From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Pip Cet via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: igc, macOS avoiding signals Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 19:20:40 +0000 Message-ID: <87v7v3eht9.fsf@protonmail.com> References: <799DDBC5-2C14-4476-B1E0-7BA2FE9E7901@toadstyle.org> <87ldvzg7vi.fsf@protonmail.com> <868qrzsojd.fsf@gnu.org> <87a5cffy8n.fsf@protonmail.com> <864j2nskup.fsf@gnu.org> <861pxrsk1z.fsf@gnu.org> Reply-To: Pip Cet Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="36958"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" Cc: spd@toadstyle.org, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Sat Dec 28 20:27:28 2024 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 1tRcT9-0009S1-J6 for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:27:27 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRcSf-0000t5-Cb; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:26:57 -0500 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 1tRcMj-0000IZ-LH for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:20:49 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-40133.protonmail.ch ([185.70.40.133]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tRcMh-0002fO-Sk for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:20:49 -0500 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=protonmail.com; s=protonmail3; t=1735413645; x=1735672845; bh=JOozrQiqc9qn2exwbMpCf78JgYzq8d97vAzUhjEMEDQ=; h=Date:To:From:Cc:Subject:Message-ID:In-Reply-To:References: Feedback-ID:From:To:Cc:Date:Subject:Reply-To:Feedback-ID: Message-ID:BIMI-Selector:List-Unsubscribe:List-Unsubscribe-Post; b=mP/e6erhXqTNpRUwnNIiTpdhnOlqyWs1eiM7vR5aJrX2RNRsLJqU3wQB6FFsI2muT kskbPi9rKWcWpOQbtFKCl2qHvMJlGUxSsz015TwuPXzQjSLtaqW5HcyIlkyccFJ3Pk HcV9gTuLRzdGd8tI2+PrXZfy7ni6TBbQmn3xQKovIi3djnPLjClY/AzWtS6IfwhEZE G3KlotjqzGLnxV0ULhuQmWFuZwmgaL3OmtUh2mRN4K86Yev8z11519c8wrlHMapTw/ RVutyQPs8ENhNRa5vtonQUSkQ9kbqnEfUFwvi+sfYDRhQnGJkIYxQ0/xTWt7T2WDi3 kWIzDJENhEimw== In-Reply-To: <861pxrsk1z.fsf@gnu.org> Feedback-ID: 112775352:user:proton X-Pm-Message-ID: d3a26fd9c4cc83fe12ea0736a3f1b5551297441d Received-SPF: pass client-ip=185.70.40.133; envelope-from=pipcet@protonmail.com; helo=mail-40133.protonmail.ch X-Spam_score_int: -10 X-Spam_score: -1.1 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.1 / 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, FREEMAIL_FROM=0.001, FREEMAIL_REPLY=1, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_H3=0.001, RCVD_IN_MSPIKE_WL=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_CERTIFIED_BLOCKED=0.001, RCVD_IN_VALIDITY_RPBL_BLOCKED=0.001, SPF_HELO_PASS=-0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 autolearn=no autolearn_force=no X-Spam_action: no action X-Mailman-Approved-At: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 14:26:54 -0500 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:327289 Archived-At: "Eli Zaretskii" writes: >> Date: Sat, 28 Dec 2024 20:50:22 +0200 >> From: Eli Zaretskii >> Cc: spd@toadstyle.org, gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> >> > > What do we expect to learn from this, >> > >> > It tests the current code, which does this: >> > >> > When a signal arrives, and we can't handle it because we might have >> > interrupted MPS, we mark the signal as pending in the igc structure. = At >> > some point later, we check the igc structure for pending signals, >> > reraise them, and unmask them. >> > >> > Gerd's experience suggests that the "some point later" happens too lat= e. >> > This patch gives us measurements. >> > >> > It's unrelated to the OS scheduler, AFAICS. >> >> Ah, okay. I note that if we'd block signals when calling MPS and >> unblock on exit, then these delays couldn't have happened, AFAIU. > > But OTOH, if this delaying of a signal affects responsiveness, then > all we need to do is exempt SIGSEGV from being delayed, right? This > signal-delay mechanism was invented for SIGPROF, SIGCHLD, and SIGALRM, > but there's no reason to delay SIGSEGV. SIGSEGV is never delayed in any proposal I'm aware of. I don't see how it could be, to be honest, but maybe I'm missing something there. > And AFAIU, on macOS there's no SIGSEGV anyway, is that right? So why > does this delaying affect responsiveness? Possibly SIGPOLL. Pip