[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI
From: |
F. Wittenberger |
Subject: |
Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl |
Date: |
Sun, 10 Aug 2008 18:12:58 +0200 |
Am Sonntag, den 10.08.2008, 10:38 -0400 schrieb John Cowan:
> > a more relevant comparison (and answer) might be 'why don't we get
> > rid of 'kill -9'?'
...
> (except by debuggers that need to freeze threads so
> it can inspect their contents, something Scheme doesn't support):
That's what I think: there are - albeit few - situations, where forceful
termination of threads is just what the doctor ordered.
And why should a Scheme system not allow to debug it's threads?
> Because there are very few shared resources between processes, and
> the kernel knows how to clean them up (with the exception of terminal
> settings).
As long as - for instance - one does not mmap(, , ,MAP_SHARED, ,) a file
full of resources. This argument does not take very far.
> Threads, by contrast, in principle share everything, and nobody knows
> how to clean up.
I'm taking a slightly different point of view: process systems as well
as thread systems define a few resources, which are handled consistent.
Other resources may become damaged if not handled properly.
Forceful termination has it's uses, no matter how dangerous it might be
under certain circumstances.
[Example, taking the source I'm just porting: there are two uses of
forceful termination. a) Stop a thread waiting for i/o - this one could
be done better in chicken. b) Terminate typically extremely short but
potentially long running untrusted code. This code is pure/side effect
free - *because* it might get terminated by brute force; so all
arguments about damaged data are void in this context.]
- Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault - a hard one, (continued)
- Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault - a hard one, F. Wittenberger, 2008/08/09
- Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault - a hard one, Elf, 2008/08/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] Segfault - a hard one, felix winkelmann, 2008/08/08
- [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Kon Lovett, 2008/08/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Vincent Manis, 2008/08/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Elf, 2008/08/08
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Kon Lovett, 2008/08/09
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, John Cowan, 2008/08/09
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Elf, 2008/08/10
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, John Cowan, 2008/08/10
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl,
F. Wittenberger <=
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Elf, 2008/08/10
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Vincent Manis, 2008/08/10
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, F. Wittenberger, 2008/08/09
- Re: [Chicken-users] Please do not drop 'thread-terminate!' from the SRFI 18 impl, Vincent Manis, 2008/08/09