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: Concurrency via isolated process/thread Date: Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:31:11 +0000 Message-ID: <87a5w96x2o.fsf@localhost> 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> <878rbtkz2c.fsf@yahoo.com> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="640"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: Eli Zaretskii , emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Po Lu Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Jul 06 14:32:29 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 1qHO9s-000AWJ-70 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 14:32:28 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHO8s-0007W6-Jx; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 08:31:26 -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 1qHO8k-0007TV-MH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 08:31:22 -0400 Original-Received: from mout01.posteo.de ([185.67.36.65]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHO8g-0005DV-PK for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 08:31:17 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 3B0FD240029 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:31:11 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688646671; bh=597GgJ2+gt1YltOy/qGdQdB02b+U7TyHoBHwzkR1Ph8=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=dq6c8ygtKCrOMByDASpf8heOyR8lAm6Pc/mUcA20FUWKiU8iuo+G5nJQXsQfCwz+d fdClEOBKcuYA9yonqtVC44D8Ec8yKOjZB5B37THUCfEWKxlfJ38oR7PsUwBMlLle+u FbJDwYgccLliXJ6yir2wwTwHVPdnMYNoSoLglKTY2iTFNhqPyWgDjMJvBf1sAO8XmN 2d4li5pyvyzQ1hizJk0j8x7FQjtxWynIx0KR2p56TLLwR5uvHsVoO2iOh/ocg9qgp8 gZze6Sy4F09H8lH+/zTKj2ZPRAvq/Nn06xZWMYlV7dZSGdYPay+SIjVj41bhfBHAYX MnB7AisBKv4rA== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QxbVQ3VcDz6twn; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 14:31:10 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <878rbtkz2c.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.65; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout01.posteo.de X-Spam_score_int: -43 X-Spam_score: -4.4 X-Spam_bar: ---- X-Spam_report: (-4.4 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, DKIM_SIGNED=0.1, DKIM_VALID=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_AU=-0.1, DKIM_VALID_EF=-0.1, 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, T_SCC_BODY_TEXT_LINE=-0.01 autolearn=ham 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:307497 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: >> Or am I missing something? >> Is there a way to measure how much CPU time is spent allocating memory? > > The detail of the interlocking can be increased if and when this is > demonstrated to be problematic. Allocating individual Lisp objects > usually takes a short amount of time: even if no two threads can do so > at the same time, they will all have ample opportunities to run in > between consings. That's why I asked if there is a way to measure how much CPU time allocating takes. >> Would it be of interest to allow locking objects for read/write using >> semantics similar to `with-mutex'? > > The problem is interlocking access to low level C state within objects > and not from Lisp code itself, and also avoiding constructs such as: > > CHECK_STRING (XCAR (foo)); > foo = XSTRING (XCAR (foo)); > > where the second load from XCAR (foo)->u.s.car might load a different > pointer from the one whose type was checked. I am thinking about some kind of extra flag that will mark an object locked: LOCK_OBJECT (foo); LOCK_OBJECT (XCAR (foo)); CHECK_STRING (XCAR (foo)); foo = XSTRING (XCAR (foo)); UNLOCK_OBJECT (XCAR (foo)); UNLOCK_OBJECT (foo); LOCK_OBJECT will block until the object is available for use. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at