Changes between Version 30 and Version 31 of Concurrency

Apr 13, 2006 1:34:27 PM (9 years ago)

Add outstanding issues


  • Concurrency

    v30 v31  
     37== Outstanding issues == 
     39There follows a list of issues on which decisions are still to be 
     40made.  A numbered item, eg. 1.2, indicates a question, an item ending 
     41in a letter, eg. 1.2.a, indicates a possible choice for question 1.2. 
     43=== 1. Cooperative or preemptive concurrency? === 
     45'''1.a.''' The spec requires cooperative concurrency, preemption is 
     46allowed as an extension.  Both would be specified precisely in 
     47terms of what progress and fairness guarantees the programmer can 
     51 * Allows many more implementations, including Hugs (although Hugs 
     52   needs to be updated to handle concurrent and 
     53   concurrent/reentrant foreign calls, and non-blocking I/O). 
     54 * Preemption isn't always required; a common case is an 
     55   application that relies on concurrency for I/O multiplexing, 
     56   where most threads are usually blocked. 
     57 * Cooperative systems can be faster, and are simpler to implement 
     58   (see state threads reference). 
     61 * Portability problems: if a programmer develops a concurrent 
     62   application on a preemptive system, there is no guarantee that 
     63   it will work as expected on a cooperative system, and the 
     64   compiler/runtime can give no useful feedback. 
     65 * Need to specify which operations are "yield points" in library 
     66   documentation. 
     67 * Long-running pure code must be refactored into the IO monad so 
     68   that explicit yield points can be inserted. 
     71'''1.b.''' Preemption is required by the spec. 
     74 * Simpler from the programmer's point of view: no yield, no 
     75   worrying about latency.  "write code as if the current 
     76   thread is the only one.". 
     79 * Imposes significant implementation constraints.  Essentially 
     80   only GHC and YHC would be able to implement it.  JHC has no 
     81   concept of thunks, which is a barrier to implementing general 
     82   preemption. 
     83 * Even in a preemptive system, deadlocks are easy to program, and 
     84   arbitrary starvation can result from laziness: evaluating 
     85   arbitrary expressions while holding an MVar can prevent other 
     86   threads from running.  The fact that we therefore require seq 
     87   and possibly deepSeq is disturbing, as is the notion that the 
     88   programmer must think about "what is evaluated" when 
     89   programming concurrent code. 
     92'''1.b.1.'''  Include thread priorities or not? 
     95 * Some applications require it 
     96 * It affects the fairness/progress guarantees, including the 
     97   possibility of priorities from the outset may be simpler. 
     100 * Hard to implement, no implementations yet. 
     103=== 2. Syntax for foreign call annoatations. === 
     105'''2.1.''' choices for concurrent calls: 
     107'''2.1.a.''' we annotate concurrent calls with 
     109  '''a.''' concurrent[[BR]] 
     110  '''b.''' mayblock[[BR]] 
     111  '''c.''' mightblock[[BR]] 
     112  '''d.''' blocks[[BR]] 
     113  '''e.''' longrunning[[BR]] 
     115  '''Rationale''' for using the term "block": blocking is the main 
     116  reason for wanting concurrent calls.  Concurrent calls allow the 
     117  progress guarantee to be retained in the presence of a blocking 
     118  foreign call.  A foreign call that just takes a long time is still 
     119  making progress. 
     121  '''Rationale''' for not using the term "block": the fact that the 
     122  call blocks is immaterial, the property we want to provide is that 
     123  it doesn't impede progress of other Haskell threads.  A long-running 
     124  call is indistinguishable from a blocked call in terms of the 
     125  progress of other threads. 
     127  We often don't know whether a library call will block or not (it 
     128  isn't documented), whereas saying a call should run concurrently 
     129  with other threads is a choice the programmer can reasonably make. 
     131'''2.1.b.''' we annotate non concurrent calls: 
     133  '''Rationale''' for annotating the non-concurrent calls: this is a 
     134  performance issue.  It is always correct to make a concurrent call, 
     135  but it might be more efficient to make a non-concurrent call if the 
     136  call does not block.  An implementation might implement ''all'' 
     137  calls as concurrent, for simplicity. 
     139  Against: John Meacham says "The FFI is inherently unsafe. We do not 
     140  need to coddle the programer who is writing raw FFI code." 
     142  '''a.''' nonconcurrent[[BR]] 
     143  '''b.''' noblock[[BR]] 
     144  '''c.''' returnsquickly[[BR]] 
     145  '''d.''' fast[[BR]] 
     146  '''e.''' quick[[BR]] 
     149'''2.2.''' choices for non-reentrant calls: 
     151  '''a.''' nonreentrant[[BR]] 
     152  '''b.''' nocallback 
     154  '''Rationale''' for annotating the non-reentrant calls, as opposed 
     155  to the reentrant ones: we want the "safe" option to be the default 
     156  (as in the FFI spec). 
     159'''2.3.''' should we annotate foreign calls according to whether they need 
     160to access thread-local state (TLS) or not? 
     163 * a call that doesn't need access to thread-local state, called from a bound thread, can be executed much more quickly on an implementation that doesn't run the Haskell thread directly on the bound OS thread, because it doesn't need to context switch. 
     166 * libraries that require TLS, eg. OpenGL, often have many fast TLS-using functions.  So implementations that need the no-TLS annotation in order to get good performance, will probably still get poor performance from libraries that need TLS anyway. 
    37169== References ==