[#80531] Re: [ruby-cvs:65407] normal:r58236 (trunk): thread.c: comments on M:N threading [ci skip] — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
SASADA Koichi <ko1@ruby-lang.org> wrote:
On 2017/04/02 11:35, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 9:33, Eric Wong wrote:
On 2017/05/08 10:53, SASADA Koichi wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 12:01, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/08 15:36, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 12:38, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 14:12, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
On 2017/05/09 15:23, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Thank you.
[#80763] [Ruby trunk Feature#13434] better method definition in C API — naruse@...
Issue #13434 has been updated by naruse (Yui NARUSE).
[#80844] [Ruby trunk Bug#13503] Improve performance of some Time & Rational methods — watson1978@...
Issue #13503 has been updated by watson1978 (Shizuo Fujita).
[#80892] [Ruby trunk Misc#13514] [PATCH] thread_pthread.c (native_sleep): preserve old unblock function — ko1@...
Issue #13514 has been updated by ko1 (Koichi Sasada).
ko1@atdot.net wrote:
On 2017/04/27 8:58, Eric Wong wrote:
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net> wrote:
[ruby-core:80897] Re: [Ruby trunk Misc#13514] [PATCH] thread_pthread.c (native_sleep): preserve old unblock function
SASADA Koichi <ko1@atdot.net> wrote:
> On 2017/04/27 8:58, Eric Wong wrote:
> > I am looking to replace lock_func in thread_sync.c with
> > native_sleep or similar. This is to reduce Mutex size and
> > complexity by using a similar method to what I did in r52332
> > with ccan/list
> >
> > ("variable.c: additional locking around autoload")
> >
> > It is compatible with current GVL 1:1 threading,
> > but I would like to support M:N threading, eventually.
>
> Sorry I didn't check r52332. Could you explain more about your technique
> you want to introduce into sync.c and why native_sleep() is not enough
> now? Or please propose with your patch.
This is my work-in-progress patch:
https://80x24.org/spew/20170427033423.19856-1-e@80x24.org/raw
I am still working on fixing the failing test (but I am
distracted by another project).
> I'm afraid that the assumptions for native_sleep() (and other functions)
> will be break and can't control.
Right, I checked all callers of native_sleep and do not believe
they are affected by preserving unblock function.
Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request@ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>