"It causes the collector to acquire a lock around essentially all allocation
and garbage collection activity."
That means after the child process spawns, there is one kernel mutex
controlling access to two heaps in two separate processes. If the child
process needs to do work in
>> 2) Remove need for a separate thread.
>>
>> I'm not addressing (2) in this patch, though I am allowing for the day
>> when the signal delivery thread is gone (the API needn't change).
>>
>> I'm addressing (1) by exporting two things:
>> a) ability
wing for the day
> when the signal delivery thread is gone (the API needn't change).
>
> I'm addressing (1) by exporting two things:
> a) ability to record a signal with Guile in an async-safe way (for the
> present implementation that means basically by exporting the
>
On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 9:42 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
> (Dropping GDB.)
>
> Doug Evans skribis:
>
>> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread
>>> eventu
(Dropping GDB.)
Doug Evans skribis:
> On Tue, Feb 18, 2014 at 3:20 AM, Ludovic Courtès wrote:
[...]
>> (I think we should aim to get rid of the signal-delivery thread
>> eventually, and I remember Mark mentioned it before too.)
>
> Note that Python queues the asyncs dir
