[PATCH 4 of 6] plan9: prevent potential wait()
mpm at selenic.com
Fri Aug 16 10:08:31 CDT 2013
On Thu, 2013-08-15 at 18:19 -0500, Jeff Sickel wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2013, at 4:59 PM, Matt Mackall <mpm at selenic.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, 2013-08-13 at 21:20 -0500, Jeff Sickel wrote:
> >> A small number, less than 130 forked children, may be
> >> beneficial on Plan 9 (see following test script).
> > These are concurrent children, yes? The worker code should start up
> > children proportional to CPUs. How many CPUs do you have?
> countcpus() returns 1 as we don't support os.sysconf('SC_NPROCESSORS_ONLN').
Ok, you've found two bugs:
a) we're going multithreaded on single core machines (not a good idea)
b) your os.wait() is extra-busted
If we fix (a), then (b) will be less relevant.
Mathematics is the supreme nostalgia of our time.
More information about the Mercurial-devel