From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Daniel Colascione Newsgroups: gmane.emacs.devel Subject: Re: Can we go GTK-only? Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 10:06:14 -0700 Message-ID: References: <24db2975-17ca-ad01-20c8-df12071fa89a@dancol.org> <4615E73A-19E2-4B79-9889-D3FA686DDDE6@raeburn.org> <83bmy0pl8p.fsf@gnu.org> <831sywp7ew.fsf@gnu.org> <83y413nsjm.fsf@gnu.org> <83funbnngl.fsf@gnu.org> NNTP-Posting-Host: blaine.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Trace: blaine.gmane.org 1478023299 30352 195.159.176.226 (1 Nov 2016 18:01:39 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@blaine.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 18:01:39 +0000 (UTC) User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.4.0 Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org To: Eli Zaretskii Original-X-From: emacs-devel-bounces+ged-emacs-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue Nov 01 19:01:34 2016 Return-path: Envelope-to: ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([208.118.235.17]) by blaine.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1dMm-0003S8-CM for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 19:00:56 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:49960 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1dMo-0001Gl-WA for ged-emacs-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 14:00:59 -0400 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([2001:4830:134:3::10]:52307) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cVz-0006Tf-7h for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:06:24 -0400 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cVv-0001dE-Ai for emacs-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:06:23 -0400 Original-Received: from dancol.org ([2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3]:34028) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtps (TLS1.0:RSA_AES_128_CBC_SHA1:16) (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cVv-0001ct-0e; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 13:06:19 -0400 DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; q=dns/txt; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=dancol.org; s=x; h=Content-Transfer-Encoding:Content-Type:In-Reply-To:MIME-Version:Date:Message-ID:From:Cc:References:To:Subject; bh=OJIVAWc7BPyP+ia3+BWGhuubD5Aijp9kytJhLYa0wUw=; b=n2A969Pkl0RIKZjLs6rdRZNqOUho+NlDk96lLaQPnOxIHeXUhLWU45+xBgdY29EdfLuBkv9TQ9Lu6ll1qDXRX85+lUwVm/QTsoFy+l93+wiS9qwF0b5Zbx7xYEd6vY9/lwgZWg4Jn39sXCGWM6FQxY+FuwJnMgOeyf1jz7MsovR6R5zz4wvRzZ4gfYZHM+GKgLTw3OA32UpWgfxs+bpFGaxQtf0MbVdWvlAPkr3cKmsBvRAZELjznALlkVsOMhNbkhcOhpWOEGfi8asKDbMhFi1FG48d2+NOQKV12ZT35ZY6EtnX3LvE3iDyK3AwbvNFqstg4kqVu3KwW41+mKtlvA==; Original-Received: from c-73-97-199-232.hsd1.wa.comcast.net ([73.97.199.232] helo=[192.168.1.173]) by dancol.org with esmtpsa (TLS1.2:ECDHE_RSA_AES_128_GCM_SHA256:128) (Exim 4.84_2) (envelope-from ) id 1c1cVu-0004J5-2Y; Tue, 01 Nov 2016 10:06:18 -0700 In-Reply-To: <83funbnngl.fsf@gnu.org> X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: Genre and OS details not recognized. X-Received-From: 2600:3c01::f03c:91ff:fedf:adf3 X-BeenThere: emacs-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.21 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" Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.emacs.devel:209077 Archived-At: On 11/01/2016 10:01 AM, Eli Zaretskii wrote: >> Cc: raeburn@raeburn.org, monnier@iro.umontreal.ca, emacs-devel@gnu.org >> From: Daniel Colascione >> Date: Tue, 1 Nov 2016 09:45:41 -0700 >> >> Name one system we support that both _has_ threads and that doesn't have >> a thread-safe system malloc. If we're using our own malloc and _that_ >> isn't thread-safe, that doesn't count. I insist that on modern systems, >> the malloc and free that come with libc are thread safe. > > You can insist all you like, it won't change my mind: thread-safety in > malloc is only now becoming widespread and reliable enough, and older > systems where there are various bugs in that regard are still with us > in significant numbers. Just google the keywords, and you will see > the bug reports and their dates. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Your claim is extraordinary: it's been common practice for _decades_ to make memory allocations from multiple threads in multithreaded programming. Programs that do this, many of which I use every day, run reliably. You need to provide evidence that what you say is true. I did conduct search you suggested. The examples I found all involves people not compiling with the compile flags for enabling thread safety. What did these people expect to happen? >>>> Allocation of lisp objects is different. _That_ isn't thread safe >>>> right now. The easiest way to address this problem is a GIL. >>> >>> GIL hurts performance so much that I'd question any GIL-based design >>> that attempts to support off-loading CPU-intensive tasks to worker >>> threads. >> >> On what basis do you make this claim? As someone mentioned previously, >> that Python paper isn't really relevant, as we're not doing CPU >> preemption. > > I think we've lost context: this thread is not about the concurrency > branch, where only one thread runs at a time, for which that Python > paper is irrelevant. This thread (or at least what I wrote above) is > about the proposal to have more than one thread that performs > CPU-intensive tasks, so that the main thread could go about its > business. For that, you will definitely want CPU preemption, because > those tasks don't have to run Lisp. If those CPU-intensive tasks are not written in Lisp, there is no need to hold the GIL while running them, so other threads can run Lisp in parallel.