On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 11:57 PM, Scott Cotton <w...@iri-labs.com> wrote: > > On Fri, 5 Oct 2018 at 23:26, Ian Lance Taylor <i...@golang.org> wrote: >> >> On Fri, Oct 5, 2018 at 2:10 PM, Scott Cotton <w...@iri-labs.com> wrote: > > >> >> In fact >> we definitely do want to add other preemption checks that occur at >> points other than function entry (issues #10958, #24543). And if >> there is another preemption check, there are no promises that >> go:nosplit will disable that check. > > > From what I understand, this would > 1. enable more faire/balanced scheduling > 2. reduce worst case gc latency > 3. eliminate problems when programmers unintentionally spin with > cooperative/stack based > pre-emption. > 4. slow things down a bit when fair/balanced scheduling and gc latency and > 3) are not an issue > 5. make it impossible to prevent pre-emption in cases that need it or rely > on cooperative/stack based pre-emption > 6. potentially re-order some sequences of system calls, so that Go > programmer sequences of system calls G1, G2, ... > may have Go runtime system calls inserted in between where they weren't > previously. > > I don't think anyone wants 4,5 and 6 is frightening. > > Maybe I don't know what I'm doing, so perhaps others can give opinions? > > Or should this discussion be on the issue tracker or golang-dev?
See the discussion at issue #24543. With that scheme 4 should not be an issue. 5 and 6 could be problems in principle, but note that there is no guaranteed way to do that today either. Ian -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "golang-nuts" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
