[
Home
]
[ Index:
by date
|
by threads
]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
| Date: | -- (:) |
| From: | Jonathan Roewen <jonathan.roewen@g...> |
| Subject: | Re: [Caml-list] Implementing co-op threads in ocaml |
Another thought: is there any way to modify the compilers to generate a function call after every so many ocaml instructions? For example, a Thread.yield () in order to provide some sort of quasi-realtime constraints (and prevent apps from not yielding in a non-allocating loop). Jonathan On 8/13/05, Jonathan Roewen <jonathan.roewen@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, > > I have a few questions about how to allocate some C-side values in an > ocaml type, for the purposes of implementing custom threading in a > native app. > > After reading through some systhreads code, I've come up with the > notion that the following 5 C-land values are probably key to making > this work: > > char * bottom_of_stack; /* Saved value of caml_bottom_of_stack */ > unsigned long last_retaddr; /* Saved value of caml_last_return_address */ > value * gc_regs; /* Saved value of caml_gc_regs */ > char * exception_pointer; /* Saved value of caml_exception_pointer */ > struct caml__roots_block * local_roots; /* Saved value of local_roots */ > > I've been trying to make sense of all the rules and things in the > ocaml manuals for storing C data in an ocaml value, but am having some > trouble. Especially with gc_regs, which I assume points to a value > inside the ocaml heap. > > For the purposes of the rules that everything being on a 32-bit > boundary, all the pointers would be fine, and the fact that > last_retaddr is a 32bit value, all this would be fine. > > Since I'm doing co-op threading primarily in OCaml, I'm also assuming > I don't need to create custom stacks for each thread (such as in C), > and having to swap stacks; therefore, access to ocaml global > values/functions should be fine. Is this assumption correct? > > Am I also correct to think that the only real trick to this would be > making sure the GC scans all thread roots? If say my threads are in a > list, I could have an external function that scans the thread, and > just iter over this list? > > I'm especially interested in how to correctly handle the C-specifics > for storing the pointers and things, but other feedback is also > welcome =) > > Jonathan >