[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe
From: |
Mark H Weaver |
Subject: |
Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe |
Date: |
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 14:24:09 -0400 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Hi Chris,
Chris Vine <address@hidden> writes:
> On Tue, 09 Apr 2019 04:35:38 -0400
> Mark H Weaver <address@hidden> wrote:
>>
>> I think it's probably fine for 2.2, although a more careful check should
>> be made for differences in behavior between the old and new
>> implementations, and tests should be added. I'll try to get to it soon.
>
> If it is going in 2.2 (or 3.0) it would be nice if the ports could be
> suspendable. put-bytevector (used by write!) is suspendable;
> get-bytevector-some (used by read!) is not.
Unless I'm mistaken, nothing done within custom ports is suspendable,
regardless of which I/O primitives are used, because the custom port
implementations themselves are all written in C. The custom port
handlers such as 'read!' and 'write!' are always invoked from C code.
Caleb Ristvedt recently ran into this problem and posted about it on
guile-user:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2019-03/msg00032.html
I responded here:
https://lists.gnu.org/archive/html/guile-user/2019-04/msg00000.html
I'm not sure off-hand what would be required to re-implement custom
ports in suspendable Scheme code. Andy Wingo would be a good person to
ask, since he implemented (ice-9 suspendable-ports).
Mark
- Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/07
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/08
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Chris Vine, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe,
Mark H Weaver <=
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Chris Vine, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/16
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/09
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Mark H Weaver, 2019/04/17
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Rob Browning, 2019/04/21
- Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, Arne Babenhauserheide, 2019/04/22
Re: Unexpectedly low read/write performance of open-pipe, tomas, 2019/04/23