[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[bug#32121] [PATCH 1/5] base: Compile CHECKOUT in the fiber.
From: |
Ludovic Courtès |
Subject: |
[bug#32121] [PATCH 1/5] base: Compile CHECKOUT in the fiber. |
Date: |
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 13:50:21 +0200 |
User-agent: |
Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/26.1 (gnu/linux) |
Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> skribis:
> Ludovic Courtès <address@hidden> writes:
>
>> Morning!
>>
>> Clément Lassieur <address@hidden> skribis:
>>
>>> Because it may take time and thus prevent PROCESS-SPECS to run every
>>> INTERVAL
>>> seconds.
>>>
>>> * src/cuirass/base.scm (process-specs): move the COMPILE invocation inside
>>> SPAWN-FIBER's thunk. Add log message.
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> - (when compile?
>>> - (non-blocking (compile checkout)))
>>> -
>>> (spawn-fiber
>>> (lambda ()
>>> + (when compile?
>>> + (log-message "compiling '~a' with commit ~s" name
>>> commit)
>>> + (non-blocking (compile checkout)))
>>
>> I think this doesn’t bring anything compared to the existing
>> ‘non-blocking’ call.
>> The ‘non-blocking’ procedure evaluates its argument in a separate
>> thread; the calling fiber then “waits” for a message from that thread,
>> which it gets when the computation is over. The ‘get-message’ is
>> non-blocking though: the calling fiber is simply unscheduled until the
>> message has arrived.
>>
>> Does that make sense?
>
> Well, no :-)
>
> My understanding is that non-blocking is, actually... blocking, because
> get-message is blocking. (It doesn't block the scheduler because it's
> in another thread, but that's not the problem here.)
>
> What I wanted to fix here is the fact that if the build takes one hour,
> we will block for one hour in the COMPILE call, and process-spec won't
> return for one hour. If it doesn't return for one hour, that means we
> can't evaluate anything else for all that time.
Oh, I see. However we have to wait for compilation to complete before
continuing anyway, no?
> With my change, the one-hour call will be in the fiber, which means that
> process-spec can return, and other evaluations can be processed.
>
> But this is untested (because compilation doesn't work IIRC), so I can't
> be sure.
Yeah, what about this plan: let’s forget about this patch, and let’s
remove support for compilation altogether in a future patch.
WDYT?
Ludo’.
- [bug#32121] [PATCH 4/5] database: Call a specification 'jobset' instead of 'project'., (continued)
[bug#32121] [PATCH 5/5] Add support for multiple inputs., Clément Lassieur, 2018/07/10
[bug#32121] [PATCH 1/5] base: Compile CHECKOUT in the fiber., Ludovic Courtès, 2018/07/13