[#35400] Fwd: [ruby-cvs:38176] Ruby:r30994 (trunk): * string.c (rb_str_byteslice): the resulted encoding should keep — "Martin J. Dst" <duerst@...>
I'm really surprised that the encoding is kept for an arbitrary byteslice.
3 messages
2011/03/01
[#35403] Why are hash keys sometimes duped? — Aaron Patterson <aaron@...>
Why are some objects duped when they are used as hash keys and other
6 messages
2011/03/01
[#35407] Re: Why are hash keys sometimes duped?
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/03/01
Aaron Patterson <aaron@tenderlovemaking.com> wrote:
[#35417] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4463][Open] [PATCH] release GVL for fcntl() for operations that may block — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
8 messages
2011/03/03
[#35418] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4463][Open] [PATCH] release GVL for fcntl() for operations that may block
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/03
> Issue #4463 has been reported by Eric Wong.
[#35424] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4463][Open] [PATCH] release GVL for fcntl() for operations that may block
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/04
Hi
[#35425] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4463][Open] [PATCH] release GVL for fcntl() for operations that may block
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/03/04
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35428] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4463][Open] [PATCH] release GVL for fcntl() for operations that may block
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/05
Hi
[#35426] [Ruby 1.8 - Bug #4467][Open] Process.maxgroups= should only accept numeric values — Daniel Berger <djberg96@...>
10 messages
2011/03/04
[#35440] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #1047] request: getters, setters for the GC — Narihiro Nakamura <authorNari@...>
4 messages
2011/03/07
[#35446] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4477][Open] Kernel:exec and backtick (`) don't work for certain system commands — Joachim Wuttke <j.wuttke@...>
10 messages
2011/03/07
[#35462] Source for 1.8 syck gram.y and token.re? — Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
I found bug in 1.8 ext/syck. The problem is in gram.c and/or token.c.
7 messages
2011/03/07
[#35467] Re: Source for 1.8 syck gram.y and token.re?
— Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
2011/03/08
This is obviously dead and gone: http://whytheluckystiff.net/syck/
[#35468] Re: Source for 1.8 syck gram.y and token.re?
— Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
2011/03/08
Syck is dead. 1.9 should make Psych/libyaml default. The fact that
[#35469] Re: Source for 1.8 syck gram.y and token.re?
— Kurt Stephens <ks@...>
2011/03/08
I know syck is dead.
[#35472] Re: Source for 1.8 syck gram.y and token.re?
— Charles Oliver Nutter <headius@...>
2011/03/09
Maybe it's possible to bribe Aaron into releasing a Psych gem for 1.8?
[#35483] /proc/$PID/environ in Linux — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
I wanted to inspect the environment of a long-running process[1] and I
5 messages
2011/03/10
[#35494] Re: can someone explain this? — Michael Edgar <adgar@...>
[+ruby-core]
1 message
2011/03/13
[#35509] Why has defined? been changed for autoloaded constants in 1.9? — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Hi!
6 messages
2011/03/17
[#35513] String#upcase and UTF-8/Unicode not working — Nikolai Weibull <now@...>
Why does the following print ”äBC” instead of ”ÄBC”?
3 messages
2011/03/17
[#35519] NoMethodError#message may take very long to execute — Adiel Mittmann <adiel@...>
Hello,
5 messages
2011/03/17
[#35528] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4512][Open] [PATCH] ext/fcntl/fcntl.c: add F_DUPFD_CLOEXEC constant — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
9 messages
2011/03/20
[#35536] File.write take 4 — Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
Hello all.
6 messages
2011/03/21
[#36090] Fwd: File.write take 4
— Roger Pack <rogerdpack2@...>
2011/05/10
Could I get any feedback on my latest patch for File.write?
[#35552] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4523][Open] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file — Alex Young <alex@...>
14 messages
2011/03/24
[#43442] [ruby-trunk - Feature #4523] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file
— nobu <nobu@...>
2012/03/18
[#43467] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4523] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file
— Alex Young <alex@...>
2012/03/19
On 18/03/12 10:22, nobu wrote:
[#43469] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4523] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file
— Luis Lavena <luislavena@...>
2012/03/19
On Mon, Mar 19, 2012 at 8:06 AM, Alex Young <alex@blackkettle.org> wrote:
[#43477] Re: [ruby-trunk - Feature #4523] Kernel#require to return the path of the loaded file
— Alex Young <alex@...>
2012/03/19
On 19/03/12 11:58, Luis Lavena wrote:
[#35555] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4527][Open] [PATCH] IO#close releases GVL if possible — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
10 messages
2011/03/25
[#35565] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
33 messages
2011/03/28
[#35569] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/28
> ref: [ruby-core:35527]
[#35572] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/03/28
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35583] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/29
2011/3/29 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>:
[#35981] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/05/03
[#35958] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/04/30
[#35959] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/04/30
Comment for patch 2.
[#35989] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/05/04
[#35990] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/05/04
Motohiro KOSAKI <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35991] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/05/04
[#35992] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/05/04
diff --git a/ext/-test-/wait_for_single_fd/wait_for_single_fd.c
[#35566] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4532][Open] [PATCH] add IO#pread and IO#pwrite methods — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
12 messages
2011/03/28
[#35570] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4532][Open] [PATCH] add IO#pread and IO#pwrite methods
— KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
2011/03/28
2011/3/28 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>:
[#35573] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4532][Open] [PATCH] add IO#pread and IO#pwrite methods
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/03/28
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote:
[#35567] [Ruby 1.9 - Bug #4534][Open] ri does not open $PAGER with program name only — Robert Klemme <shortcutter@...>
5 messages
2011/03/28
[#35586] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4538][Open] [PATCH (cleanup)] avoid unnecessary select() calls before doing I/O — Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
9 messages
2011/03/29
[#35596] [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4538] [PATCH (cleanup)] avoid unnecessary select() calls before doing I/O
— Charles Nutter <headius@...>
2011/04/01
[#35598] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4538] [PATCH (cleanup)] avoid unnecessary select() calls before doing I/O
— Eric Wong <normalperson@...>
2011/04/01
Charles Nutter <headius@headius.com> wrote:
[ruby-core:35583] Re: [Ruby 1.9 - Feature #4531][Open] [PATCH 0/7] use poll() instead of select() in certain cases
From:
KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@...>
Date:
2011-03-29 12:07:46 UTC
List:
ruby-core #35583
2011/3/29 Eric Wong <normalperson@yhbt.net>: > KOSAKI Motohiro <kosaki.motohiro@gmail.com> wrote: >> > ref: [ruby-core:35527] >> > >> > This adds a new C API function with the following prototype: >> > >> > rb_io_poll_fd(int fd, short events, int timeout); >> > >> > It is emulated using select() for platforms that we do not support >> > poll() for. t is much easier to use than rb_thread_select() and >> > rb_thread_fd_select() for the common case in C extensions[1]. >> > >> > For Linux (and eventually any other platforms where poll() works for all >> > select()-able files), we actually implement rb_io_poll_fd() using the >> > poll() system call which means it is faster for high numbered file >> > descriptors and does not put malloc pressure on the garbage collector. >> >> Meta review comment. All performance patches should have mesured >> performance number. > > Based on a contrived test case: > ttp://redmine.ruby-lang.org/attachments/1562/io_select_using_poll_test.rb > I get the following results: > > ---- before NOFILE=1024 --- > max fd: 1024 (results not apparent with <= 1024 max fd) > last IO: #<IO:fd 1022> > .050000 1.440000 3.490000 ( .476264) > > GC.count: 386 > > ---- after NOFILE=1024 --- > max fd: 1024 (results not apparent with <= 1024 max fd) > last IO: #<IO:fd 1022> > .430000 0.320000 2.750000 ( .734643) > > GC.count: 343 > > ---- before NOFILE=16384 --- > max fd: 16384 (results not apparent with <= 1024 max fd) > last IO: #<IO:fd 16382> > .610000 5.680000 9.290000 ( .266017) > > GC.count: 643 > > ---- after NOFILE=16384 --- > max fd: 16384 (results not apparent with <= 1024 max fd) > last IO: #<IO:fd 16382> > .970000 0.450000 3.420000 ( .415426) > > GC.count: 394 > > I don't have real world results/test case but I think small bits > like this count for the future. Never mind. this result is successful to persuade me. :) I'll review whole series and commit them if I don't have no issue. >> And, if you really want to care C10K scalability issue, why don't you use >> epoll? > > I assume you mean Ruby programming in general and not making MRI itself > use epoll(). > > I find synchronous programming easier especially when dealing with > existing libraries (I use Ruby to make programming life easier :) > > For me, thousands of native threads (NPTL + 64-bit) often makes more > sense than epoll() + non-blocking I/O. > > Concurrent connections isn't always an issue, either, but also sometimes > have many open file handles to support other tasks[1]. OK. I have no objection. > I mainly think select() is a horrible interface and having extension > authors to deal with HAVE_RB_FD_INIT and remembering rb_fd_term() is > dangerous. mall bits of pressure from Rubyists can hopefully steer > other OSes towards better poll() support. I'm sorry. I haven't catch this. can you please explain more detail?