# Changeset 9f10d1f2 for doc/proposals/concurrency/text

Ignore:
Timestamp:
Nov 23, 2017, 1:31:43 PM (5 years ago)
Branches:
aaron-thesis, arm-eh, cleanup-dtors, deferred_resn, demangler, enum, forall-pointer-decay, jacob/cs343-translation, jenkins-sandbox, master, new-ast, new-ast-unique-expr, new-env, no_list, persistent-indexer, resolv-new, with_gc
Children:
88ef2af
Parents:
07c1e595
Message:

Revised up to chapter three

Location:
doc/proposals/concurrency/text
Files:
6 edited

Unmodified
Removed

• ## doc/proposals/concurrency/text/cforall.tex

 r07c1e595 The following is a quick introduction to the \CFA language, specifically tailored to the features needed to support concurrency. \CFA is a extension of ISO-C and therefore supports all of the same paradigms as C. It is a non-object oriented system language, meaning most of the major abstractions have either no runtime overhead or can be opt-out easily. Like C, the basics of \CFA revolve around structures and routines, which are thin abstractions over machine code. The vast majority of the code produced by the \CFA translator respects memory-layouts and calling-conventions laid out by C. Interestingly, while \CFA is not an object-oriented language, lacking the concept of a receiver (e.g., this), it does have some notion of objects\footnote{C defines the term objects as : region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of which can represent values''\cite[3.15]{C11}}, most importantly construction and destruction of objects. Most of the following code examples can be found on the \CFA website \cite{www-cfa} \CFA is an extension of ISO-C and therefore supports all of the same paradigms as C. It is a non-object-oriented system-language, meaning most of the major abstractions have either no runtime overhead or can be opt-out easily. Like C, the basics of \CFA revolve around structures and routines, which are thin abstractions over machine code. The vast majority of the code produced by the \CFA translator respects memory-layouts and calling-conventions laid out by C. Interestingly, while \CFA is not an object-oriented language, lacking the concept of a receiver (e.g., {\tt this}), it does have some notion of objects\footnote{C defines the term objects as : region of data storage in the execution environment, the contents of which can represent values''~\cite[3.15]{C11}}, most importantly construction and destruction of objects. Most of the following code examples can be found on the \CFA website~\cite{www-cfa} \section{References} *p3   = ...;                                            //change p2 int y, z, & ar[3] = {x, y, z};          //initialize array of references typeof( ar[1]) p;                                       //is int, i.e., the type of referenced object typeof(&ar[1]) q;                                       //is int &, i.e., the type of reference sizeof( ar[1]) == sizeof(int);          //is true, i.e., the size of referenced object sizeof(&ar[1]) == sizeof(int *);        //is true, i.e., the size of a reference typeof( ar[1]) p;                                       //is int, referenced object type typeof(&ar[1]) q;                                       //is int &, reference type sizeof( ar[1]) == sizeof(int);          //is true, referenced object size sizeof(&ar[1]) == sizeof(int *);        //is true, reference size \end{cfacode} The important take away from this code example is that references offer a handle to an object, much like pointers, but which is automatically dereferenced for convenience. The important take away from this code example is that a reference offers a handle to an object, much like a pointer, but which is automatically dereferenced for convenience. \section{Overloading} Another important feature of \CFA is function overloading as in Java and \CC, where routines with the same name are selected based on the number and type of the arguments. As well, \CFA uses the return type as part of the selection criteria, as in Ada\cite{Ada}. For routines with multiple parameters and returns, the selection is complex. Another important feature of \CFA is function overloading as in Java and \CC, where routines with the same name are selected based on the number and type of the arguments. As well, \CFA uses the return type as part of the selection criteria, as in Ada~\cite{Ada}. For routines with multiple parameters and returns, the selection is complex. \begin{cfacode} //selection based on type and number of parameters delete(s);                              //deallocation, call destructor \end{cfacode} Note that like \CC, \CFA introduces \code{new} and \code{delete}, which behave like \code{malloc} and \code{free} in addition to constructing and destructing objects, after calling \code{malloc} and before calling \code{free} respectively. Note that like \CC, \CFA introduces \code{new} and \code{delete}, which behave like \code{malloc} and \code{free} in addition to constructing and destructing objects, after calling \code{malloc} and before calling \code{free}, respectively. \section{Parametric Polymorphism} Routines in \CFA can also be reused for multiple types. This capability is done using the \code{forall} clause which gives \CFA its name. \code{forall} clauses allow separately compiled routines to support generic usage over multiple types. For example, the following sum function works for any type that supports construction from 0 and addition : Routines in \CFA can also be reused for multiple types. This capability is done using the \code{forall} clause, which gives \CFA its name. \code{forall} clauses allow separately compiled routines to support generic usage over multiple types. For example, the following sum function works for any type that supports construction from 0 and addition : \begin{cfacode} //constraint type, 0 and + struct S { int i, j; }; int mem(S & this) with (this)           //with clause i = 1;                                          //this->i j = 2;                                          //this->j i = 1;                                                  //this->i j = 2;                                                  //this->j } int foo() { struct S1 { ... } s1; struct S2 { ... } s2; with (s1)                                       //with statement with (s1)                                               //with statement { //access fields of s1 //without qualification //access fields of s1 without qualification with (s2)                                       //nesting { //access fields of s1 and s2 //without qualification //access fields of s1 and s2 without qualification } } with (s1, s2)                           //scopes open in parallel with (s1, s2)                                   //scopes open in parallel { //access fields of s1 and s2 //without qualification //access fields of s1 and s2 without qualification } } \end{cfacode} \section{otype/dtype} For more information on \CFA see \cite{cforall-ug,rob-thesis,www-cfa}.
• ## doc/proposals/concurrency/text/concurrency.tex

 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 library still has to take both paradigms into account. 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. An approach that is worth mentioning because it is gaining in popularity is transactional memory~\cit. 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. \subsection{Synchronization} 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. 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 a 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 is 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 flag variables to detect barging threads are said to be using barging avoidance, while algorithms that baton-pass locks~\cite{Andrews89} between threads instead of releasing the locks are said to be using barging prevention. % ====================================================================== \begin{cfacode} typedef /*some monitor type*/ monitor; int f(monitor & m); int f(monitor& m); int main() { % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== 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. 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 (\code{dtype}). 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 : 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. 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. Furthermore, it allows the implementation greater freedom when it initialiezes the monitor locking. 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. For maximum usability, monitors use \gls{multi-acq} semantics, which means a single thread can acquire the same monitor multiple times without deadlock. For example, figure \ref{fig:search} uses recursion and \gls{multi-acq} to print values inside a binary tree. \begin{figure} \label{fig:search} \begin{cfacode} monitor printer { ... }; \end{cfacode} \caption{Recursive printing algorithm using \gls{multi-acq}.} \label{fig:search} \end{figure} The next semantic decision is to establish when \code{mutex} may be used as a type qualifier. Consider the following declarations: \begin{cfacode} int f1(monitor & mutex m); int f1(monitor& mutex m); int f2(const monitor & mutex m); int f3(monitor ** mutex m); int f4(monitor * mutex m []); int f3(monitor** mutex m); int f4(monitor* mutex m []); int f5(graph(monitor*) & mutex m); \end{cfacode} 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 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 unknown length int f4(monitor ** mutex m);  //Not Okay : Could be an array int f5(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 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 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 While OO monitors could be extended with a mutex qualifier for multiple-monitor calls, no example of this feature could be found. The capability 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 is safe from deadlock when using \gls{bulk-acq}. 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 ... } void bar(A & mutex a, B & /*nomutex*/ b) { //acquire a void bar(A& mutex a, B& /*nomutex*/ b) { //acquire a ... foo(a, b); ... //acquire b } void baz(A & /*nomutex*/ a, B & mutex b) { //acquire b void baz(A& /*nomutex*/ a, B& mutex b) { //acquire b ... foo(a, b); ... //acquire a } The \gls{multi-acq} monitor lock allows a monitor lock to be acquired by both \code{bar} or \code{baz} and acquired again in \code{foo}. In the calls to \code{bar} and \code{baz} the monitors are acquired in opposite order. However, such use leads to the lock acquiring order problem. In the example above, the user uses implicit ordering in the case of function \code{foo} but explicit ordering in the case of \code{bar} and \code{baz}. This subtle mistake means that calling these routines concurrently may lead to deadlock and is therefore undefined behavior. As shown\cite{Lister77}, solving this problem requires: However, such use leads to the lock acquiring order problem. In the example above, the user uses implicit ordering in the case of function \code{foo} but explicit ordering in the case of \code{bar} and \code{baz}. This subtle difference means that calling these routines concurrently may lead to deadlock and is therefore Undefined Behavior. As shown~\cite{Lister77}, solving this problem requires: \begin{enumerate} \item Dynamically tracking of the monitor-call order. \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 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. 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, nost systems 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 careful 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 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. 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} \begin{cfacode}[tabsize=3] monitor M {}; void foo( M & mutex m ) { void foo( M & mutex m1, M & mutex m2 ) { //critical section } void bar( M & m ) { foo( m ); void bar( M & m1, M & m2 ) { foo( m1, m2 ); } \end{cfacode}&\begin{cfacode}[tabsize=3] monitor M {}; void bar( M & m ) { mutex(m) { void bar( M & m1, M & m2 ) { mutex(m1, m2) { //critical section } }; \end{cfacode} Note that the destructor of a monitor must be a \code{mutex} routine. This requirement ensures that the destructor has mutual-exclusion. As with any object, any call to a monitor, using \code{mutex} or otherwise, is Undefined Behaviour after the destructor has run. Note that the destructor of a monitor must be a \code{mutex} routine to prevent deallocation while a thread is accessing the monitor. As with any object, calls to a monitor, using \code{mutex} or otherwise, is Undefined Behaviour after the destructor has run. % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== 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: 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 internal-scheduling : \begin{cfacode} } void foo(A & mutex a) { void foo(A& mutex a1, A& mutex a2) { ... //Wait for cooperation from bar() wait(a.e); wait(a1.e); ... } void bar(A & mutex a) { void bar(A& mutex a1, A& mutex a2) { //Provide cooperation for foo() ... //Unblock foo signal(a.e); } \end{cfacode} signal(a1.e); } \end{cfacode} 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. % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== 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. It is easier to understand the problem of multi-monitor scheduling using a series of pseudo-code examples. 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 \emph{group} 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} This version uses \gls{bulk-acq} (denoted using the {\sf\&} symbol), but the presence of multiple monitors does not add a particularly new meaning. Synchronization happens between the two threads in exactly the same way and order. The only difference is that mutual exclusion covers more monitors. On the implementation side, handling multiple monitors does add a degree of complexity as the next few examples demonstrate. While deadlock issues can occur when nesting monitors, these issues are only a symptom of the fact that locks, and by extension monitors, are not perfectly composable. For monitors, a well known deadlock problem is the Nested Monitor Problem \cite{Lister77}, which occurs when a \code{wait} is made by a thread that holds more than one monitor. For example, the following pseudo-code runs into the nested-monitor problem : While deadlock issues can occur when nesting monitors, these issues are only a symptom of the fact that locks, and by extension monitors, are not perfectly composable. For monitors, a well known deadlock problem is the Nested Monitor Problem~\cite{Lister77}, which occurs when a \code{wait} is made by a thread that holds more than one monitor. For example, the following pseudo-code runs into the nested-monitor problem : \begin{multicols}{2} \begin{pseudo} \end{pseudo} \end{multicols} The \code{wait} only releases monitor \code{B} so the signalling thread cannot acquire monitor \code{A} to get to the \code{signal}. Attempting release of all acquired monitors at the \code{wait} results in another set of problems such as releasing monitor \code{C}, which has nothing to do with the \code{signal}. \end{multicols} % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== 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. 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 to implement 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 a monitor is acceptable, e.g., \code{mutex} parameter global variables, pointer parameters or using locals with the \code{mutex}-statement. \begin{figure}[!b] Signalling thread \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=10] \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=10,escapechar=|] acquire A //Code Section 5 acquire A & B //Code Section 6 signal A & B |\label{line:signal1}|signal A & B //Code Section 7 release A & B \caption{Internal scheduling with \gls{bulk-acq}} \label{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} \end{figure} \begin{figure}[!b] \begin{center} \begin{cfacode}[xleftmargin=.4\textwidth] \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 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. 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 \ref{line:signal1}), it must actually transfer ownership of monitor \code{B} to the waiting thread. This ownership transfer is required in order to prevent barging into \code{B} by another thread, since both the signalling and signalled threads still need monitor \code{A}. There are three options. \subsubsection{Delaying signals} Signaller \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=6] \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=6,escapechar=|] acquire A acquire A & B signal A & B release A & B //Secretly keep B here |\label{line:secret}|//Secretly keep B here release A //Wakeup waiter and transfer A & B \end{pseudo} \end{multicols} However, this solution can become much more complicated depending on what is executed while secretly holding B (at line 10). Indeed, nothing prevents signalling monitor A on a different condition variable: However, this solution can become much more complicated depending on what is executed while secretly holding B (at line \ref{line:secret}). The goal in this solution is to avoid the need to transfer ownership of a subset of the condition monitors. However, listing \ref{lst:dependency} shows a slitghtly different example where a third thread iw waiting on monitor \code{A}, using a different condition variable. Because the thread is signalled when secretly holding \code{B}, the goal  becomes unreachable. Depending on the order of signals (line \ref{line:signal-ab} and \ref{line:signal-a}) 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. \paragraph{Case 2: thread 2 goes first.} In this case, the problem is that monitor B needs to be passed to thread 1, which can be done directly or using thread 2 as an intermediate. \\ 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 \ref{line:signal-a} before line \ref{line:signal-ab} 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 homogeneous group and therefore effectively precludes this approach. \subsubsection{Dependency graphs} \begin{figure} \begin{multicols}{3} Thread $\gamma$ \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=1] \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=6, escapechar=|] acquire A acquire A & B signal A & B |\label{line:signal-ab}|signal A & B release A & B signal A |\label{line:signal-a}|signal A release A \end{pseudo} Thread $\beta$ \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=1] \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=12] acquire A wait A \caption{Dependency graph} \label{lst:dependency} \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 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. \paragraph{Case 2: thread 2 goes first.} In this case, the problem is that monitor B needs to be passed to thread 1, which can be done directly or using thread 2 as an intermediate. \\ 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 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 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} \begin{pseudo} acquire A acquire B acquire C wait A & B & C release C release B release A \end{pseudo} \columnbreak \begin{pseudo} acquire A acquire B acquire C signal A & B & C release C release B release A \end{pseudo} \end{multicols} \begin{figure} \begin{center} \input{dependency} \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 preferred one. In the listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} pseudo-code, there is a solution that 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} back to the signaller 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 is effectively 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 close to polynomial. This complexity explosion can be seen in listing \ref{lst:explosion}, which is just a direct extension to three monitors, requires at least three ownership transfer and has multiple solutions. Furthermore, the presence of multiple solutions for ownership transfer can cause deadlock problems if a specific solution is not consistently picked; In the same way that multiple lock acquiring order can cause deadlocks. \begin{figure} \begin{multicols}{2} \begin{pseudo} acquire A acquire B acquire C wait A & B & C release C release B release A \end{pseudo} \columnbreak \begin{pseudo} acquire A acquire B acquire C signal A & B & C release C release B release A \end{pseudo} \end{multicols} \caption{Extension to three monitors of listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}} \label{lst:explosion} \end{figure} Listing \ref{lst:dependency} is the three threads example used in the delayed signals solution. 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 graphs 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 mentioning. 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 significant downsides. % ====================================================================== 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 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. 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 explicit synchronization, the \code{condition} type offers the \code{signal_block} routine, which handles the two-way handshake as shown in the example. This feature 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 either before or after the call. % ====================================================================== \end{tabular} \end{center} 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. This method is more constrained and explicit, which helps users reduce 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., Ada with \code{accept}, \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 multiple-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. \end{figure} 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. 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 approach requires a dense unique ordering of routines with an upper-bound and that ordering must be consistent across translation units. For OO languages this constraint is not problematic since objects do not offer means of adding member routines only in selected translation units. However, in \CFA users can extend objects with mutex routines that are only visible in certain translation unit. This means that establishing a program-wide dense-ordering between mutex routines can only be done in the program linking phase, and still could have issues when using dynamically shared objects. The alternative is to alter the implementation like this: \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 additional 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 for the \code{waitfor} statement to check if a routine is already queued. \begin{figure} \end{figure} Note that in the second picture, tasks need to always keep track of which routine they are attempting to acquire the monitor and the routine mask needs to have both a function pointer and a set of monitors, as will be discussed in the next section. These details where omitted from the picture for the sake of simplifying the representation. At this point, a decision must be made between flexibility and performance. Many design decisions in \CFA achieve both flexibility and performance, for example polymorphic routines add significant flexibility but inlining them means the optimizer can easily remove any runtime cost. Here however, the cost of flexibility cannot be trivially removed. In the end, the most flexible approach has been chosen since it allows users to write programs that would otherwise be prohibitively hard to write. This decision is based on the assumption that writing fast but inflexible locks is closer to a solved problems than writing locks that are as flexible as external scheduling in \CFA. Note that in the second picture, tasks need to always keep track of the monitors associated with mutex routines, and the routine mask needs to have both a function pointer and a set of monitors, as is be discussed in the next section. These details are omitted from the picture for the sake of simplicity. At this point, a decision must be made between flexibility and performance. Many design decisions in \CFA achieve both flexibility and performance, for example polymorphic routines add significant flexibility but inlining them means the optimizer can easily remove any runtime cost. Here however, the cost of flexibility cannot be trivially removed. In the end, the most flexible approach has been chosen since it allows users to write programs that would otherwise be hard to write. This decision is based on the assumption that writing fast but inflexible locks is closer to a solved problems than writing locks that are as flexible as external scheduling in \CFA. % ====================================================================== } \end{cfacode} The obvious solution is to specify the correct monitor as follows: void g(M & mutex a, M & mutex b) { waitfor( f, b ); } \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 behaviour can be extended to multi-monitor \code{waitfor} statement as follows. //wait for call to f with argument b waitfor(f, b); } \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 behaviour can be extended to the multi-monitor \code{waitfor} statement as follows. \begin{cfacode} void g(M & mutex a, M & mutex b) { waitfor( f, a, b); //wait for call to f with argument a and b waitfor(f, a, b); } \end{cfacode} } \end{cfacode} While the equivalent can happen when using internal scheduling, the fact that conditions are specific to a set of monitors means that users have to use two different condition variables. In both cases, partially matching monitor sets does not wake-up the waiting thread. It is also important to note that in the case of external scheduling, as for routine calls, the order of parameters is irrelevant; \code{waitfor(f,a,b)} and \code{waitfor(f,b,a)} are indistinguishable waiting condition. While the equivalent can happen when using internal scheduling, the fact that conditions are specific to a set of monitors means that users have to use two different condition variables. In both cases, partially matching monitor sets does not wake-up the waiting thread. It is also important to note that in the case of external scheduling the order of parameters is irrelevant; \code{waitfor(f,a,b)} and \code{waitfor(f,b,a)} are indistinguishable waiting condition. % ====================================================================== % ====================================================================== Syntactically, the \code{waitfor} statement takes a function identifier and a set of monitors. While the set of monitors can be any list of expression, the function name is more restricted because the compiler validates at compile time the validity of the function type and the parameters used with the \code{waitfor} statement. It checks that the set of monitor passed in matches the requirements for a function call. Listing \ref{lst:waitfor} shows various usage of the waitfor statement and which are acceptable. The choice of the function type is made ignoring any non-\code{mutex} parameter. One limitation of the current implementation is that it does not handle overloading. Syntactically, the \code{waitfor} statement takes a function identifier and a set of monitors. While the set of monitors can be any list of expression, the function name is more restricted because the compiler validates at compile time the validity of the function type and the parameters used with the \code{waitfor} statement. It checks that the set of monitors passed in matches the requirements for a function call. Listing \ref{lst:waitfor} shows various usage of the waitfor statement and which are acceptable. The choice of the function type is made ignoring any non-\code{mutex} parameter. One limitation of the current implementation is that it does not handle overloading but overloading is possible. \begin{figure} \begin{cfacode} waitfor(f4, a1);     //Incorrect : f4 ambiguous waitfor(f2, a1, b2); //Undefined Behaviour : b2 may not acquired waitfor(f2, a1, b2); //Undefined Behaviour : b2 not mutex } \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 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. Finally, for added flexibility, \CFA supports constructing a complex \code{waitfor} statement using the \code{or}, \code{timeout} and \code{else}. Indeed, multiple \code{waitfor} clauses 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 executed, \code{waitfor}s are followed by a statement (including the null statement \code{;}) or a compound statement, which is executed after the clause is triggered. 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, which checks for a matching function call already arrived and otherwise continues. Any and all of these clauses can be preceded by a \code{when} condition to dynamically toggle the accept clauses on or off based on some current state. Listing \ref{lst:waitfor2}, demonstrates several complex masks and some incorrect ones. \begin{figure}