[reactive] Re: black hole detection and concurrency
conal at conal.net
Wed Jan 7 22:39:16 EST 2009
That's great news. Please let me know when there's a build I can grab, and
I'll try it out.
Regards, - Conal
On Wed, Jan 7, 2009 at 7:22 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com> wrote:
> The bugs that we have identified result in deadlocks - the runtime doesn't
> notice that a thread blocked in throwTo can continue. I can't think of a
> way that this could lead to bogus <<loop>>, but I suppose I wouldn't be too
> surprised if it were possible.
> The best way forward is for you to test out a snapshot once these patches
> have made it into a build. Does that sound reasonable? I've been running
> your TestRace program for quite a while on 4 processors without any hangs
> Conal Elliott wrote:
>> I don't know if the bug would explain <<loop>>. My guess is that the
>> black-hole-detection code is incorrectly concluding there is a black hole
>> because a thunk was marked as in the process of being evaluated, then the
>> evaluating thread is killed without unmarking the thunk, and then another
>> thread needs the whnf. This is a fairly naive guess. I don't know this
>> machinery well enough to have confidence.
>> What do you think?
>> - Conal
>> On Tue, Jan 6, 2009 at 6:27 AM, Simon Marlow <marlowsd at gmail.com <mailto:
>> marlowsd at gmail.com>> wrote:
>> Conal Elliott wrote:
>> Indeed -- many thanks to Bertram, Sterling, Peter & others for
>> the help! I think getting this bug fixed will solve Reactive's
>> mysterious bugs and unblock its progress.
>> Ok, we can fix the fairly simple bug that a thread created in
>> blocked mode blocks throwTos after the thread has finished. But I'm
>> slightly suspicious of the <<loop>> results you were getting - does
>> this bug explain those too?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Glasgow-haskell-users