[#84867] [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults — v.ondruch@...
Issue #14357 has been reported by vo.x (Vit Ondruch).
11 messages
2018/01/15
[#85364] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
[email protected] wrote:
[#85368] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/03
Eric Wong wrote:
[#85442] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#85451] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Vladimir Makarov <vmakarov@...>
2018/02/06
On 02/06/2018 05:00 AM, Eric Wong wrote:
[#85455] Re: [Ruby trunk Bug#14357] thread_safe tests suite segfaults
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/02/06
Vladimir Makarov <[email protected]> wrote:
[#84874] [Ruby trunk Bug#14360] Regression CSV#open method for writing from Ruby 2.4.3 to 2.5.0 — shevegen@...
Issue #14360 has been updated by shevegen (Robert A. Heiler).
3 messages
2018/01/15
[#84980] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — hsbt@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by hsbt (Hiroshi SHIBATA).
10 messages
2018/01/23
[#85012] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/23
[email protected] wrote:
[#85081] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
Eric Wong <[email protected]> wrote:
[#85082] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2018/01/24
> Thinking about this even more; I don't think it's possible to
[#85088] [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — danieldasilvaferreira@...
Issue #13618 has been updated by dsferreira (Daniel Ferreira).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85107] [Ruby trunk Misc#14222] Mutex.lock is not safe inside signal handler: what is? — eregontp@...
Issue #14222 has been updated by Eregon (Benoit Daloze).
3 messages
2018/01/25
[#85136] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
[email protected] wrote:
3 messages
2018/01/26
[ruby-core:85189] Re: [Ruby trunk Feature#13618][Assigned] [PATCH] auto fiber schedule for rb_wait_for_single_fd and rb_waitpid
From:
Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
Date:
2018-01-28 20:00:14 UTC
List:
ruby-core #85189
Koichi Sasada <[email protected]> wrote: > On 2018/01/25 7:01, Eric Wong wrote: > >For everything else that serves multiple clients in a single > >process, fair sharing is preferable. > > Could you elaborate more? Generally, fairness is preferable. But I think we > can document "we don't guarantee fairness scheduling on this feature", > because our motivation is to provide a way to process multiple connections. > Thoughts? If I write a multi-process server with many long-lived connections, it's best to balance those connections to mitigate bottlenecks/problems which exist in each process. That way, any slowdown or crash which affects one process only affects its fair subset of connections. This is fair sharing across different *nix processes... Within each process, Threadlets are also round-robin scheduled, but run until they cannot proceed. > Or dose it cause live-lock? (no-problem on server-client apps, but > multi-agents programs seems to cause live locking) It should not, Threadlet is FIFO for "ready" Fibers; epoll and kqueue are readiness queues are FIFO internally, too. Blocking accept() mitigates live-lock/thundering herd across different processes. For non-blocking accept(), I will add EPOLLEXCLUSIVE support. Unsubscribe: <mailto:[email protected]?subject=unsubscribe> <http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>
