From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Path: main.gmane.org!not-for-mail From: Andreas Rottmann Newsgroups: gmane.lisp.guile.devel Subject: Re: GH replacement proposal (includes a bit of Unicode) Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 11:21:03 +0200 Sender: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Message-ID: <87oeomhz0g.fsf@ivanova.rotty.yi.org> References: <877jw87hjv.fsf@trouble.defaultvalue.org> <87pt9yzjdi.fsf@ivanova.rotty.yi.org> <87brkmn3lp.fsf@zagadka.ping.de> NNTP-Posting-Host: deer.gmane.org Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii X-Trace: sea.gmane.org 1084872952 30841 80.91.224.253 (18 May 2004 09:35:52 GMT) X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 18 May 2004 09:35:52 +0000 (UTC) Original-X-From: guile-devel-bounces+guile-devel=m.gmane.org@gnu.org Tue May 18 11:35:43 2004 Return-path: Original-Received: from monty-python.gnu.org ([199.232.76.173]) by deer.gmane.org with esmtp (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQ10h-0005UQ-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:35:43 +0200 Original-Received: from localhost ([127.0.0.1] helo=monty-python.gnu.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BQ106-0004lt-5x for guile-devel@m.gmane.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:35:06 -0400 Original-Received: from list by monty-python.gnu.org with tmda-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BQ0xm-0004HL-2c for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:32:42 -0400 Original-Received: from mail by monty-python.gnu.org with spam-scanned (Exim 4.34) id 1BQ0vM-0003YY-3z for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:30:44 -0400 Original-Received: from [80.91.224.249] (helo=main.gmane.org) by monty-python.gnu.org with esmtp (Exim 4.34) id 1BQ0vL-0003XL-1B for guile-devel@gnu.org; Tue, 18 May 2004 05:30:11 -0400 Original-Received: from list by main.gmane.org with local (Exim 3.35 #1 (Debian)) id 1BQ0vI-0001IV-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:30:08 +0200 Original-Received: from chello080109053157.14.14.univie.teleweb.at ([80.109.53.157]) by main.gmane.org with esmtp (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:30:08 +0200 Original-Received: from a.rottmann by chello080109053157.14.14.univie.teleweb.at with local (Gmexim 0.1 (Debian)) id 1AlnuQ-0007hv-00 for ; Tue, 18 May 2004 11:30:08 +0200 X-Injected-Via-Gmane: http://gmane.org/ Original-To: guile-devel@gnu.org Original-Lines: 46 Original-X-Complaints-To: usenet@sea.gmane.org X-Gmane-NNTP-Posting-Host: chello080109053157.14.14.univie.teleweb.at User-Agent: Gnus/5.1002 (Gnus v5.10.2) Emacs/21.3 (gnu/linux) Cancel-Lock: sha1:eFX+VUih6HVGXOR6LppM5H+G+y0= X-BeenThere: guile-devel@gnu.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.4 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 Xref: main.gmane.org gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3738 X-Report-Spam: http://spam.gmane.org/gmane.lisp.guile.devel:3738 Marius Vollmer writes: > Andreas Rottmann writes: > >> Marius Vollmer writes: >> >>> Having a lock for every object would have a high overhead and give you >>> very little in terms of performance, I guess. Also, they would be >>> tricky to use. >>> >> Why would the overhead be significantly larger than for one object? >> Pika will have per-object locks, and I think the implementation chosen >> has little overhead over global locking. > > Ahh, I don't know about that implementation. How large is the > overhead? (in bits/object, say. URL perfectly OK.) > There is no overhead in bits/object. The locks are allocated dynamically for each object when requested and released again afterwards. >>> When you need to lock two objects, there would be the danger of >>> deadlocks, when other code needs to lock the exact same two objects, >>> but does it in reverse order. >>> >> You could probably solve this by having an poeration that does an >> "atomic" lock of serveral objects. Naive algorithm: >> >> 1) lock all objects you can >> 2) if that's all: >> fine >> else: >> release all objects locked previously, wait a bit and goto 1) > > Yes, but I would count this as 'significant overhead' ;-) > I assume the case 2) whould be hit seldomly... Andy -- Andreas Rottmann | Rotty@ICQ | 118634484@ICQ | a.rottmann@gmx.at http://yi.org/rotty | GnuPG Key: http://yi.org/rotty/gpg.asc Fingerprint | DFB4 4EB4 78A4 5EEE 6219 F228 F92F CFC5 01FD 5B62 Any technology not indistinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. -- Terry Pratchett _______________________________________________ Guile-devel mailing list Guile-devel@gnu.org http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel