From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Helmut Eller Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Some experience with the igc branch Date: Thu, 26 Dec 2024 13:24:13 +0100 Message-ID: <87wmfmy6mq.fsf@gmail.com> References: <87o713wwsi.fsf@telefonica.net> <87ldw6as5f.fsf@protonmail.com> <86o7112rnq.fsf@gnu.org> <867c7p2nz4.fsf@gnu.org> <861pxx2lh7.fsf@gnu.org> <86ldw40xbo.fsf@gnu.org> <86a5cj2a0e.fsf@gnu.org> <867c7n28sf.fsf@gnu.org> <877c7n962e.fsf@gmail.com> <8634ib24gp.fsf@gnu.org> <875xn75w7u.fsf@gmail.com> <86ttaryn1x.fsf@gnu.org> <877c7mzxbw.fsf@gmail.com> <861pxuzt61.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="27992"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Cc: gerd.moellmann@gmail.com, pipcet@protonmail.com, ofv@wanadoo.es, emacs-devel@gnu.org, acorallo@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Thu Dec 26 13:25:03 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 1tQmvG-0007Av-Up for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 13:25:02 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1] helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQmue-0008Nu-E6; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 07:24:24 -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 1tQmua-0008NF-2G for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 07:24:20 -0500 Original-Received: from mail-ed1-x52e.google.com ([2a00:1450:4864:20::52e]) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1tQmuY-0005if-BT; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 07:24:19 -0500 Original-Received: by mail-ed1-x52e.google.com with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5d7e3f1fdafso12692370a12.0; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 04:24:16 -0800 (PST) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20230601; t=1735215855; x=1735820655; darn=gnu.org; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:from:to:cc:subject:date:message-id:reply-to; bh=cLhROziQSF52VMr+QGTnhDAdSgD6RQiS9XXGF70bbzw=; b=biVsoGlf8fOfz05QC2++Qt5kcu4kZTUKQ2mQJqueiKkl5b8PFUkh0GsFAczVeNRUDX igF0D1/vJeDAr86GMsgIXyfOM4A9cHnpkRG6WgQn9aB3fsvMXWxbQaTudxui/+Jm0iTv S3HXmQjM/9WFIXl1WSXkf3r6q/byqp00Axc0DLO2HQPbcV5L06mXEFVnfr3thZVGd/Dy XqG58zSax3VWp7UepHLfZ+7YIIYqWTLdF7JaUI7bbYq2JIAI0tIaWIOCwv+GuaXizWVH 1I0FFYM4K2pc8S2BSYdCn0yXupYT/t3yt4fOrU2NyCBfDWO9GeYzAVrxhlrReKh2PNl4 0cig== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20230601; t=1735215855; x=1735820655; h=mime-version:user-agent:message-id:date:references:in-reply-to :subject:cc:to:from:x-gm-message-state:from:to:cc:subject:date :message-id:reply-to; bh=cLhROziQSF52VMr+QGTnhDAdSgD6RQiS9XXGF70bbzw=; b=udjv3EJHER6QrA+TNmiBM8Ok3ClPLh207B0DA/qnqnxEfSyLCOmwsaH6725fkHQTc/ CACwtnFl6hfq/as1i7CD9N/jz+WHyhoGsnzJ3wE/C8nUuBXriRFRw+Bk/W/D5rBpqBMm LnozZ9EwR1TwHBLohcjIFeEL5L8Y9E/vXqeHGxCDfEeAn6niQB1ptOxGGXLwF7qJDiL/ ehNbLIWGQgvRIV0zA0rIJQ3qBy+79/VToC9iMAAEYKQc5lbmvHN4lpwoMRvUmS4V+Spl B1xYXJFpS5vUluAYJli0VF/KFTMp9dU5PnzSM7yfjNv6IZoPqbizcT7QIJWVTFvyj3i4 OyCA== X-Forwarded-Encrypted: i=1; AJvYcCV7TWT8CK3Y/zsRh4FXAuOfnStKOSGR7aYkK3SesxRuQjL6bv4ayYFz8wIikcxq9uOfoQ532lDntsobg1o=@gnu.org, AJvYcCWO3vjdrVMjI5iK0mAta1S1kzit4vvMT8rMlm/BMSRZPTVVlp8ai8RtAN3WkZZL5cQ9YE/FHx/kaQ==@gnu.org X-Gm-Message-State: AOJu0YwDxmQn42pcCBkw0/+AqJJY+/iEk459fjwMTxcQWs513QN+mIRg Mu3o9W+mfpyWpSir7ayXpViYUDGxHpKeiKK8lgyjc5yEcw1qfvUP68L9h/R2 X-Gm-Gg: ASbGncsOyFCAa03/P69i9ihWk0Kj1EQOyaDdbbenLKv2j1pdhXem1ZKYfb0y6khKTOa 5eE98zTI2kpK2Nx70imgASK3J6bckBLnkoH/hwTbUlFkftiaXmcGp8rJvoZSZis/n4LjIIwnIf9 KhlO6/IU6sHj3iPfiF04dOLzlrHOgT3Zo6xfEZfy9gwbCR/+3RAj45hfPNJTnORdTYWUqmvL+Yu 40LS/rgw4PnWzF/KO3jhA5Nm7arf4gJQ4rpBrXaH1i5iNbHx0Wi+sA= X-Google-Smtp-Source: AGHT+IGypFPLws08QtmJN05lgaT6dx+tvO3608wsgkBU0KbaJ2KMkDlmabVrMvT061Opn/OOvg5nrg== X-Received: by 2002:a05:6402:2347:b0:5d0:cca6:233a with SMTP id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5d81dd9cc7fmr23360775a12.10.1735215855330; Thu, 26 Dec 2024 04:24:15 -0800 (PST) Original-Received: from caladan ([31.177.115.143]) by smtp.gmail.com with ESMTPSA id 4fb4d7f45d1cf-5d806fedc18sm9350937a12.59.2024.12.26.04.24.14 (version=TLS1_3 cipher=TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 bits=256/256); Thu, 26 Dec 2024 04:24:14 -0800 (PST) In-Reply-To: <861pxuzt61.fsf@gnu.org> (Eli Zaretskii's message of "Thu, 26 Dec 2024 11:32:06 +0200") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=2a00:1450:4864:20::52e; envelope-from=eller.helmut@gmail.com; helo=mail-ed1-x52e.google.com X-Spam_score_int: -20 X-Spam_score: -2.1 X-Spam_bar: -- X-Spam_report: (-2.1 / 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, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_NONE=-0.0001, SPF_HELO_NONE=0.001, SPF_PASS=-0.001 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:327146 Archived-At: On Thu, Dec 26 2024, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> > Yes, I think so. (If you disagree, please tell why, and let's discuss >> > that.) It is certainly a relatively simple thing to do. >> >> I quite like Pip's proposal of re-installing the SIGSEGV handler with an >> additional sa_mask argument to block other signals. That would be nice >> because a) we can do that without changing MPS and b) it's likely more >> efficient than callbacks. > > Are we sure doing so will solve the problem? AFAIU, MPS can take the > lock before SIGSEGV is delivered, or without its being delivered at > all, isn't that so? Ahem. I completely forgot that. An alternative to callbacks would be to implement our own lock module as described here: https://memory-pool-system.readthedocs.io/en/latest/topic/porting.html It would probably be a clean and efficient solution; but it would basically be our own fork of MPS. >> It would still be nice to simplify some signal handlers, like >> handle_interrupt_signal, but with other signals blocked for SIGSEGV, it >> would all be quite independent of MPS. > > Maybe. What bothers me more is whether the signals are delivered only > to the main thread or to other threads. AFAIU, this behavior is > system-dependent, and currently we seem to rely on the fact that the > signals is delivered to the main thread. Given that we have other > threads, including the MPS thread, I'm not sure we have this figured > out. I thought deliver_process_signal was there to forward signals to the main thread but you certainly know better what it does and doesn't. Helmut