[#81492] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — normalperson@...
Issue #13618 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
12 messages
2017/06/01
[#88695] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/08/27
> https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/13618
[#81581] [Ruby trunk Bug#13632] Not processable interrupt queue for a thread after it's notified that FD is closed in some other thread. — sir.nickolas@...
Issue #13632 has been reported by nvashchenko (Nikolay Vashchenko).
4 messages
2017/06/05
[#81590] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures. — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
5 messages
2017/06/06
[#81591] Re: [ruby-cvs:66197] ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#81596] Re: [ruby-cvs:66203] Re: Re: ko1:r59023 (trunk): revert r59020 because it may fail some tests sometimes on some environment (http://ci.rvm.jp/). This revert is to check the reason of failures.
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2017/06/06
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#81825] [Ruby trunk Feature#13697] [PATCH]: futex based thread primitives — normalperson@...
Issue #13697 has been reported by normalperson (Eric Wong).
3 messages
2017/06/29
[ruby-core:81732] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2017-06-20 19:08:50 UTC
List:
ruby-core #81732
[email protected] wrote: > I appreciate what you said about multi-thread multi-fiber > execution using your proposed reactor design. I think it's > good and it's probably better than libev. It's excellent that > you have thought about how to solve these problems and I > admire it. However, in my experience, libev is fast enough and > n-m concurrency model is fast enough for Ruby. Until Ruby is > several orders of magnitude faster, it won't make much > difference, except perhaps a tiny bit of latency, but there > are benefits to keeping a single request on a single thread or > process - you can avoid having to deal with locking and other > synchronisation primitives in some cases, e.g. caches. So, > there are tangible benefits to using, say, m-process n-fibers > vs n-fibers/m-threads model. Ruby has never really suited > multi-threaded model unfortunately. Just one correction; auto-Fiber does not migrate fibers or migrate userspace(*) I/O operations across native threads at the moment. You might be confusing this with my other non-Fiber-using server designs which do migrate I/O operations across threads. For auto-fiber, there's minimal locking requirements even if we get rid of GVL. It relies on locking already done by the kernel; kqueue will require extra locking in the corner case where read and write filters are both installed for an FD. (*) Of course, Linux kernel soft IRQ handlers can migrate work across cores in the background. > Just to be clear: I'm more interested in semantics than > implementation. Get the semantics right and the correct > implementation will follow. I see a lot of work done here on > an implementation (which is awesome and it looks good), but > I'm not completely clear that the semantics are really sound. Anyways, it looks like matz is inclined to accept it; but ko1 wants some semantic tweaks with the API (but I'm not sure what/how, exactly). https://docs.google.com/document/d/1z19pKt8jlpiEUR3RnWWBCfs3OR_hbiAZMwpQ6ZTllP0/pub (I've only viewed it with w3m, no idea if I'm missing anything due to lack of JS) Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
