From: tb@becket.net (Thomas Bushnell, BSG)
Cc: rlb@defaultvalue.org, mvo@zagadka.ping.de, guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: Recursive mutexes?
Date: 26 Oct 2002 18:18:16 -0700 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87wuo4n0h3.fsf@becket.becket.net> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <200210262350.QAA27046@morrowfield.regexps.com>
Tom Lord <lord@regexps.com> writes:
> > Trying or thinking through, sure.
>
> And, to be fair, sometimes the best way to think something through is
> in parallel with trying to implement it -- no disrespect intended
> towards people hacking on Guile threads.
I think that problems like this require a somewhat more "daring"
approach. For example, threads need not slow down access to the
store.
Threads in C do not, in general, slow down access. Only when there is
an actual lock necessary do they slow anything down. The same thing
should be true in a *good* scheme system.
In a safe language like Scheme, this probably means that you have to
be willing to accept arbitrary preemption. And, indeed, I knew this
way back when guile was a dream, and said to people "if there are
going to be threads, use real OS (i.e., preemptible on arbitrary
instructions) threads". I was initially told "yeah, we'll do that",
and then it didn't happen, because "it's too hard".
Well, yeah, it's hard. But I don't think it's anything like
unsolvable. It's actually not that hard at all if you think carefully
about it and decide exactly what guarantees need to be provided and
when.
That's one of your issues about why "threads are bad". I don't see it
as any reason why threads are bad, but rather about why the (sadly)
normal implementation is bad.
Thomas
_______________________________________________
Guile-devel mailing list
Guile-devel@gnu.org
http://mail.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/guile-devel
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2002-10-27 1:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 21+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2002-10-26 20:35 Recursive mutexes? Marius Vollmer
2002-10-26 21:39 ` Neil Jerram
2002-10-27 0:03 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-10-27 1:20 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-10-27 12:36 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-10-27 7:55 ` Neil Jerram
2002-10-27 18:33 ` Rob Browning
2002-10-26 22:16 ` Rob Browning
2002-10-26 22:29 ` Rob Browning
2002-10-26 22:42 ` Tom Lord
2002-10-26 23:26 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG
2002-10-26 23:35 ` Tom Lord
2002-10-26 23:50 ` Tom Lord
2002-10-27 1:18 ` Thomas Bushnell, BSG [this message]
2002-10-26 22:47 ` Tom Lord
2002-10-27 8:33 ` Neil Jerram
2002-10-27 17:21 ` Tom Lord
2002-10-27 0:35 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-10-27 4:36 ` Rob Browning
2002-10-27 11:32 ` Marius Vollmer
2002-10-27 18:44 ` Rob Browning
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=87wuo4n0h3.fsf@becket.becket.net \
--to=tb@becket.net \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=mvo@zagadka.ping.de \
--cc=rlb@defaultvalue.org \
/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).