From: Christopher Allan Webber <cwebber@dustycloud.org>
To: Andy Wingo <wingo@pobox.com>
Cc: guile-devel@gnu.org
Subject: Re: wip-ports-refactor
Date: Wed, 06 Apr 2016 23:16:59 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <87pou282vo.fsf@dustycloud.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <87twjempnf.fsf@pobox.com>
Andy Wingo writes:
> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a refactor to ports. The goal is to have a
> better concurrency story. Let me tell that story then get down to the
> details.
Hoo, what an email! I need to read your code before I can do a full
commentary. But...
> More appropriate is 8sync, a new project by Chris Webber that is
> designed to be a kind of user-space threading library for Guile.
Hey, thanks! I hope it's on the right track.
> I did give a try at prototyping such a thing a long time ago,
> "ethreads". Ethreads are user-space threads, which are really delimited
> continuations with a scheduler. If the thread -- the dynamic extent of
> a program that runs within a prompt -- if the thread would block on I/O,
> it suspends itself, returning to the scheduler, and then the scheduler
> resumes the thread when I/O can continue. There's an epoll loop
> underneath.
>
> That hack seemed to work; I even got the web server working on it, and
> ran my web site on it for a while. The problem was, though, that it
> completely bypassed ports. It made its own port types and buffers and
> everything. That's not really Guile -- that's a library.
>
> * * *
>
> Which brings us to the port refactor. Ultimately I see ports as all
> having buffers. These buffers can be accessed from Scheme. Normal I/O
> goes to the buffer first. When the buffers need filling or emptying,
> Scheme code can call Scheme code to do that. There could be Scheme
> dynamic parameters defining whether filling/emptying blocks -- if it
> doesn't block, then if the read would block it could call out to some
> context to suspend the thread. Since it's all Scheme code, that
> continuation can be resumed as well -- the delimited continuation does
> not capture a trampoline through C. The buffer itself is represented as
> a bytevector with a couple of cursors, which gives us some basic
> threadsafety without locks on the Scheme side -- Scheme always checks
> that accesses are within bounds.
>
> But, currently in Guile 2.0 and in master, buffering is handled by the
> port implementation. That means that there is no buffer to expose to
> Scheme, and no real path towards implementing efficient I/O operators
> that need to grovel in a buffer from Scheme. It also means that there's
> no easy solution for non-blocking I/O, AFAIU.
>
> The wip-port-refactor branch is a step towards centralizing buffering
> management within the generic ports code. It thins the interface to
> port implementations, instead assuming that the read/write functions are
> to unbuffered mutable stores, as Guile is the part handling the
> buffering. I've documented what I can in the branch.
So, does this branch replace ethreads, or compliment it? Where should I
be focusing my (currently limited) review / integration attempt energy?
I've been hoping to review ethreads this week but now I'm unsure. Can
you explain how the efforts currently relate?
> The commits before the HEAD are fairly trivial I think; it's the last
> one that's a doozy. It doesn't yet remove locks; there's still a lot of
> locks, and it's hard to know what we can do without locks given the
> leeway give to modern C compilers. But it's a step.
>
> Going forward we need to define a Scheme data type for ports, and to
> allow the read/write procedures to be called from Scheme, and to allow
> Scheme implementaitons of those procedures. We also need to figure out
> how to do non-blocking I/O, both on files and non-files; should we set
> all our FD's to O_NONBLOCK? How does it affect our internal
> interfaces? I do not know yet.
One other question is if this will help in the "no nice way to do custom
binary ports" stuff that was blocking the
tls-enabled-ports-in-guile-proper thing...
> There's still space for different schedulers. I wouldn't want to
> include a scheduler and a thread concept in Guile 2.2.0 I don't think --
> but if we can build it in such a way that it seems natural, on top of
> ports, then it sounds like a good idea.
As I've said, I'm not tied to 8sync specifically if doing something more
internally makes more sense. (Even if I have a nice site and logo
coming together now ;))
Exciting times!
- Chris
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-04-07 4:16 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 19+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2016-04-06 20:46 wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-07 4:16 ` Christopher Allan Webber [this message]
2016-04-12 8:52 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-13 14:27 ` wip-ports-refactor Christopher Allan Webber
2016-04-12 9:33 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-14 14:03 ` wip-ports-refactor Ludovic Courtès
2016-04-17 8:49 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-17 10:44 ` wip-ports-refactor Ludovic Courtès
2016-04-19 8:00 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-19 14:15 ` wip-ports-refactor Ludovic Courtès
2016-05-10 15:02 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-05-10 16:53 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-05-11 14:00 ` wip-ports-refactor Christopher Allan Webber
2016-05-11 14:23 ` wip-ports-refactor Ludovic Courtès
2016-05-12 8:15 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-04-24 11:05 ` wip-ports-refactor Chris Vine
2016-05-10 14:30 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
2016-05-11 10:42 ` wip-ports-refactor Chris Vine
2016-05-12 6:16 ` wip-ports-refactor Andy Wingo
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
List information: https://www.gnu.org/software/guile/
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=87pou282vo.fsf@dustycloud.org \
--to=cwebber@dustycloud.org \
--cc=guile-devel@gnu.org \
--cc=wingo@pobox.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).