From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Ihor Radchenko Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Emacs design and architecture. How about copy-on-write? Date: Sat, 23 Sep 2023 11:07:54 +0000 Message-ID: <877coh2lmd.fsf@localhost> References: <87cyyhc7uu.fsf@dataswamp.org> <83ttrsg9nx.fsf@gnu.org> <83h6nrg4eg.fsf@gnu.org> <83v8c7elan.fsf@gnu.org> <877conk5ny.fsf@localhost> <83ttrreeu0.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkdzeas1.fsf@localhost> <83cyyfe5l8.fsf@gnu.org> <87led2o0nb.fsf@localhost> <83ttrqcpfb.fsf@gnu.org> <877comnv4a.fsf@localhost> <83fs3ackrq.fsf@gnu.org> <87ttrp89bx.fsf@localhost> <83led1aqnq.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8c3zun7.fsf@localhost> <83r0mr8w0j.fsf@gnu.org> <87bkduxz3l.fsf@localhost> <83cyya75eb.fsf@gnu.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="31658"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: acm@muc.de, incal@dataswamp.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Sep 23 13:34:31 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 1qk0u7-000827-J7 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 13:34:31 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0TN-0008PN-6C; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 07:06:53 -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 1qk0TL-0008Oi-K3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 07:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from mout02.posteo.de ([185.67.36.66]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qk0TJ-0001FH-IT for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 07:06:51 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 049DE240103 for ; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 13:06:47 +0200 (CEST) Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Rt5tZ0gPNz6tvJ; Sat, 23 Sep 2023 13:06:45 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <83cyya75eb.fsf@gnu.org> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -41 X-Spam_score: -4.2 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.2 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-2.3, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H5=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action 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:310998 Archived-At: Eli Zaretskii writes: > If we are talking about an Emacs where programs meant for threads will > need to be written from scratch using special protocols and > primitives, then all bets are off, and I'm not sure everything we > discussed at such a great length lately is at all useful or even > relevant. The idea was to allow existing Lisp programs run from > threads with little or no changes, by just starting a thread which > runs a function that is already written and debugged when running in > the (single) main thread. If this is not what you have in mind, try > first to see if users will be likely to switch to such an Emacs or use > such threads, when they know they will need to drop everything and > start from scratch. Who will want to write a "multithreaded Gnus" > starting from scratch? Let me clarify. I am not saying that existing Elisp code should not be allowed to run from threads. It should. However, I think that it can be acceptable to leave certain things interlocked - if async thread is querying, for example, user input or redisplay, acquire a global (or input/redisplay) lock, and run that portion of the thread synchronously. That way, we can still allow useful Elisp to run concurrently, when running CPU-intensive computation. These CPU-intensive parts will need to be rewritten with concurrency in mind. But only parts - the rest of the code could be left unchanged without breaking things. Later, we may also figure out more tricky parts related to async input/redisplay. >> Maybe. But reducing the overall waiting time at the cost of not seeing >> the progress is an OK compromise, IMHO. > > If the time is more than, say, a second or two, then no, such a > compromise will not be liked. At least for Grep-style searches and > other compile-like commands. Sure. I am talking about M-x grep on large projects, when it takes tens of seconds to finish. Same for org-agenda - it is not uncommon when org-agenda searches last for a minute when search criteria is complex. >> What about addressing the existing problems with cooperating Lisp >> threads then? > > What about it? Patches are welcome, of course. Last time we > discussed these issues, we were unable to find good ideas for solving > them. Maybe we should try discussing them again. Are you referring to input discussion? Something else? I think that it could be useful to document problems to be solved in etc/TODO. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at