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 10:46:47 +0000 Message-ID: <87ilax71wo.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> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="28527"; 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 12:47:43 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 1qHMWT-0007E8-IT for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 12:47:41 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qHMVl-0000eW-GE; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 06:46:57 -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 1qHMVi-0000dr-Ll for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 06:46:54 -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 1qHMVf-00040M-W4 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 06 Jul 2023 06:46:54 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout02.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id DA15F240101 for ; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 12:46:47 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688640407; bh=yaYYxVG9QH+bkaEdYEyNKzuh1+3S7uWqLIUhJEkSYIE=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=UGRQv6HsEteF7dxvUuy4mGRAWA9CrZ4EOEfYD4kmPF3x/+IhyZktG2NPvfr3CxJZP sFGArjhDACEEXIWsFICSUqGKVlMDUMpcOHSjwwOZgFuxUMFEgmkHM9xIg/f8ffencR 4/d1GT+EZnrZ7m6Cg8yNhj8kLBzZPx2lXmsxw5IEOJNEb9dlu+Kg89APZzG3AaTElp dEAfvl3YV800JNZxIqfEsOlsH8ZDvID6MwkLDHRKJUHblRglmrjbLc2g5tny0sdqwq nhUN5rF7/WBVj1NBvTvxJgo3/fVUy3fQje5Wv/liBu+aN59S7YZ9bC4dRJonR4l5WN ScXPT8nppeCaw== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4QxY9z0VtHz6tm4; Thu, 6 Jul 2023 12:46:46 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87h6qhnalc.fsf@yahoo.com> Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.67.36.66; envelope-from=yantar92@posteo.net; helo=mout02.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:307492 Archived-At: 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. I am afraid that interlocking object allocation will practically create race condition between threads and make Emacs unresponsive. Or am I missing something? Is there a way to measure how much CPU time is spent allocating memory? >> This too, although isn't is already solved by mutexes? > > ... which you proceed to admit here, and is the crux of the problem. > Getting rid of the Lisp interpreter state that is still not thread-local > (BLV redirects come to mind) is only a minor challenge, compared to the > painstaking and careful work that will be required to interlock access > to the rest of the global state and objects like buffers. Would it be of interest to allow locking objects for read/write using semantics similar to `with-mutex'? -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at