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: Wed, 05 Jul 2023 11:26:01 +0000 Message-ID: <87sfa28ura.fsf@localhost> References: <871qhnr4ty.fsf@localhost> <83v8ezk3cj.fsf@gnu.org> <87v8ezpov0.fsf@localhost> <83r0pnk2az.fsf@gnu.org> <87pm57pns8.fsf@localhost> <87lefvp55t.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="4855"; 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 Wed Jul 05 13:27:37 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 1qH0fY-00012j-Hy for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 13:27:36 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1qH0eA-0000wT-KZ; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 07:26:10 -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 1qH0e8-0000vx-Mu for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 07:26:08 -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 1qH0e7-0007Fb-2T for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Wed, 05 Jul 2023 07:26:08 -0400 Original-Received: from submission (posteo.de [185.67.36.169]) by mout01.posteo.de (Postfix) with ESMTPS id BC03A240027 for ; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:26:04 +0200 (CEST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/simple; d=posteo.net; s=2017; t=1688556364; bh=3CPysWPyMpsrQELB6ACmpYqOeGd+AcFF8kDFgZ/dx4A=; h=From:To:Cc:Subject:Date:Message-ID:MIME-Version:From; b=Ij8fBES3Pmj8x0FxWxJloIw5YMLgWfMLjy+Y/Phzj7cUEhNrc9RyXbBkSpPTBS8Zx my5k5SRKtrcu1uLJpUUlowuDJgFvguUDBvFxCd6xLLvmETRsaqYb4S60JnvbY+MAz5 Jly1p/fVcxP4+gHzcSjQqUyb0yOeAOrS+zgfydXvzZXby86ERFjYP+rdx//4ZKL8s1 CINEP8BdCJoZlSLleudoY2+isiTZwLR6UstCEIilbkmHyOKxS7fSpWqxWeUcIMaHWK sCVpvV1JX5TcC2qRH9+AfM0/iBtWJUEmGncbHNNH8Syz8pFKMqR1HJa+MLJMSQpnmg J33UwNBVqi48A== Original-Received: from customer (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by submission (posteo.de) with ESMTPSA id 4Qwy5m014Dz9rxP; Wed, 5 Jul 2023 13:26:03 +0200 (CEST) In-Reply-To: <87lefvp55t.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=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:307455 Archived-At: Po Lu writes: > Ihor Radchenko writes: > >> But why is it a problem? Isn't it normal for a C++ thread to get pointer >> to the parent heap? For Emacs async process, it can, for example, be a >> pointer to obarray. > > How will you interlock access to obarray? What if both processes call > gensym at the same time? I imagine that only a single, main Emacs process will truly own the obarray. The child async Emacs process will (1) partially have its own obarray for lexical bindings; (2) query the parent process when there is a need to read/write the shared obarray. The query will be processed by the parent process synchronously, so the situation you described will be impossible. -- Ihor Radchenko // yantar92, Org mode contributor, Learn more about Org mode at . Support Org development at , or support my work at