Context Navigation

-                      r5f91d650
+                      r07c1e595
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 Several tool can be used to solve concurrency challenges. Since many of these challenges appear with the use of mutable shared-state, some languages and libraries simply disallow mutable shared-state (Erlang~\cite{Erlang}, Haskell~\cite{Haskell}, Akka (Scala)~\cite{Akka}). In these paradigms, interaction among concurrent objects relies on message passing~\cite{Thoth,Harmony,V-Kernel} or other paradigms closely relate to networking concepts (channels\cite{CSP,Go} for example). However, in languages that use routine calls as their core abstraction-mechanism, these approaches force a clear distinction between concurrent and non-concurrent paradigms (i.e., message passing versus routine call). This distinction in turn means that, in order to be effective, programmers need to learn two sets of designs patterns. While this distinction can be hidden away in library code, effective use of the librairy still has to take both paradigms into account.
 Approaches based on shared memory are more closely related to non-concurrent paradigms since they often rely on basic constructs like routine calls and shared objects. At the lowest level, concurrent paradigms are implemented as atomic operations and locks. Many such mechanisms have been proposed, including semaphores~\cite{Dijkstra68b} and path expressions~\cite{Campbell74}. However, for productivity reasons it is desireable to have a higher-level construct be the core concurrency paradigm~\cite{HPP:Study}.
 An approach that is worth mentioning because it is gaining in popularity is transactionnal memory~\cite{Dice10}[Check citation]. While this approach is even pursued by system languages like \CC\cite{Cpp-Transactions}, the performance and feature set is currently too restrictive to be the main concurrency paradigm for systems language, which is why it was rejected as the core paradigm for concurrency in \CFA.
+Several tool can be used to solve concurrency challenges. Since many of these challenges appear with the use of mutable shared-state, some languages and libraries simply disallow mutable shared-state (Erlang~\cite{Erlang}, Haskell~\cite{Haskell}, Akka (Scala)~\cite{Akka}). In these paradigms, interaction among concurrent objects relies on message passing~\cite{Thoth,Harmony,V-Kernel} or other paradigms closely relate to networking concepts (channels\cite{CSP,Go} for example). However, in languages that use routine calls as their core abstraction-mechanism, these approaches force a clear distinction between concurrent and non-concurrent paradigms (i.e., message passing versus routine call). This distinction in turn means that, in order to be effective, programmers need to learn two sets of designs patterns. While this distinction can be hidden away in library code, effective use of the library still has to take both paradigms into account.
+Approaches based on shared memory are more closely related to non-concurrent paradigms since they often rely on basic constructs like routine calls and shared objects. At the lowest level, concurrent paradigms are implemented as atomic operations and locks. Many such mechanisms have been proposed, including semaphores~\cite{Dijkstra68b} and path expressions~\cite{Campbell74}. However, for productivity reasons it is desirable to have a higher-level construct be the core concurrency paradigm~\cite{HPP:Study}.
+An approach that is worth mentioning because it is gaining in popularity is transactional memory~\cite{Dice10}[Check citation]. While this approach is even pursued by system languages like \CC\cite{Cpp-Transactions}, the performance and feature set is currently too restrictive to be the main concurrency paradigm for systems language, which is why it was rejected as the core paradigm for concurrency in \CFA.
 One of the most natural, elegant, and efficient mechanisms for synchronization and communication, especially for shared-memory systems, is the \emph{monitor}. Monitors were first proposed by Brinch Hansen~\cite{Hansen73} and later described and extended by C.A.R.~Hoare~\cite{Hoare74}. Many programming languages---e.g., Concurrent Pascal~\cite{ConcurrentPascal}, Mesa~\cite{Mesa}, Modula~\cite{Modula-2}, Turing~\cite{Turing:old}, Modula-3~\cite{Modula-3}, NeWS~\cite{NeWS}, Emerald~\cite{Emerald}, \uC~\cite{Buhr92a} and Java~\cite{Java}---provide monitors as explicit language constructs. In addition, operating-system kernels and device drivers have a monitor-like structure, although they often use lower-level primitives such as semaphores or locks to simulate monitors. For these reasons, this project proposes monitors as the core concurrency-construct.
 \section{Basics}
 Non-determinism requires concurrent systems to offer support for mutual-exclusion and synchronisation. Mutual-exclusion is the concept that only a fixed number of threads can access a critical section at any given time, where a critical section is a group of instructions on an associated portion of data that requires the restricted access. On the other hand, synchronization enforces relative ordering of execution and synchronization tools provide numerous mechanisms to establish timing relationships among threads.
+Non-determinism requires concurrent systems to offer support for mutual-exclusion and synchronization. Mutual-exclusion is the concept that only a fixed number of threads can access a critical section at any given time, where a critical section is a group of instructions on an associated portion of data that requires the restricted access. On the other hand, synchronization enforces relative ordering of execution and synchronization tools provide numerous mechanisms to establish timing relationships among threads.
 \subsection{Mutual-Exclusion}
 As mentionned above, mutual-exclusion is the guarantee that only a fix number of threads can enter a critical section at once. However, many solutions exist for mutual exclusion, which vary in terms of performance, flexibility and ease of use. Methods range from low-level locks, which are fast and flexible but require significant attention to be correct, to  higher-level mutual-exclusion methods, which sacrifice some performance in order to improve ease of use. Ease of use comes by either guaranteeing some problems cannot occur (e.g., being deadlock free) or by offering a more explicit coupling between data and corresponding critical section. For example, the \CC \code{std::atomic<T>} offers an easy way to express mutual-exclusion on a restricted set of operations (e.g.: reading/writing large types atomically). Another challenge with low-level locks is composability. Locks have restricted composability because it takes careful organising for multiple locks to be used while preventing deadlocks. Easing composability is another feature higher-level mutual-exclusion mechanisms often offer.
+As mentioned above, mutual-exclusion is the guarantee that only a fix number of threads can enter a critical section at once. However, many solutions exist for mutual exclusion, which vary in terms of performance, flexibility and ease of use. Methods range from low-level locks, which are fast and flexible but require significant attention to be correct, to  higher-level mutual-exclusion methods, which sacrifice some performance in order to improve ease of use. Ease of use comes by either guaranteeing some problems cannot occur (e.g., being deadlock free) or by offering a more explicit coupling between data and corresponding critical section. For example, the \CC \code{std::atomic<T>} offers an easy way to express mutual-exclusion on a restricted set of operations (e.g.: reading/writing large types atomically). Another challenge with low-level locks is composability. Locks have restricted composability because it takes careful organizing for multiple locks to be used while preventing deadlocks. Easing composability is another feature higher-level mutual-exclusion mechanisms often offer.
 \subsection{Synchronization}
 As for mutual-exclusion, low-level synchronisation primitives often offer good performance and good flexibility at the cost of ease of use. Again, higher-level mechanism often simplify usage by adding better coupling between synchronization and data, e.g.: message passing, or offering simpler solution to otherwise involved challenges. As mentioned above, synchronization can be expressed as guaranteeing that event \textit{X} always happens before \textit{Y}. Most of the time, synchronisation happens within a critical section, where threads must acquire mutual-exclusion in a certain order. However, it may also be desirable to guarantee that event \textit{Z} does not occur between \textit{X} and \textit{Y}. Not satisfying this property called barging. For example, where event \textit{X} tries to effect event \textit{Y} but another thread acquires the critical section and emits \textit{Z} before \textit{Y}. The classic exmaple is the thread that finishes using a ressource and unblocks a thread waiting to use the resource, but the unblocked thread must compete again to acquire the resource. Preventing or detecting barging is an involved challenge with low-level locks, which can be made much easier by higher-level constructs. This challenge is often split into two different methods, barging avoidance and barging prevention. Algorithms that use status flags and other flag variables to detect barging threads are said to be using barging avoidance while algorithms that baton-passing locks between threads instead of releasing the locks are said to be using barging prevention.
+As for mutual-exclusion, low-level synchronization primitives often offer good performance and good flexibility at the cost of ease of use. Again, higher-level mechanism often simplify usage by adding better coupling between synchronization and data, e.g.: message passing, or offering simpler solution to otherwise involved challenges. As mentioned above, synchronization can be expressed as guaranteeing that event \textit{X} always happens before \textit{Y}. Most of the time, synchronization happens within a critical section, where threads must acquire mutual-exclusion in a certain order. However, it may also be desirable to guarantee that event \textit{Z} does not occur between \textit{X} and \textit{Y}. Not satisfying this property called barging. For example, where event \textit{X} tries to effect event \textit{Y} but another thread acquires the critical section and emits \textit{Z} before \textit{Y}. The classic example is the thread that finishes using a resource and unblocks a thread waiting to use the resource, but the unblocked thread must compete again to acquire the resource. Preventing or detecting barging is an involved challenge with low-level locks, which can be made much easier by higher-level constructs. This challenge is often split into two different methods, barging avoidance and barging prevention. Algorithms that use status flags and other flag variables to detect barging threads are said to be using barging avoidance while algorithms that baton-passing locks between threads instead of releasing the locks are said to be using barging prevention.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 The above monitor example displays some of the intrinsic characteristics. First, it is necessary to use pass-by-reference over pass-by-value for monitor routines. This semantics is important because at their core, monitors are implicit mutual-exclusion objects (locks), and these objects cannot be copied. Therefore, monitors are implicitly non-copyable objects.
+The above monitor example displays some of the intrinsic characteristics. First, it is necessary to use pass-by-reference over pass-by-value for monitor routines. This semantics is important because at their core, monitors are implicit mutual-exclusion objects (locks), and these objects cannot be copied. Therefore, monitors are implicitly non-copy-able objects.
 Another aspect to consider is when a monitor acquires its mutual exclusion. For example, a monitor may need to be passed through multiple helper routines that do not acquire the monitor mutual-exclusion on entry. Pass through can occur for generic helper routines (\code{swap}, \code{sort}, etc.) or specific helper routines like the following to implement an atomic counter :
 …
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 Notice how the counter is used without any explicit synchronisation and yet supports thread-safe semantics for both reading and writting, which is similar in usage to \CC \code{atomic} template.
+Notice how the counter is used without any explicit synchronization and yet supports thread-safe semantics for both reading and writing, which is similar in usage to \CC \code{atomic} template.
 Here, the constructor(\code{?\{\}}) uses the \code{nomutex} keyword to signify that it does not acquire the monitor mutual-exclusion when constructing. This semantics is because an object not yet con\-structed should never be shared and therefore does not require mutual exclusion. The prefix increment operator uses \code{mutex} to protect the incrementing process from race conditions. Finally, there is a conversion operator from \code{counter_t} to \code{size_t}. This conversion may or may not require the \code{mutex} keyword depending on whether or not reading a \code{size_t} is an atomic operation.
 …
 int f5(graph(monitor*) & mutex m);
 \end{cfacode}
 The problem is to indentify which object(s) should be acquired. Furthermore, each object needs to be acquired only once. In the case of simple routines like \code{f1} and \code{f2} it is easy to identify an exhaustive list of objects to acquire on entry. Adding indirections (\code{f3}) still allows the compiler and programmer to indentify which object is acquired. However, adding in arrays (\code{f4}) makes it much harder. Array lengths are not necessarily known in C, and even then making sure objects are only acquired once becomes none-trivial. This problem can be extended to absurd limits like \code{f5}, which uses a graph of monitors. To make the issue tractable, this project imposes the requirement that a routine may only acquire one monitor per parameter and it must be the type of the parameter with at most one level of indirection (ignoring potential qualifiers). Also note that while routine \code{f3} can be supported, meaning that monitor \code{**m} is be acquired, passing an array to this routine would be type safe and yet result in undefined behavior because only the first element of the array is acquired. However, this ambiguity is part of the C type-system with respects to arrays. For this reason, \code{mutex} is disallowed in the context where arrays may be passed:
 \begin{cfacode}
 int f1(monitor & mutex m);   //Okay : recommanded case
+The problem is to identify which object(s) should be acquired. Furthermore, each object needs to be acquired only once. In the case of simple routines like \code{f1} and \code{f2} it is easy to identify an exhaustive list of objects to acquire on entry. Adding indirections (\code{f3}) still allows the compiler and programmer to identify which object is acquired. However, adding in arrays (\code{f4}) makes it much harder. Array lengths are not necessarily known in C, and even then making sure objects are only acquired once becomes none-trivial. This problem can be extended to absurd limits like \code{f5}, which uses a graph of monitors. To make the issue tractable, this project imposes the requirement that a routine may only acquire one monitor per parameter and it must be the type of the parameter with at most one level of indirection (ignoring potential qualifiers). Also note that while routine \code{f3} can be supported, meaning that monitor \code{**m} is be acquired, passing an array to this routine would be type safe and yet result in undefined behaviour because only the first element of the array is acquired. However, this ambiguity is part of the C type-system with respects to arrays. For this reason, \code{mutex} is disallowed in the context where arrays may be passed:
+\begin{cfacode}
+int f1(monitor & mutex m);   //Okay : recommended case
 int f2(monitor * mutex m);   //Okay : could be an array but probably not
 int f3(monitor mutex m []);  //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
+int f3(monitor mutex m []);  //Not Okay : Array of unknown length
 int f4(monitor ** mutex m);  //Not Okay : Could be an array
 int f5(monitor * mutex m []); //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
+int f5(monitor * mutex m []); //Not Okay : Array of unknown length
 \end{cfacode}
 Note that not all array functions are actually distinct in the type system. However, even if the code generation could tell the difference, the extra information is still not sufficient to extend meaningfully the monitor call semantic.
 …
 f(a,b);
 \end{cfacode}
 While OO monitors could be extended with a mutex qualifier for multiple-monitor calls, no example of this feature could be found. The capacity to acquire multiple locks before entering a critical section is called \emph{\gls{bulk-acq}}. In practice, writing multi-locking routines that do not lead to deadlocks is tricky. Having language support for such a feature is therefore a significant asset for \CFA. In the case presented above, \CFA guarantees that the order of aquisition is consistent across calls to different routines using the same monitors as arguments. This consistent ordering means acquiring multiple monitors in the way is safe from deadlock. However, users can still force the acquiring order. For example, notice which routines use \code{mutex}/\code{nomutex} and how this affects aquiring order:
+While OO monitors could be extended with a mutex qualifier for multiple-monitor calls, no example of this feature could be found. The capacity to acquire multiple locks before entering a critical section is called \emph{\gls{bulk-acq}}. In practice, writing multi-locking routines that do not lead to deadlocks is tricky. Having language support for such a feature is therefore a significant asset for \CFA. In the case presented above, \CFA guarantees that the order of acquisition is consistent across calls to different routines using the same monitors as arguments. This consistent ordering means acquiring multiple monitors in the way is safe from deadlock. However, users can still force the acquiring order. For example, notice which routines use \code{mutex}/\code{nomutex} and how this affects acquiring order:
 \begin{cfacode}
 void foo(A & mutex a, B & mutex b) { //acquire a & b
 …
         \item Implement rollback semantics.
 \end{enumerate}
 While the first requirement is already a significant constraint on the system, implementing a general rollback semantics in a C-like language is still prohibitively complex \cite{Dice10}. In \CFA, users simply need to be carefull when acquiring multiple monitors at the same time or only use \gls{bulk-acq} of all the monitors. While \CFA provides only a partial solution, many system provide no solution and the \CFA partial solution handles many useful cases.
+While the first requirement is already a significant constraint on the system, implementing a general rollback semantics in a C-like language is still prohibitively complex \cite{Dice10}. In \CFA, users simply need to be careful when acquiring multiple monitors at the same time or only use \gls{bulk-acq} of all the monitors. While \CFA provides only a partial solution, many system provide no solution and the \CFA partial solution handles many useful cases.
 For example, \gls{multi-acq} and \gls{bulk-acq} can be used together in interesting ways:
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
 This example shows a trivial solution to the bank-account transfer-problem\cite{BankTransfer}. Without \gls{multi-acq} and \gls{bulk-acq}, the solution to this problem is much more involved and requires carefull engineering.
+This example shows a trivial solution to the bank-account transfer-problem\cite{BankTransfer}. Without \gls{multi-acq} and \gls{bulk-acq}, the solution to this problem is much more involved and requires careful engineering.
 \subsection{\code{mutex} statement} \label{mutex-stmt}
 The call semantics discussed aboved have one software engineering issue, only a named routine can acquire the mutual-exclusion of a set of monitor. \CFA offers the \code{mutex} statement to workaround the need for unnecessary names, avoiding a major software engineering problem\cite{2FTwoHardThings}. Listing \ref{lst:mutex-stmt} shows an example of the \code{mutex} statement, which introduces a new scope in which the mutual-exclusion of a set of monitor is acquired. Beyond naming, the \code{mutex} statement has no semantic difference from a routine call with \code{mutex} parameters.
+The call semantics discussed above have one software engineering issue, only a named routine can acquire the mutual-exclusion of a set of monitor. \CFA offers the \code{mutex} statement to workaround the need for unnecessary names, avoiding a major software engineering problem\cite{2FTwoHardThings}. Listing \ref{lst:mutex-stmt} shows an example of the \code{mutex} statement, which introduces a new scope in which the mutual-exclusion of a set of monitor is acquired. Beyond naming, the \code{mutex} statement has no semantic difference from a routine call with \code{mutex} parameters.
 \begin{figure}
 …
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 In addition to mutual exclusion, the monitors at the core of \CFA's concurrency can also be used to achieve synchronisation. With monitors, this capability is generally achieved with internal or external scheduling as in \cite{Hoare74}. Since internal scheduling within a single monitor is mostly a solved problem, this thesis concentrates on extending internal scheduling to multiple monitors. Indeed, like the \gls{bulk-acq} semantics, internal scheduling extends to multiple monitors in a way that is natural to the user but requires additional complexity on the implementation side.
+In addition to mutual exclusion, the monitors at the core of \CFA's concurrency can also be used to achieve synchronization. With monitors, this capability is generally achieved with internal or external scheduling as in \cite{Hoare74}. Since internal scheduling within a single monitor is mostly a solved problem, this thesis concentrates on extending internal scheduling to multiple monitors. Indeed, like the \gls{bulk-acq} semantics, internal scheduling extends to multiple monitors in a way that is natural to the user but requires additional complexity on the implementation side.
 First, here is a simple example of such a technique:
 …
 There are two details to note here. First, the \code{signal} is a delayed operation, it only unblocks the waiting thread when it reaches the end of the critical section. This semantic is needed to respect mutual-exclusion. The alternative is to return immediately after the call to \code{signal}, which is significantly more restrictive. Second, in \CFA, while it is common to store a \code{condition} as a field of the monitor, a \code{condition} variable can be stored/created independently of a monitor. Here routine \code{foo} waits for the \code{signal} from \code{bar} before making further progress, effectively ensuring a basic ordering.
 An important aspect of the implementation is that \CFA does not allow barging, which means that once function \code{bar} releases the monitor, \code{foo} is guaranteed to resume immediately after (unless some other thread waited on the same condition). This guarantees offers the benefit of not having to loop arount waits in order to guarantee that a condition is still met. The main reason \CFA offers this guarantee is that users can easily introduce barging if it becomes a necessity but adding barging prevention or barging avoidance is more involved without language support. Supporting barging prevention as well as extending internal scheduling to multiple monitors is the main source of complexity in the design of \CFA concurrency.
+An important aspect of the implementation is that \CFA does not allow barging, which means that once function \code{bar} releases the monitor, \code{foo} is guaranteed to resume immediately after (unless some other thread waited on the same condition). This guarantees offers the benefit of not having to loop around waits in order to guarantee that a condition is still met. The main reason \CFA offers this guarantee is that users can easily introduce barging if it becomes a necessity but adding barging prevention or barging avoidance is more involved without language support. Supporting barging prevention as well as extending internal scheduling to multiple monitors is the main source of complexity in the design of \CFA concurrency.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 It is easier to understand the problem of multi-monitor scheduling using a series of pseudo-code. Note that for simplicity in the following snippets of pseudo-code, waiting and signalling is done using an implicit condition variable, like Java built-in monitors. Indeed, \code{wait} statements always use the implicit condition as paremeter and explicitly names the monitors (A and B) associated with the condition. Note that in \CFA, condition variables are tied to a set of monitors on first use (called branding) which means that using internal scheduling with distinct sets of monitors requires one condition variable per set of monitors.
+It is easier to understand the problem of multi-monitor scheduling using a series of pseudo-code. Note that for simplicity in the following snippets of pseudo-code, waiting and signalling is done using an implicit condition variable, like Java built-in monitors. Indeed, \code{wait} statements always use the implicit condition as parameter and explicitly names the monitors (A and B) associated with the condition. Note that in \CFA, condition variables are tied to a set of monitors on first use (called branding) which means that using internal scheduling with distinct sets of monitors requires one condition variable per set of monitors.
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 …
 % ======================================================================
 A larger example is presented to show complex issuesfor \gls{bulk-acq} and all the implementation options are analyzed. Listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} shows an example where \gls{bulk-acq} adds a significant layer of complexity to the internal signalling semantics, and listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-cfa} shows the corresponding \CFA code which implements the pseudo-code in listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}. For the purpose of translating the given pseudo-code into \CFA-code any method of introducing monitor into context, other than a \code{mutex} parameter, is acceptable, e.g., global variables, pointer parameters or using locals with the \code{mutex}-statement.
+A larger example is presented to show complex issues for \gls{bulk-acq} and all the implementation options are analyzed. Listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} shows an example where \gls{bulk-acq} adds a significant layer of complexity to the internal signalling semantics, and listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-cfa} shows the corresponding \CFA code which implements the pseudo-code in listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}. For the purpose of translating the given pseudo-code into \CFA-code any method of introducing monitor into context, other than a \code{mutex} parameter, is acceptable, e.g., global variables, pointer parameters or using locals with the \code{mutex}-statement.
 \begin{figure}[!b]
 …
 \end{figure}
 The complexity begins at code sections 4 and 8, which are where the existing semantics of internal scheduling need to be extended for multiple monitors. The root of the problem is that \gls{bulk-acq} is used in a context where one of the monitors is already acquired and is why it is important to define the behaviour of the previous pseudo-code. When the signaller thread reaches the location where it should ``release \code{A & B}'' (line 16), it must actually transfer ownership of monitor \code{B} to the waiting thread. This ownership trasnfer is required in order to prevent barging. Since the signalling thread still needs monitor \code{A}, simply waking up the waiting thread is not an option because it violates mutual exclusion. There are three options.
+The complexity begins at code sections 4 and 8, which are where the existing semantics of internal scheduling need to be extended for multiple monitors. The root of the problem is that \gls{bulk-acq} is used in a context where one of the monitors is already acquired and is why it is important to define the behaviour of the previous pseudo-code. When the signaller thread reaches the location where it should ``release \code{A & B}'' (line 16), it must actually transfer ownership of monitor \code{B} to the waiting thread. This ownership transfer is required in order to prevent barging. Since the signalling thread still needs monitor \code{A}, simply waking up the waiting thread is not an option because it violates mutual exclusion. There are three options.
 \subsubsection{Delaying signals}
 The obvious solution to solve the problem of multi-monitor scheduling is to keep ownership of all locks until the last lock is ready to be transferred. It can be argued that that moment is when the last lock is no longer needed because this semantics fits most closely to the behaviour of single-monitor scheduling. This solution has the main benefit of transferring ownership of groups of monitors, which simplifies the semantics from mutiple objects to a single group of objects, effectively making the existing single-monitor semantic viable by simply changing monitors to monitor groups.
+The obvious solution to solve the problem of multi-monitor scheduling is to keep ownership of all locks until the last lock is ready to be transferred. It can be argued that that moment is when the last lock is no longer needed because this semantics fits most closely to the behaviour of single-monitor scheduling. This solution has the main benefit of transferring ownership of groups of monitors, which simplifies the semantics from multiple objects to a single group of objects, effectively making the existing single-monitor semantic viable by simply changing monitors to monitor groups.
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 Waiter
 …
 \end{figure}
 The goal in this solution is to avoid the need to transfer ownership of a subset of the condition monitors. However, this goal is unreacheable in the previous example. Depending on the order of signals (line 12 and 15) two cases can happen.
+The goal in this solution is to avoid the need to transfer ownership of a subset of the condition monitors. However, this goal is unreachable in the previous example. Depending on the order of signals (line 12 and 15) two cases can happen.
 \paragraph{Case 1: thread 1 goes first.} In this case, the problem is that monitor A needs to be passed to thread 2 when thread 1 is done with it.
 …
 Note that ordering is not determined by a race condition but by whether signalled threads are enqueued in FIFO or FILO order. However, regardless of the answer, users can move line 15 before line 11 and get the reverse effect.
 In both cases, the threads need to be able to distinguish, on a per monitor basis, which ones need to be released and which ones need to be transferred, which means monitors cannot be handled as a single homogenous group and therefore effectively precludes this approach.
+In both cases, the threads need to be able to distinguish, on a per monitor basis, which ones need to be released and which ones need to be transferred, which means monitors cannot be handled as a single homogeneous group and therefore effectively precludes this approach.
 \subsubsection{Dependency graphs}
 In the listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} pseudo-code, there is a solution which statisfies both barging prevention and mutual exclusion. If ownership of both monitors is transferred to the waiter when the signaller releases \code{A & B} and then the waiter transfers back ownership of \code{A} when it releases it, then the problem is solved (\code{B} is no longer in use at this point). Dynamically finding the correct order is therefore the second possible solution. The problem it encounters is that it effectively boils down to resolving a dependency graph of ownership requirements. Here even the simplest of code snippets requires two transfers and it seems to increase in a manner closer to polynomial. For example, the following code, which is just a direct extension to three monitors, requires at least three ownership transfer and has multiple solutions:
+In the listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} pseudo-code, there is a solution which satisfies both barging prevention and mutual exclusion. If ownership of both monitors is transferred to the waiter when the signaller releases \code{A & B} and then the waiter transfers back ownership of \code{A} when it releases it, then the problem is solved (\code{B} is no longer in use at this point). Dynamically finding the correct order is therefore the second possible solution. The problem it encounters is that it effectively boils down to resolving a dependency graph of ownership requirements. Here even the simplest of code snippets requires two transfers and it seems to increase in a manner closer to polynomial. For example, the following code, which is just a direct extension to three monitors, requires at least three ownership transfer and has multiple solutions:
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 …
 \end{figure}
 Listing \ref{lst:dependency} is the three thread example rewritten for dependency graphs. Figure \ref{fig:dependency} shows the corresponding dependency graph that results, where every node is a statement of one of the three threads, and the arrows the dependency of that statement (e.g., $\alpha1$ must happen before $\alpha2$). The extra challenge is that this dependency graph is effectively post-mortem, but the runtime system needs to be able to build and solve these graphs as the dependency unfolds. Resolving dependency graph being a complex and expensive endeavour, this solution is not the preffered one.
+Listing \ref{lst:dependency} is the three thread example rewritten for dependency graphs. Figure \ref{fig:dependency} shows the corresponding dependency graph that results, where every node is a statement of one of the three threads, and the arrows the dependency of that statement (e.g., $\alpha1$ must happen before $\alpha2$). The extra challenge is that this dependency graph is effectively post-mortem, but the runtime system needs to be able to build and solve these graphs as the dependency unfolds. Resolving dependency graph being a complex and expensive endeavour, this solution is not the preferred one.
 \subsubsection{Partial signalling} \label{partial-sig}
 Finally, the solution that is chosen for \CFA is to use partial signalling. Again using listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}, the partial signalling solution transfers ownership of monitor B at lines 10 but does not wake the waiting thread since it is still using monitor A. Only when it reaches line 11 does it actually wakeup the waiting thread. This solution has the benefit that complexity is encapsulated into only two actions, passing monitors to the next owner when they should be release and conditionally waking threads if all conditions are met. This solution has a much simpler implementation than a dependency graph solving algorithm which is why it was chosen. Furthermore, after being fully implemented, this solution does not appear to have any downsides worth mentionning.
+Finally, the solution that is chosen for \CFA is to use partial signalling. Again using listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}, the partial signalling solution transfers ownership of monitor B at lines 10 but does not wake the waiting thread since it is still using monitor A. Only when it reaches line 11 does it actually wakeup the waiting thread. This solution has the benefit that complexity is encapsulated into only two actions, passing monitors to the next owner when they should be release and conditionally waking threads if all conditions are met. This solution has a much simpler implementation than a dependency graph solving algorithm which is why it was chosen. Furthermore, after being fully implemented, this solution does not appear to have any downsides worth mentioning.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 An important note is that, until now, signalling a monitor was a delayed operation. The ownership of the monitor is transferred only when the monitor would have otherwise been released, not at the point of the \code{signal} statement. However, in some cases, it may be more convenient for users to immediately transfer ownership to the thread that is waiting for cooperation, which is achieved using the \code{signal_block} routine\footnote{name to be discussed}.
 The example in listing \ref{lst:datingservice} highlights the difference in behaviour. As mentioned, \code{signal} only transfers ownership once the current critical section exits, this behaviour requires additional synchronisation when a two-way handshake is needed. To avoid this extraneous synchronisation, the \code{condition} type offers the \code{signal_block} routine, which handles the two-way handshake as shown in the example. This removes the need for a second condition variables and simplifies programming. Like every other monitor semantic, \code{signal_block} uses barging prevention, which means mutual-exclusion is baton-passed both on the frond-end and the back-end of the call to \code{signal_block}, meaning no other thread can acquire the monitor neither before nor after the call.
+The example in listing \ref{lst:datingservice} highlights the difference in behaviour. As mentioned, \code{signal} only transfers ownership once the current critical section exits, this behaviour requires additional synchronization when a two-way handshake is needed. To avoid this extraneous synchronization, the \code{condition} type offers the \code{signal_block} routine, which handles the two-way handshake as shown in the example. This removes the need for a second condition variables and simplifies programming. Like every other monitor semantic, \code{signal_block} uses barging prevention, which means mutual-exclusion is baton-passed both on the frond-end and the back-end of the call to \code{signal_block}, meaning no other thread can acquire the monitor neither before nor after the call.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 This method is more constrained and explicit, which helps users tone down the undeterministic nature of concurrency. Indeed, as the following examples demonstrates, external scheduling allows users to wait for events from other threads without the concern of unrelated events occuring. External scheduling can generally be done either in terms of control flow (e.g., \uC with \code{_Accept}) or in terms of data (e.g., Go with channels). Of course, both of these paradigms have their own strenghts and weaknesses but for this project control-flow semantics were chosen to stay consistent with the rest of the languages semantics. Two challenges specific to \CFA arise when trying to add external scheduling with loose object definitions and multi-monitor routines. The previous example shows a simple use \code{_Accept} versus \code{wait}/\code{signal} and its advantages. Note that while other languages often use \code{accept}/\code{select} as the core external scheduling keyword, \CFA uses \code{waitfor} to prevent name collisions with existing socket \acrshort{api}s.
+This method is more constrained and explicit, which helps users tone down the non-deterministic nature of concurrency. Indeed, as the following examples demonstrates, external scheduling allows users to wait for events from other threads without the concern of unrelated events occurring. External scheduling can generally be done either in terms of control flow (e.g., \uC with \code{_Accept}) or in terms of data (e.g., Go with channels). Of course, both of these paradigms have their own strengths and weaknesses but for this project control-flow semantics were chosen to stay consistent with the rest of the languages semantics. Two challenges specific to \CFA arise when trying to add external scheduling with loose object definitions and multi-monitor routines. The previous example shows a simple use \code{_Accept} versus \code{wait}/\code{signal} and its advantages. Note that while other languages often use \code{accept}/\code{select} as the core external scheduling keyword, \CFA uses \code{waitfor} to prevent name collisions with existing socket \acrshort{api}s.
 For the \code{P} member above using internal scheduling, the call to \code{wait} only guarantees that \code{V} is the last routine to access the monitor, allowing a third routine, say \code{isInUse()}, acquire mutual exclusion several times while routine \code{P} is waiting. On the other hand, external scheduling guarantees that while routine \code{P} is waiting, no routine other than \code{V} can acquire the monitor.
 …
 There are other alternatives to these pictures, but in the case of this picture, implementing a fast accept check is relatively easy. Restricted to a fixed number of mutex members, N, the accept check reduces to updating a bitmask when the acceptor queue changes, a check that executes in a single instruction even with a fairly large number (e.g., 128) of mutex members. This technique cannot be used in \CFA because it relies on the fact that the monitor type enumerates (declares) all the acceptable routines. For OO languages this does not compromise much since monitors already have an exhaustive list of member routines. However, for \CFA this is not the case; routines can be added to a type anywhere after its declaration. It is important to note that the bitmask approach does not actually require an exhaustive list of routines, but it requires a dense unique ordering of routines with an upper-bound and that ordering must be consistent across translation units.
 The alternative is to alter the implementeation like this:
+The alternative is to alter the implementation like this:
 \begin{center}
 …
 \end{center}
 Generating a mask dynamically means that the storage for the mask information can vary between calls to \code{waitfor}, allowing for more flexibility and extensions. Storing an array of accepted function-pointers replaces the single instruction bitmask compare with dereferencing a pointer followed by a linear search. Furthermore, supporting nested external scheduling (e.g., listing \ref{lst:nest-ext}) may now require additionnal searches on calls to \code{waitfor} statement to check if a routine is already queued in.
+Generating a mask dynamically means that the storage for the mask information can vary between calls to \code{waitfor}, allowing for more flexibility and extensions. Storing an array of accepted function-pointers replaces the single instruction bitmask compare with dereferencing a pointer followed by a linear search. Furthermore, supporting nested external scheduling (e.g., listing \ref{lst:nest-ext}) may now require additional searches on calls to \code{waitfor} statement to check if a routine is already queued in.
 \begin{figure}
 …
 void g(M & mutex b, M & mutex c) {
         waitfor(f); //two monitors M => unkown which to pass to f(M & mutex)
+        waitfor(f); //two monitors M => unknown which to pass to f(M & mutex)
+}
 \end{cfacode}
 …
 \end{cfacode}
 This syntax is unambiguous. Both locks are acquired and kept by \code{g}. When routine \code{f} is called, the lock for monitor \code{b} is temporarily transferred from \code{g} to \code{f} (while \code{g} still holds lock \code{a}). This behavior can be extended to multi-monitor \code{waitfor} statement as follows.
+This syntax is unambiguous. Both locks are acquired and kept by \code{g}. When routine \code{f} is called, the lock for monitor \code{b} is temporarily transferred from \code{g} to \code{f} (while \code{g} still holds lock \code{a}). This behaviour can be extended to multi-monitor \code{waitfor} statement as follows.
 \begin{cfacode}
 …
 Note that the set of monitors passed to the \code{waitfor} statement must be entirely contained in the set of monitors already acquired in the routine. \code{waitfor} used in any other context is Undefined Behaviour.
 An important behavior to note is when a set of monitors only match partially :
+An important behaviour to note is when a set of monitors only match partially :
 \begin{cfacode}
 …
 void bar() {
         f(a2, b); //fufill cooperation
+        f(a2, b); //fulfill cooperation
+}
 \end{cfacode}
 …
 \end{figure}
 Finally, for added flexibility, \CFA supports constructing complex \code{waitfor} mask using the \code{or}, \code{timeout} and \code{else}. Indeed, multiple \code{waitfor} can be chained together using \code{or}; this chain forms a single statement that uses baton-pass to any one function that fits one of the function+monitor set passed in. To eanble users to tell which accepted function is accepted, \code{waitfor}s are followed by a statement (including the null statement \code{;}) or a compound statement. When multiple \code{waitfor} are chained together, only the statement corresponding to the accepted function is executed. A \code{waitfor} chain can also be followed by a \code{timeout}, to signify an upper bound on the wait, or an \code{else}, to signify that the call should be non-blocking, that is only check of a matching function call already arrived and return immediately otherwise. Any and all of these clauses can be preceded by a \code{when} condition to dynamically construct the mask based on some current state. Listing \ref{lst:waitfor2}, demonstrates several complex masks and some incorrect ones.
+Finally, for added flexibility, \CFA supports constructing complex \code{waitfor} mask using the \code{or}, \code{timeout} and \code{else}. Indeed, multiple \code{waitfor} can be chained together using \code{or}; this chain forms a single statement that uses baton-pass to any one function that fits one of the function+monitor set passed in. To enable users to tell which accepted function is accepted, \code{waitfor}s are followed by a statement (including the null statement \code{;}) or a compound statement. When multiple \code{waitfor} are chained together, only the statement corresponding to the accepted function is executed. A \code{waitfor} chain can also be followed by a \code{timeout}, to signify an upper bound on the wait, or an \code{else}, to signify that the call should be non-blocking, that is only check of a matching function call already arrived and return immediately otherwise. Any and all of these clauses can be preceded by a \code{when} condition to dynamically construct the mask based on some current state. Listing \ref{lst:waitfor2}, demonstrates several complex masks and some incorrect ones.
 \begin{figure}

Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.

Context Navigation

Changeset 07c1e595 for doc/proposals/concurrency/text/concurrency.tex

Legend:

doc/proposals/concurrency/text/concurrency.tex

Download in other formats: