I think I'm convinced it's worthwhile to try harder at getting
cross-process channels-over-channels working. It would result in a lot less
churn, for sure. The fact that they have to be transmitted out of band is
an interesting serialization challenge, but it shouldn't be insurmountable.
I think t
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 3:21 AM, Robert O'Callahan
wrote:
> On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Patrick Walton
> wrote:
>
> > In theory you can use cmsg on POSIX systems to send channels over
> > channels, by treating channels as file descriptors. I tried this first,
> and
> > I believe it actually
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 7:10 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> In theory you can use cmsg on POSIX systems to send channels over
> channels, by treating channels as file descriptors. I tried this first, and
> I believe it actually worked well on Linux. But on Mac I ran into all sorts
> of (as far as I
On 19/06/15 00:40, Patrick Walton wrote:
In an effort to keep this sort of thing from happening again, I'd like to
suggest that all new code that spawns threads and passes channels or boxed
objects over channels not be allowed to pass review until audited for
multiprocess safety up until the mul
In theory you can use cmsg on POSIX systems to send channels over channels,
by treating channels as file descriptors. I tried this first, and I believe
it actually worked well on Linux. But on Mac I ran into all sorts of (as
far as I can tell) kernel bugs, including kernel panics and data loss. It
On Fri, Jun 19, 2015 at 12:45 PM, Patrick Walton
wrote:
> It's fine to pass channels over channels as long as those channels don't
> cross process boundaries.
>
Out of interest, why can't you pass channels over channels across a process
boundary?
Rob
--
oIo otoeololo oyooouo otohoaoto oaonoyoo
For the memory profiler, it seems like some socket abstraction would
work fine. The master process can just listen on a IPC socket and the
messages can get broadcast to it.
jack.
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 6:50 PM, Nicholas Nethercote
wrote:
> On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
On Thu, Jun 18, 2015 at 5:45 PM, Patrick Walton wrote:
> It's fine to pass channels over channels as long as those channels don't
> cross process boundaries. In that case, the paint task lives in the chrome
> process (since it has access to the GPU), so you're fine. The problematic
> cases are ess
It's fine to pass channels over channels as long as those channels don't
cross process boundaries. In that case, the paint task lives in the chrome
process (since it has access to the GPU), so you're fine. The problematic
cases are essentially {script,layout} <-> (anything else).
Patrick
_
The memory profiler relies heavily on passing channels over channels.
The memory profiler makes measurement requests of threads and passes
them a channel through which they can return the measurements.
One example from paint_task.rs:
impl Reporter for PaintChan {
// Just injects an appropriat
Hi everyone,
I'm rebasing my multiprocess patch and found that many of the new features
that have landed were implemented in a way that was incompatible with
multiprocess Servo. In particular:
* WebDriver passes channels over channels between script and the chrome
process.
* Canvas relies on pas
11 matches
Mail list logo
