From that theory I've been working in trial&error mode again.
I added a (gc) call to the end of my SIGCHLD handler.
Guess what: It did not run into the first, almost-for-sure
case. Often enough to make me walk the dog waiting for the second
case: the laptop coming back from a longer suspension period.
Now I wonder: as far as I understand C_mutate it will remember
all assignments where the assigned value in within the nursery.
True?
If true, than I don't understand why we allow the mutation_stack
to ever grow beyond the size of the nursery.
So far untested/unimplemented (I'd rather get that understanding
of the mutation stack before I continue here): If we would
check a mutation stack usage limit before the interrupt limit
and at least enforce a minor gc on excess, we might be able to
leave the interrupt handling at the begin of the C_reclaim
and still avoid running havoc.
Reasonable?
/Jörg
On Oct 21 2011, Jörg F. Wittenberger wrote:
The mutation stack will
grow until a garbage collection takes place, so if you
invoke C_mutate in a C loop without giving GC a chance,
the mutations will just add up.
Reading C_reclaim still without fully understanding how
exactly is will interact with C_context_switch
it appears to me that if there where always an interrupt
pending (or at least too often) then chicken would
dispatch to the interrupt handler, which will switch context.
_______________________________________________
Chicken-hackers mailing list
Chicken-hackers@nongnu.org
https://lists.nongnu.org/mailman/listinfo/chicken-hackers
