Thanks for the review and advice, Maxime!
According to the original semantics, I think I should keep (1-
(current-processor-count)) rather than just (current-processor-count).
Attached updated patch.
Best regards.
On Thu, Aug 14, 2025 at 10:59 PM Maxime Devos <maximede...@telenet.be>
wrote:
> Processor count can change over time. So, current-processor-count needs
> to be called only once (or there needs to be proper support for adapting
> to the changing count). It's current-processor-count, not
> fixed-processor-count, even if in most cases it doesn't change.
>
> Also:
>
> (max 1 (current-processor-count))
>
> Best regards,
> Maxime Devos
>
>
From 5fb6aabb086f5631ca925498fb540f82aaa819bc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
From: Nala Ginrut <mu...@gnu.org>
Date: Thu, 14 Aug 2025 21:37:42 +0900
Subject: [PATCH] Fix futures, %worker-count shouldn't be zero to prevent
halting
---
module/ice-9/futures.scm | 2 +-
1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/module/ice-9/futures.scm b/module/ice-9/futures.scm
index 4a462839a..b6dcd45df 100644
--- a/module/ice-9/futures.scm
+++ b/module/ice-9/futures.scm
@@ -264,7 +264,7 @@ adding it to the waiter queue."
(define %worker-count
(if (provided? 'threads)
- (- (current-processor-count) 1)
+ (max 1 (1- (current-processor-count)))
0))
;; A dock of workers that stay here forever.
--
2.43.0
