From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: news.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic =?iso-8859-1?Q?Court=E8s?=) Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: allocation within critical sections Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:06 +0100 Message-ID: <8739a6y23d.fsf@gnu.org> References: <87sjijzulh.fsf@pobox.com> <87d39e5uv1.fsf@gnu.org> <874nuqpg6k.fsf@pobox.com> <1329446762.84665.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87vcn5ooxp.fsf@pobox.com> <1329474723.3480.YahooMailNeo@web37906.mail.mud.yahoo.com> <87boox32qu.fsf@pobox.com> <87hayp12yr.fsf@gnu.org> <87ty2n17mu.fsf@pobox.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: plane.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-Trace: dough.gmane.org 1329684977 26762 80.91.229.3 (19 Feb 2012 20:56:17 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@dough.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2012 20:56:17 +0000 (UTC) Cc: "guile-devel@gnu.org" To: Andy Wingo Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Sun Feb 19 21:56:17 2012 Return-path: Envelope-to: guile-devel@m.gmane.org Original-Received: from lists.gnu.org ([140.186.70.17]) by plane.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1RzDnr-0005HF-KI for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:15 +0100 Original-Received: from localhost ([::1]:58608 helo=lists.gnu.org) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RzDnq-0003ir-Vy for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:56:14 -0500 Original-Received: from eggs.gnu.org ([140.186.70.92]:49171) by lists.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RzDnn-0003i9-HU for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:56:12 -0500 Original-Received: from Debian-exim by eggs.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RzDnm-0007OJ-3l for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:56:11 -0500 Original-Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([88.191.123.111]:53751) by eggs.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.71) (envelope-from ) id 1RzDnl-0007O9-Sx for guile-devel@gnu.org; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 15:56:10 -0500 Original-Received: from localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTP id 4766B6FB3; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:08 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from xanadu.aquilenet.fr ([127.0.0.1]) by localhost (xanadu.aquilenet.fr [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id SS+yUIm3X2sH; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:08 +0100 (CET) Original-Received: from pluto (reverse-83.fdn.fr [80.67.176.83]) by xanadu.aquilenet.fr (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 7D4876C74; Sun, 19 Feb 2012 21:56:07 +0100 (CET) X-URL: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ X-Revolutionary-Date: 1 =?iso-8859-1?Q?Vent=F4se?= an 220 de la =?iso-8859-1?Q?R=E9volution?= X-PGP-Key-ID: 0xEA52ECF4 X-PGP-Key: http://www.fdn.fr/~lcourtes/ludovic.asc X-PGP-Fingerprint: 83C4 F8E5 10A3 3B4C 5BEA D15D 77DD 95E2 EA52 ECF4 X-OS: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu In-Reply-To: <87ty2n17mu.fsf@pobox.com> (Andy Wingo's message of "Sun, 19 Feb 2012 10:42:49 +0100") User-Agent: Gnus/5.110018 (No Gnus v0.18) Emacs/24.0.93 (gnu/linux) X-detected-operating-system: by eggs.gnu.org: GNU/Linux 2.6 (newer, 3) X-Received-From: 88.191.123.111 X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.14 Precedence: list List-Id: "Developers list for Guile, the GNU extensibility library" List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Errors-To: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Original-Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Xref: news.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:13898 Archived-At: Hi, Andy Wingo skribis: > On Fri 17 Feb 2012 23:59, ludo@gnu.org (Ludovic Court=C3=A8s) writes: [...] >> What about using asyncs for that? For instance, scm_i_finalize_smob >> make a [deferred], instead of direct, call to the SMOB=E2=80=99s =E2=80= =98free=E2=80=99, via >> scm_i_queue_async_cell. > > It's an interesting idea. I suspect that it only defers the problem, > though: if we start running finalizers through asyncs, we'll run into > problems with locks at the scheme level. > > That is to say, just because you are in Scheme does not mean you can > acquire any lock without deadlock. Sure, but the libguile-level lock issue would go away, wouldn=E2=80=99t it? Ludo=E2=80=99.