From: Rob Browning <rlb@defaultvalue.org>
Cc: Marius Vollmer <m.vollmer@ping.de>,
Carl Witty <cwitty@newtonlabs.com>,
guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety
Date: Tue, 27 Jan 2004 17:24:45 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <874quhdlfm.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <4016E30B.4060207@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> (Dirk Herrmann's message of "Tue, 27 Jan 2004 23:15:39 +0100")
Dirk Herrmann <dirk@dirk-herrmanns-seiten.de> writes:
> The underlying problem here is, that guile's space of cells is
> actually shared memory between all threads. To make things
> transparently safe for scheme code would either forbid thread
> switches to happen at certain points in time (which makes concurrent
> threads impossible), or to add a lot more locking when accessing the
> cell space.
This raises something I've been thinking about off and on for quite a
while. My guess is that we may have some fairly substantial
performance and design tradeoffs the more concurrency and "transparent
safety" we try to support in a fully preemtive environment.
As a trivial example, if you just want "all user C calls to be safe",
then you probably have to put guards around the bodies of essentially
every function (and or in the code generated by every macro). One
exception I can think of is a compiler which knew enough to be able to
omit the locks for sections of code that it could either tell were
otherwise protected, or that it had otherwise protected on a higher
level.
In any case, do we have a "current plan" with respect to threading,
and on a related note, do we have any plans to consider anything other
than our current one interpreter per-process arrangement?
--
Rob Browning
rlb @defaultvalue.org and @debian.org; previously @cs.utexas.edu
GPG starting 2002-11-03 = 14DD 432F AE39 534D B592 F9A0 25C8 D377 8C7E 73A4
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2004-01-27 23:24 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2003-12-11 11:43 scm_i_fraction_reduce thread safety Bill Schottstaedt
2003-12-11 19:19 ` Carl Witty
2003-12-12 12:11 ` Bill Schottstaedt
2003-12-12 15:04 ` Paul Jarc
2003-12-12 23:23 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-10 22:38 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-10 23:29 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-11 1:31 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-12 0:51 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-12 5:22 ` Richard Todd
2004-01-14 21:09 ` Kevin Ryde
2004-01-21 0:03 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 0:00 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-21 3:11 ` Carl Witty
2004-01-21 21:06 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-27 22:15 ` Dirk Herrmann
2004-01-27 23:24 ` Rob Browning [this message]
2004-01-29 19:35 ` Marius Vollmer
2004-01-29 20:32 ` Rob Browning
2004-01-30 14:45 ` Mikael Djurfeldt
2004-02-01 18:49 ` Andy Wingo
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2003-12-09 20:39 Kevin Ryde
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=874quhdlfm.fsf@raven.i.defaultvalue.org \
--to=rlb@defaultvalue.org \
--cc=cwitty@newtonlabs.com \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=m.vollmer@ping.de \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).