From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: (qmail 24696 invoked by alias); 25 Jun 2010 21:36:22 -0000 Received: (qmail 24686 invoked by uid 22791); 25 Jun 2010 21:36:21 -0000 X-SWARE-Spam-Status: No, hits=-2.2 required=5.0 tests=AWL,BAYES_00,T_RP_MATCHES_RCVD X-Spam-Check-By: sourceware.org Received: from mail.codesourcery.com (HELO mail.codesourcery.com) (38.113.113.100) by sourceware.org (qpsmtpd/0.43rc1) with ESMTP; Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:36:17 +0000 Received: (qmail 1231 invoked from network); 25 Jun 2010 21:36:15 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO caradoc.them.org) (dan@127.0.0.2) by mail.codesourcery.com with ESMTPA; 25 Jun 2010 21:36:15 -0000 Date: Fri, 25 Jun 2010 21:36:00 -0000 From: Daniel Jacobowitz To: Tom Tromey Cc: Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org Subject: Re: [0/7] RFC: read DWARF psymtabs in the background Message-ID: <20100625213606.GA30887@caradoc.them.org> Mail-Followup-To: Tom Tromey , Mark Kettenis , gdb-patches@sourceware.org References: <201006222005.o5MK5TtD019970@glazunov.sibelius.xs4all.nl> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.20 (2009-06-14) Mailing-List: contact gdb-patches-help@sourceware.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Id: List-Subscribe: List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: , Sender: gdb-patches-owner@sourceware.org X-SW-Source: 2010-06/txt/msg00602.txt.bz2 On Fri, Jun 25, 2010 at 03:03:14PM -0600, Tom Tromey wrote: > >>>>> "Mark" == Mark Kettenis writes: > > Tom> I realize that threads are unpopular in many quarters, so this is an RFC. > > Mark> Sorry, but this is pretty much a no-go for OpenBSD. We have a > Mark> userland threads implementation that puts file descriptors in > Mark> non-blocking mode such that it can switch to another thread if I/O to > Mark> that filedescriptor would block. This has side effects if these file > Mark> descriptors are shared with child processes :(. > > If that is your only objection, it is no trouble to disable this code on > a per-host basis. All that is missing for that is some of the > configury; all the code is designed to allow single-threaded operation. FWIW, I think this is a reasonable thing to do. I also think that loading your future proposed indexes in the background would be a nice feature. For one thing, that lets us do them in parallel - great for a task likely to be I/O dominated. And on Windows hosts we already use threads, so it'd win there too. -- Daniel Jacobowitz CodeSourcery