Context Navigation

-                      rf7a4f89
+                      rcf966b5
 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~\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.
+An approach that is worth mentioning because it is gaining in popularity is transactional memory~\cite{Herlihy93}. 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.
 …
 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. 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.
+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 initializes 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, listing \ref{fig:search} uses recursion and \gls{multi-acq} to print values inside a binary tree.
 \begin{figure}
 \begin{cfacode}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Recursive printing algorithm using \gls{multi-acq}.},label={fig:search}]
 monitor printer { ... };
 struct tree {
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
-\caption{Recursive printing algorithm using \gls{multi-acq}.}
-\label{fig:search}
 \end{figure}
 Having both \code{mutex} and \code{nomutex} keywords is redundant based on the meaning of a routine having neither of these keywords. For example, given a routine without qualifiers \code{void foo(counter_t & this)}, then it is reasonable that it should default to the safest option \code{mutex}, whereas assuming \code{nomutex} is unsafe and may cause subtle errors. In fact, \code{nomutex} is the ``normal'' parameter behaviour, with the \code{nomutex} keyword effectively stating explicitly that ``this routine is not special''. Another alternative is making exactly one of these keywords mandatory, which provides the same semantics but without the ambiguity of supporting routines with neither keyword. Mandatory keywords would also have the added benefit of being self-documented but at the cost of extra typing. While there are several benefits to mandatory keywords, they do bring a few challenges. Mandatory keywords in \CFA would imply that the compiler must know without doubt whether or not a parameter is a monitor or not. Since \CFA relies heavily on traits as an abstraction mechanism, the distinction between a type that is a monitor and a type that looks like a monitor can become blurred. For this reason, \CFA only has the \code{mutex} keyword and uses no keyword to mean \code{nomutex}.
+Having both \code{mutex} and \code{nomutex} keywords is redundant based on the meaning of a routine having neither of these keywords. For example, it is reasonable that it should default to the safest option (\code{mutex}) when given a routine without qualifiers \code{void foo(counter_t & this)}, whereas assuming \code{nomutex} is unsafe and may cause subtle errors. On the other hand, \code{nomutex} is the ``normal'' parameter behaviour, it effectively states explicitly that ``this routine is not special''. Another alternative is making exactly one of these keywords mandatory, which provides the same semantics but without the ambiguity of supporting routines with neither keyword. Mandatory keywords would also have the added benefit of being self-documented but at the cost of extra typing. While there are several benefits to mandatory keywords, they do bring a few challenges. Mandatory keywords in \CFA would imply that the compiler must know without doubt whether or not a parameter is a monitor or not. Since \CFA relies heavily on traits as an abstraction mechanism, the distinction between a type that is a monitor and a type that looks like a monitor can become blurred. For this reason, \CFA only has the \code{mutex} keyword and uses no keyword to mean \code{nomutex}.
 The next semantic decision is to establish when \code{mutex} may be used as a type qualifier. Consider the following declarations:
 …
         \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, nost systems 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, most 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:
 …
 \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.
 \begin{figure}
+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}. Table \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{table}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
 …
 \caption{Regular call semantics vs. \code{mutex} statement}
 \label{lst:mutex-stmt}
 \end{figure}
+\end{table}
 % ======================================================================
 …
+}
 \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.
 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.
+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, i.e., the signaller and signalled thread cannot be in the monitor simultaneously. 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 guarantee offers the benefit of not having to loop around waits to recheck that a condition is 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 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.
+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 variable 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. The example below shows the simple case of having two threads (one for each column) and a single monitor A.
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 …
 \end{pseudo}
 \end{multicols}
 The example shows the simple case of having two threads (one for each column) and a single monitor A. One thread acquires before waiting (atomically blocking and releasing A) and the other acquires before signalling. It is important to note here that both \code{wait} and \code{signal} must be called with the proper monitor(s) already acquired. This semantic is a logical requirement for barging prevention.
+One thread acquires before waiting (atomically blocking and releasing A) and the other acquires before signalling. It is important to note here that both \code{wait} and \code{signal} must be called with the proper monitor(s) already acquired. This semantic is a logical requirement for barging prevention.
 A direct extension of the previous example is a \gls{bulk-acq} version:
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 \begin{pseudo}
 …
 release A & B
 \end{pseudo}
 \columnbreak
 \begin{pseudo}
 acquire A & B
 …
 \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}.
 However, for monitors as for locks, it is possible to write a program using nesting without encountering any problems if nesting is done correctly. For example, the next pseudo-code snippet acquires monitors {\sf A} then {\sf B} before waiting, while only acquiring {\sf B} when signalling, effectively avoiding the nested monitor problem.
+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} introduces a different set of problems, such as releasing monitor \code{C}, which has nothing to do with the \code{signal}.
+However, for monitors as for locks, it is possible to write a program using nesting without encountering any problems if nesting is done correctly. For example, the next pseudo-code snippet acquires monitors {\sf A} then {\sf B} before waiting, while only acquiring {\sf B} when signalling, effectively avoiding the Nested Monitor Problem~\cite{Lister77}.
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 …
 \end{multicols}
+This simple refactoring may not be possible, forcing more complex restructuring.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 % ======================================================================
 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]
+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}[!t]
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 Waiting thread
 …
 release A
 \end{pseudo}
 \columnbreak
 Signalling thread
 \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=10,escapechar=|]
 …
         release A & B
         //Code Section 8
 release A
+|\label{line:lastRelease}|release A
 \end{pseudo}
 \end{multicols}
 \caption{Internal scheduling with \gls{bulk-acq}}
 \label{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Internal scheduling with \gls{bulk-acq}},label={lst:int-bulk-pseudo}]
+\end{cfacode}
 \begin{center}
 \begin{cfacode}[xleftmargin=.4\textwidth]
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
 \columnbreak
 Signalling thread
 \begin{cfacode}
 …
 \end{cfacode}
 \end{multicols}
+\caption{Equivalent \CFA code for listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}}
+\label{lst:int-bulk-cfa}
+\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 \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}
+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{cfacode}[caption={Equivalent \CFA code for listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}},label={lst:int-bulk-cfa}]
+\end{cfacode}
 \begin{multicols}{2}
 Waiter
 …
 \end{pseudo}
 \end{multicols}
+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.
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}, with delayed signalling comments},label={lst:int-secret}]
+\end{cfacode}
+\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}'' (listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo} 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}
+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. The naive approach to this solution is to only release monitors once every monitor in a group can be released. However, since some monitors are never released (i.e., the monitor of a thread), this interpretation means groups can grow but may never shrink. A more interesting interpretation is to only transfer groups as one but to recreate the groups on every operation, i.e., limit ownership transfer to one per \code{signal}/\code{release}.
+However, this solution can become much more complicated depending on what is executed while secretly holding B (listing \ref{lst:int-secret} 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 slightly different example where a third thread is waiting on monitor \code{A}, using a different condition variable. Because the third thread is signalled when secretly holding \code{B}, the goal  becomes unreachable. Depending on the order of signals (listing \ref{lst:dependency} line \ref{line:signal-ab} and \ref{line:signal-a}) two cases can happen :
+\paragraph{Case 1: thread $\alpha$ goes first.} In this case, the problem is that monitor \code{A} needs to be passed to thread $\beta$ when thread $\alpha$ is done with it.
+\paragraph{Case 2: thread $\beta$ goes first.} In this case, the problem is that monitor \code{B} needs to be retained and passed to thread $\alpha$ along with monitor \code{A}, which can be done directly or possibly using thread $\beta$ 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.
+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 for listing \ref{lst:dependency}.
 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.
 …
 release A
 \end{pseudo}
 \columnbreak
 Thread $\gamma$
 \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=6, escapechar=|]
 …
         acquire A & B
                 |\label{line:signal-ab}|signal A & B
         release A & B
+        |\label{line:release-ab}|release A & B
         |\label{line:signal-a}|signal A
+release A
+\end{pseudo}
+|\label{line:release-a}|release A
+\end{pseudo}
 \columnbreak
 Thread $\beta$
 \begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=12]
+\begin{pseudo}[numbers=left, firstnumber=12, escapechar=|]
 acquire A
         wait A
+release A
+\end{pseudo}
+|\label{line:release-aa}|release A
+\end{pseudo}
 \end{multicols}
 \caption{Dependency graph}
 \label{lst:dependency}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Pseudo-code for the three thread example.},label={lst:dependency}]
+\end{cfacode}
 \begin{center}
 \input{dependency}
 …
 \end{pseudo}
 \end{multicols}
 \caption{Extension to three monitors of listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}}
 \label{lst:explosion}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Extension to three monitors of listing \ref{lst:int-bulk-pseudo}},label={lst:explosion}]
+\end{cfacode}
 \end{figure}
 …
 \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 significant downsides.
+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 \code{B} at lines \ref{line:signal1} to the waiter but does not wake the waiting thread since it is still using monitor \code{A}. Only when it reaches line \ref{line:lastRelease} 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 released 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.
+While listing \ref{lst:dependency} is a complicated problem for previous solutions, it can be solved easily with partial signalling :
+\begin{itemize}
+        \item When thread $\gamma$ reaches line \ref{line:release-ab} it transfers monitor \code{B} to thread $\alpha$ and continues to hold monitor \code{A}.
+        \item When thread $\gamma$ reaches line \ref{line:release-a}  it transfers monitor \code{A} to thread $\beta$  and wakes it up.
+        \item When thread $\beta$  reaches line \ref{line:release-aa} it transfers monitor \code{A} to thread $\alpha$ and wakes it up.
+        \item Problem solved!
+\end{itemize}
 % ======================================================================
 …
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 \begin{figure}
+\begin{table}
 \begin{tabular}{|c|c|}
 \code{signal} & \code{signal_block} \\
 …
 \end{tabular}
 \caption{Dating service example using \code{signal} and \code{signal_block}. }
 \label{lst:datingservice}
 \end{figure}
 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 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.
+\label{tbl:datingservice}
+\end{table}
+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.
+The example in table \ref{tbl: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.
 % ======================================================================
 …
 % ======================================================================
 % ======================================================================
 In \uC, monitor declarations include an exhaustive list of monitor operations. Since \CFA is not object oriented, monitors become both more difficult to implement and less clear for a user:
+In \uC, a monitor class declaration includee an exhaustive list of monitor operations. Since \CFA is not object oriented, monitors become both more difficult to implement and less clear for a user:
 \begin{cfacode}
 …
 \end{cfacode}
+Furthermore, external scheduling is an example where implementation constraints become visible from the interface. Indeed, since there is no hard limit to the number of threads trying to acquire a monitor concurrently, performance is a significant concern. Here is the pseudo code for the entering phase of a monitor:
+Furthermore, external scheduling is an example where implementation constraints become visible from the interface. Here is the pseudo code for the entering phase of a monitor:
 \begin{center}
 \begin{tabular}{l}
 …
 \end{tabular}
 \end{center}
 For the first two conditions, it is easy to implement a check that can evaluate the condition in a few instruction. However, a fast check for \pscode{monitor accepts me} is much harder to implement depending on the constraints put on the monitors. Indeed, monitors are often expressed as an entry queue and some acceptor queue as in the following figure:
 …
 \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 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.
+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 these constraints are common, since objects only offer adding member routines consistently across translation units via inheritence. 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 among 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 for the \code{waitfor} statement to check if a routine is already queued.
+Here, the mutex routine called is associated with a thread on the entry queue while a list of acceptable routines is kept seperately. 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}
 \begin{cfacode}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Example of nested external scheduling},label={lst:nest-ext}]
 monitor M {};
 void foo( M & mutex a ) {}
 …
 \end{cfacode}
-\caption{Example of nested external scheduling}
-\label{lst:nest-ext}
 \end{figure}
 …
 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}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Various correct and incorrect uses of the waitfor statement},label={lst:waitfor}]
 monitor A{};
 monitor B{};
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
-\caption{Various correct and incorrect uses of the waitfor statement}
-\label{lst:waitfor}
 \end{figure}
 …
 \begin{figure}
 \begin{cfacode}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Various correct and incorrect uses of the or, else, and timeout clause around a waitfor statement},label={lst:waitfor2}]
 monitor A{};
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
-\caption{Various correct and incorrect uses of the or, else, and timeout clause around a waitfor statement}
-\label{lst:waitfor2}
 \end{figure}
 …
 An interesting use for the \code{waitfor} statement is destructor semantics. Indeed, the \code{waitfor} statement can accept any \code{mutex} routine, which includes the destructor (see section \ref{data}). However, with the semantics discussed until now, waiting for the destructor does not make any sense since using an object after its destructor is called is undefined behaviour. The simplest approach is to disallow \code{waitfor} on a destructor. However, a more expressive approach is to flip execution ordering when waiting for the destructor, meaning that waiting for the destructor allows the destructor to run after the current \code{mutex} routine, similarly to how a condition is signalled.
 \begin{figure}
 \begin{cfacode}
+\begin{cfacode}[caption={Example of an executor which executes action in series until the destructor is called.},label={lst:dtor-order}]
 monitor Executer {};
 struct  Action;
 …
+}
 \end{cfacode}
-\caption{Example of an executor which executes action in series until the destructor is called.}
-\label{lst:dtor-order}
 \end{figure}
 For example, listing \ref{lst:dtor-order} shows an example of an executor with an infinite loop, which waits for the destructor to break out of this loop. Switching the semantic meaning introduces an idiomatic way to terminate a task and/or wait for its termination via destruction.

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

Context Navigation

Changeset cf966b5 for doc/proposals/concurrency/text/concurrency.tex

Legend:

doc/proposals/concurrency/text/concurrency.tex

Download in other formats: