[#19731] use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...>

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but...should there be

56 messages 2008/11/08
[#19796] Re: use of require thread safety — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#21651] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2009/01/29

Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19798] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

> While a thread is requiring a given file, another thread which

[#20732] Re: use of require thread safety — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/20

> Currently with 1.8.7 (for me) the secondmost thread continues

[#20737] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/20

Roger Pack wrote:

[#20769] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/12/21

Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#20795] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/12/22

On Mon, Dec 22, 2008 at 03:05:07AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19821] Re: use of require thread safety — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/11

On Tue, Nov 11, 2008 at 10:51:45AM +0900, Nobuyoshi Nakada wrote:

[#19829] Re: use of require thread safety — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19759] Proposal: Method#get_args — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...>

I'd like to propose a way to introspect into the arguments of a method

97 messages 2008/11/09
[#19787] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/11/11

The only question I have is why would one want to know the names of

[#19789] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Trans <transfire@...> 2008/11/11

On Nov 10, 7:18=A0pm, "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2...@gmail.com> wrote:

[#19818] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Mikael Hlund <mikael@...> 2008/11/11

Allow me to throw in my ~.116892074 DKK;

[#19837] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/11

Mikael H淡ilund wrote:

[#19838] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/11

[#19870] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 04:48:03AM +0900, Dave Thomas wrote:

[#19874] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Wed, Nov 12, 2008 at 06:01:40PM +0900, Brian Candler wrote:

[#19881] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19887] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Paul Brannan <pbrannan@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 02:06:15AM +0900, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19889] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Paul Brannan wrote:

[#19892] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19893] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Deville <jdeville@...> 2008/11/12

> -----Original Message-----

[#19894] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/12

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 04:33:07AM +0900, Jim Deville wrote:

[#19895] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

[#19896] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Charles Oliver Nutter <charles.nutter@...> 2008/11/12

Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19899] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Jim Weirich <jim.weirich@...> 2008/11/12

On Nov 12, 2008, at 4:12 PM, Charles Oliver Nutter wrote:

[#19915] Re: Proposal: Method#get_args — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/13

On Thu, Nov 13, 2008 at 07:02:25AM +0900, Jim Weirich wrote:

[#19927] Re: {Proc,Method}#parameters (Re: Proposal: Method#get_args) — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/14

Hi,

[#19784] Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Hongli Lai <hongli@...99.net>

Hi.

22 messages 2008/11/10
[#19799] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Narihiro Nakamura" <authornari@...> 2008/11/11

Hi.

[#19812] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — "Yehuda Katz" <wycats@...> 2008/11/11

Narihiro,

[#19823] Re: Status of copy-on-write friendly garbage collector — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/11

Hi,

[#19845] [Bug #743] Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #743: Socket.gethostbyname returns odd values

11 messages 2008/11/11

[#19846] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...>

Bug #744: memory leak in callcc?

142 messages 2008/11/11
[#21394] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2009/01/17

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#21429] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/19

[#21441] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2009/01/19

Hi,

[#21483] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/21

[#21487] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/01/21

On Wednesday 21 of January 2009 10:21:19 Brent Roman wrote:

[#21711] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/02/01

[#22062] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <rogerdpack@...> 2009/02/14

>> I've tried that myself but it didn't work very well

[#22265] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Michal Babej <calcifer@...> 2009/02/19

On Saturday 14 of February 2009 08:17:22 Roger Pack wrote:

[#21514] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2009/01/22

[#19945] [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Roger Pack <redmine@...> 2008/11/15

Issue #744 has been updated by Roger Pack.

[#19968] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19969] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Martin Duerst <duerst@...> 2008/11/17

At 12:54 08/11/17, Brent Roman wrote:

[#19970] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/17

[#19972] Re: [Bug #744] memory leak in callcc? — Kurt Stephens <kurt@...> 2008/11/17

A common technique is to allocate a reasonably sized array (256-bytes)

[#20149] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/28

[#20517] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/13

> I implemented a scheme for recording the maximum depth of the C stack in

[#20534] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/13

[#20750] [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20751] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Ezra Zygmuntowicz <ezmobius@...> 2008/12/21

[#20752] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/21

[#20781] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/22

First thanks for doing all that hard work. I'm sure it's not pleasant

[#20783] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/22

[#20903] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/26

Seems to overall be a tidge slower for "micro" stuff--5 or 10%.

[#20914] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/27

[#20922] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/27

> You ran this benchmark suite, correct?

[#20931] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/12/28

[#20995] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Roger Pack" <rogerpack2005@...> 2008/12/30

Hmm interesting.

[#21261] Re: [PATCH] Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — "Stephen Sykes" <sdsykes@...> 2009/01/11

Brent,

[#20168] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Nobuyoshi Nakada <nobu@...> 2008/11/30

Hi,

[#20175] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/11/30

The problem can be demonstrated with a very simple program (attached), and

[#20178] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brent Roman <brent@...> 2008/11/30

[#20185] Re: Promising C coding techniques to reduce MRI's memory use — Brian Candler <B.Candler@...> 2008/12/01

> What I did come up with was not ugly at all. Factor the unwieldy switch

[#19938] Fibers in 1.8 — "Aman Gupta" <rubytalk@...1.net>

Are there any plans to backport Fiber to ruby 1.8?

13 messages 2008/11/15

[#20008] [Bug #766] 'Not enough space' error on windows — Ittay Dror <redmine@...>

Bug #766: 'Not enough space' error on windows

17 messages 2008/11/20

[#20092] [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francois Proulx <redmine@...>

Bug #797: bug or feature: local method ?

23 messages 2008/11/25
[#20097] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20098] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Dave Thomas <dave@...> 2008/11/25

[#20100] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Yukihiro Matsumoto <matz@...> 2008/11/25

Hi,

[#20127] Re: [Bug #797] bug or feature: local method ? — Francoys <francois.pr@...> 2008/11/26

Yukihiro Matsumoto wrote:

[ruby-core:20031] Re: Fibers in 1.8

From: "Aman Gupta" <rubytalk@...1.net>
Date: 2008-11-22 11:09:47 UTC
List: ruby-core #20031
On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Brian Mitchell <binary42@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 09:27, Paul Brannan <pbrannan@atdesk.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, Nov 21, 2008 at 05:45:23PM +0900, Urabe Shyouhei wrote:
>>> Ko1 explained me about this.  According to him, 1.8 threads are slower
>>> because context switching on 1.8 needs a lot of memory copies.  1.8
>>
>> 1.8 threads do a lot of memory copies on context switch, but they are
>> not all necessary.  The stack can be switched on some platforms using
>> swapcontext.
>>
>> (but this isn't a trivial change either; the implementation of threads
>> on 1.8 is complex and is tightly coupled to eval.c)
>
> From what I understand, the NeverBlock [0] has used 1.9 Fibers to
> achieve its goal. I believe they have ported it to 1.8 in some effect
> [1] (most likely not at the Thread level but at the C ext. level with
> stack allocation and swapping). Anyone know what the caveats are with
> their implementation?

NeverBlock uses my pure ruby implementation
(http://gist.github.com/4631) which relies on Thread and Queue. This
is not ideal because the thread timer and scheduler continue to run,
and the use of Queue makes deadlocks possible.

# Poor Man's Fiber (API compatible Thread based Fiber implementation
for Ruby 1.8)
# (c) 2008 Aman Gupta (tmm1)

unless defined? Fiber
 require 'thread'

 class FiberError < StandardError; end

 class Fiber
   def initialize
     raise ArgumentError, 'new Fiber requires a block' unless block_given?

     @yield = Queue.new
     @resume = Queue.new

     @thread = Thread.new{ @yield.push [ *yield(*@resume.pop) ] }
     @thread.abort_on_exception = true
     @thread[:fiber] = self
   end
   attr_reader :thread

   def resume *args
     raise FiberError, 'dead fiber called' unless @thread.alive?
     @resume.push(args)
     result = @yield.pop
     result.size > 1 ? result : result.first
   end

   def yield *args
     @yield.push(args)
     result = @resume.pop
     result.size > 1 ? result : result.first
   end

   def self.yield *args
     raise FiberError, "can't yield from root fiber" unless fiber =
Thread.current[:fiber]
     fiber.yield(*args)
   end

   def self.current
     Thread.current[:fiber] or raise FiberError, 'not inside a fiber'
   end

   def inspect
     "#<#{self.class}:0x#{self.object_id.to_s(16)}>"
   end
 end
end

if __FILE__ == $0
 f = Fiber.new{ puts 'hi'; p Fiber.yield(1); puts 'bye'; :done }
 p f.resume
 p f.resume(2)
end

__END__

$ ruby fbr.rb
hi
1
2
bye
:done

$ ruby1.9 fbr.rb
hi
1
2
bye
:done

> I would imagine it would be possible to have a C extension provide
> working fibers as long as the GC was made aware of the stack so it
> could scan the stacks appropriately. Threads would also probably have
> to be modified a bit to work in concert (jumping back to the proper
> fiber before making the context switch I would guess).

I am currently attempting to backport the C implementation from 1.9
(http://github.com/tmm1/ruby187/commits/fiber_backport). So far the
simple API is functional:

$ ./miniruby -e "f = Fiber.new{ |sym|
 p(sym)
 puts 'hi'
 p(Fiber.yield 1)
 puts 'bye'
 :end
}
p(f.resume :begin)
p(f.resume 2)
"
 :begin
 hi
 1
 2
 bye
 :end

The first three tests from 1.9 test suite also pass:

 $ ./miniruby -I lib test/ruby/test_fiber.rb Loaded suite
 test/ruby/test_fiber
 Started
 ...
 Finished in 8.902874 seconds.

 3 tests, 7 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors

The API is implemented using rb_thread_save_context and
rb_thread_restore_context, which memcpy the stack and are much slower
when compared to 1.9 implementation:

 $ /opt/ruby19/bin/ruby19 test/ruby/test_fiber.rb
 Loaded suite test/ruby/test_fiber
 Started
 ...
 Finished in 0.597483 seconds.

 3 tests, 7 assertions, 0 failures, 0 errors, 0 skips

Aman.

In This Thread