iteration of CPU-intensive code. Do you have any evidence for that which you can share? GC indeed takes significant time, but memory allocation? never heard of that. > Is there a way to measure how much CPU time is spent allocating memory? If you don't know about such a way, then how did you conclude it could take significant time? > Would it be of interest to allow locking objects for read/write using > semantics similar to `with-mutex'? Locking slows down software and should be avoided, I'm sure you know it. But the global lock used by the Lisp threads we have is actually such a lock, and the results are well known.