[squeak-dev] The Trunk: System-cmm.725.mcz
eliot.miranda at gmail.com
Tue Jun 30 17:46:51 UTC 2015
Hi Levente, Hi Chris,
On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 3:41 PM, Levente Uzonyi <leves at elte.hu> wrote:
> There's no need to store preferences in a data structure at all. We
> already have "pragma" preferences (since 4.1), which store the preference
> values independently. Since the 4.1 release it's a "permanent" goal to
> rewrite all preferences to "pragma" preferences.
> We should just make it happen.
This seems like a lot of work, and is work that can be done over time. But
right now we're suffering lock ups due to the Mutex in Preferences. For
example, the Notifier/Debugger accesses the scrollBarsOnRight preference
and I've often seen lock ups caused by this. So I propose that I fix the
access to be as I described it. There be no access lock except for
adding/updating preferences. So reading is done without synchronisation,
and setting and/or adding is done by copying and assigning. I also propose
to compile preferences without creating a block, so
which is well-supported by both the Interpreter and the Cog VMs, given
Object>>value ^self. This to save space and time.
> P.S.: Reverting that method will solve the concurrency issue.
> On Tue, 28 Apr 2015, Eliot Miranda wrote:
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 12:47 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
>> Wait, the newer one has a non-local return in it, but
>> Mutex>>#critical: has an ensure: in it anyway, so maybe I don't see
>> the problem..?
>> If one hits ctrl-period when the system is in the critical section then
>> the debugger can't open because it interrupts the critical section,
>> preventing the ensure block from running, attempts to access e.g.
>> scroll bar preferences when it tries to open, and the system deadlocks.
>> So preferences either need to be *not* protected by a critical section, or
>> the Debugger needs not to access preferences.
>> IMO, we should try and write preferences so that they don't require a
>> lock. Writing them as a lock-free data structure would be a really good
>> idea. First that critical section is slow and clunky. Second, I
>> presume it is there only for the rare case of a write to preferences, not
>> to protect reads.
>> IMO, a simple implementation which copied and replaced the entire
>> preferences dictionary on write would be sufficient. Sure there's a danger
>> that some client would get a stale value if it read concurrently
>> while there was a write, but then so what? A preference is a preference,
>> not a hard-and-fast value, and code should work accessing a preference no
>> matter its value, so momentarily getting a stale value
>> shouldn't matter. So the implementation could be as simple as
>> addPreference: aName categories: categoryList default: aValue
>> balloonHelp: helpString projectLocal: localBoolean changeInformee:
>> informeeSymbol changeSelector: aChangeSelector type: aType
>> "Add or replace a preference as indicated. Reuses the preexisting
>> Preference object for this symbol, if there is one, so that UI artifacts
>> that interact with it will remain valid."
>> | aPreference aPrefSymbol |
>> aPrefSymbol := aName asSymbol.
>> aPreference := DictionaryOfPreferences
>> at: aPrefSymbol
>> [| newPreference |
>> newPreference := aPreference
>> type: aType.
>> AccessLock critical:
>> [| newDict |
>> newDict := DictionaryOfPreferences copy.
>> newDict at: aPrefSymbol put: newPreference].
>> self compileAccessMethodForPreference:aPreference.
>> On Tue, Apr 28, 2015 at 2:43 PM, Chris Muller <asqueaker at gmail.com>
>> >> The above change restores the old behavior of locking up the
>> image, so it
>> >> should be reverted. An additional comment explaininng why aBlock
>> must not be
>> >> evaluated inside the argument of
>> #accessDictionaryOfPreferencesIn: would be
>> >> helpful.
>> > Ahh, because aBlock might have a non-local return in it, leaving
>> > Mutex unsignaled (and critical unenterable), is that right?
>> > Took me a minute to see that problem.
>> > Okay, I'll revert that method if no one else does by my next
>> >> It would be even better to finally get rid of
>> >> Levente
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Squeak-dev