[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib
From: |
Eli Zaretskii |
Subject: |
bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib |
Date: |
Sat, 31 Dec 2016 20:29:48 +0200 |
> From: Elias Mårtenson <lokedhs@gmail.com>
> Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2017 02:16:41 +0800
> Cc: Tino Calancha <tino.calancha@gmail.com>, raeburn@raeburn.org,
> 25247@debbugs.gnu.org
>
> "Ready to run" means here a thread that is stuck in
> acquire_global_lock. One of those threads will succeed in acquiring
> the lock when the thread which was previously running releases the
> lock.
>
> In this case, the thread died, and all other threads are idle. Wouldn't this
> trigger a redisplay?
When a thread dies, the global local is released, so some other thread
that waits for the lock can run. But I don't think that should
trigger redisplay, because it means Emacs isn't idle.
I don't understand what you mean by "all other threads are idle". I
don't think any of them are, but I'm not sure we have the same idea of
"idle" in this context. For me, "idle" means a thread that waited for
input and didn't get any until its wait timeout expired. Only after
that we say that Emacs is "idling".
> Those which are still waiting for their sleep period to expire will
> not run, because they are inside the pselect call. Only the threads
> whose sleep period already expired are "ready to run", because they
> call acquire_global_lock right after the pselect call returns.
>
> But the way I interpreted what you were saying was that if there are no
> threads that are "ready to run" (as in
> this case), redisplay would be called.
Yes, but only after the main thread ends its waiting timeout. That is
why having timers produces more frequent redisplay.
> If that was indeed what you were saying, then that doesn't match observed
> behaviour. If I misunderstood what
> you were saying, then things make sense.
>
> I'm willing to bet that the latter is true.
I'm not sure, because I don't understand what exactly doesn't match
the observations.
> It's perfectly normal for Emacs not to redisplay when some Lisp is
> running. That is what happens here, except that "some Lisp" in this
> case can come from another thread.
>
> Fair enough. I guess the introduction of threads will make the redisplay
> function more important than it has
> been in the past.
Only if the non-main threads must produce some visible effect. That's
not a given; they could instead do some background job that doesn't
directly affect the displayed text.
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, (continued)
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Elias Mårtenson, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Elias Mårtenson, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Elias Mårtenson, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Elias Mårtenson, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib,
Eli Zaretskii <=
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/31
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Tino Calancha, 2016/12/30
- bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes with XLib, Eli Zaretskii, 2016/12/30
bug#25247: 26.0.50; Concurrency crashes, Ken Raeburn, 2016/12/23