From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.io!.POSTED.blaine.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andrea Corallo via "Emacs development discussions." Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Opportunistic GC Date: Mon, 08 Mar 2021 14:01:52 +0000 Message-ID: References: Reply-To: Andrea Corallo Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain Injection-Info: ciao.gmane.io; posting-host="blaine.gmane.org:116.202.254.214"; logging-data="10823"; mail-complaints-to="usenet@ciao.gmane.io" User-Agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/28.0.50 (gnu/linux) Cc: Stefan Monnier , eliz@gnu.org, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Pip Cet Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane-mx.org@gnu.org Mon Mar 08 15:38:15 2021 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 1lJH1T-0002h1-3u for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 15:38:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:47870 helo=lists1p.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJH1S-0008Vl-6k for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane-mx.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:38:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:470:142:3::10]:56456) by lists.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJGSM-0003xP-M3 for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:01:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mx.sdf.org ([205.166.94.24]:62041) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_256_GCM_SHA384:256) (Exim 4.90_1) (envelope-from ) id 1lJGSK-0005xM-0p; Mon, 08 Mar 2021 09:01:58 -0500 Original-Received: from mab (ma.sdf.org [205.166.94.33]) by mx.sdf.org (8.15.2/8.14.5) with ESMTPS id 128E1qfd010375 (using TLSv1.3 with cipher TLS_AES_256_GCM_SHA384 (256 bits) verified NO); Mon, 8 Mar 2021 14:01:53 GMT In-Reply-To: (Pip Cet's message of "Mon, 8 Mar 2021 07:20:28 +0000") Received-SPF: pass client-ip=205.166.94.24; envelope-from=akrl@sdf.org; helo=mx.sdf.org X-Spam_score_int: -18 X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_bar: - X-Spam_report: (-1.9 / 5.0 requ) BAYES_00=-1.9, SPF_HELO_PASS=-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: 2.1.23 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" Xref: news.gmane.io gmane.emacs.devel:266183 Archived-At: Pip Cet writes: > On Mon, Mar 8, 2021 at 3:37 AM Stefan Monnier wrote: >> I've been running with the code below recently to try and see if >> opportunistic GC can be worth the trouble. > > Just a random idea: What if we exploit the fact most people have more > than one CPU core these days, garbage-collect in a separate fork()ed > process, then do only the sweeping in the main process? It's an interesting concept, I thought about something similar in the past but, I've two questions: Are we really sure that a non trivial process can long survive or work as expected after being forked? Do we have (an efficient) fork on all supported systems? Thanks Andrea