From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Stefan Monnier Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Concurrency in Emacs Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:18 -0400 Message-ID: NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1332172564 7940 80.91.229.3 (19 Mar 2012 15:56:04 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 19 Mar 2012 15:56:04 +0000 (UTC) To: emacs-devel@gnu.org Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 19 16:55:58 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1S9ew0-0001oE-2y for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 16:55:48 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:35012 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9evz-0007IF-Fz for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:47 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([208.118.235.92]:34374) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9evf-0006Yv-3b for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:45 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9evZ-0002AF-IO for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:26 -0400 Original-Received: from ironport2-out.teksavvy.com ([206.248.154.181]:57739) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1S9evZ-00029y-EL for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:21 -0400 X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Filtered: true X-IronPort-Anti-Spam-Result: AokGAKU/KE9MCpf3/2dsb2JhbACBX48mjVV5kziTUYYZBJsZhAk X-IronPort-AV: E=Sophos;i="4.73,1,1325480400"; d="scan'208";a="168892066" Original-Received: from 76-10-151-247.dsl.teksavvy.com (HELO pastel.home) ([76.10.151.247]) by ironport2-out.teksavvy.com with ESMTP/TLS/ADH-AES256-SHA; 19 Mar 2012 11:55:19 -0400 Original-Received: by pastel.home (Postfix, from userid 20848) id B55D059158; Mon, 19 Mar 2012 11:55:18 -0400 (EDT) User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.94 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 206.248.154.181 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 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.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:149131 Archived-At: Some of you may remember that when talking about what kind of concurrency should be added to Emacs (locks, transactions, younameit), I was of the opinion that we should stick to cooperative for now and we may never want to move away from it because there might be a way to make it parallel. You may also remember that I was referring to a work that I couldn't find any more. Well, I think I found something related: http://ocm.dreamhosters.com/ I'm not sure whether such an approach is workable for Elisp (the optimistic STM approach is not workable because of the difficulty of unrolling side-effects, and it might be difficult to avoid deadlocks in the lock-based approach), but I think it's an interesting direction if we want to preserve enough backward compatibility. Stefan