Ignore:
File:
1 edited

Legend:

Unmodified
Added
Removed

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

    r7c17511 rff98952  
    44% ======================================================================
    55% ======================================================================
    6 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 that closely relate to networking concepts (channels\cit for example). However, in languages that use routine calls as their core abstraction-mechanism, these approaches force a clear distinction between concurrent and non-concurrent paradigms (i.e., message passing versus routine call). This distinction in turn means that, in order to be effective, programmers need to learn two sets of designs patterns. While this distinction can be hidden away in library code, effective use of the librairy still has to take both paradigms into account.
    7 
    8 Approaches based on shared memory are more closely related to non-concurrent paradigms since they often rely on basic constructs like routine calls and shared objects. At the lowest level, concurrent paradigms are implemented as atomic operations and locks. Many such mechanisms have been proposed, including semaphores~\cite{Dijkstra68b} and path expressions~\cite{Campbell74}. However, for productivity reasons it is desireable to have a higher-level construct be the core concurrency paradigm~\cite{HPP:Study}.
    9 
    10 An approach that is worth mentionning because it is gaining in popularity is transactionnal memory~\cite{Dice10}[Check citation]. While this approach is even pursued by system languages like \CC\cit, the performance and feature set is currently too restrictive to be the main concurrency paradigm for general purpose language, which is why it was rejected as the core paradigm for concurrency in \CFA.
    11 
    12 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.
     6Several 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 that closely relate to networking concepts (channels\cit 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. This distinction can be hidden away in library code, effective use of the librairy still has to take both paradigms into account. Approaches based on shared memory are more closely related to non-concurrent paradigms since they often rely on basic constructs like routine calls and shared objects. At a lower level, non-concurrent paradigms are often implemented as locks and atomic operations. Many such mechanisms have been proposed, including semaphores~\cite{Dijkstra68b} and path expressions~\cite{Campbell74}. However, for productivity reasons it is desireable to have a higher-level construct be the core concurrency paradigm~\cite{HPP:Study}. An approach that is worth mentionning because it is gaining in popularity is transactionnal memory~\cite{Dice10}[Check citation]. While this approach is even pursued by system languages like \CC\cit, the performance and feature set is currently too restrictive to add such a paradigm to a language like C or \CC\cit, 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.
    137
    148\section{Basics}
    15 Non-determinism requires concurrent systems to offer support for mutual-exclusion and synchronisation. Mutual-exclusion is the concept that only a fixed number of threads can access a critical section at any given time, where a critical section is a group of instructions on an associated portion of data that requires the restricted access. On the other hand, synchronization enforces relative ordering of execution and synchronization tools numerous mechanisms to establish timing relationships among threads.
     9The basic features that concurrency tools neet to offer is support for mutual-exclusion and synchronisation. Mutual-exclusion is the concept that only a fixed number of threads can access a critical section at any given time, where a critical section is the group of instructions on an associated portion of data that requires the limited access. On the other hand, synchronization enforces relative ordering of execution and synchronization tools are used to guarantee that event \textit{X} always happens before \textit{Y}.
    1610
    1711\subsection{Mutual-Exclusion}
    18 As mentionned above, mutual-exclusion is the guarantee that only a fix number of threads can enter a critical section at once. However, many solution exists for mutual exclusion which vary in terms of performance, flexibility and ease of use. Methods range from low-level locks, which are fast and flexible but require significant attention to be correct, to  higher-level mutual-exclusion methods, which sacrifice some performance in order to improve ease of use. Ease of use comes by either guaranteeing some problems cannot occur (e.g., being deadlock free) or by offering a more explicit coupling between data and corresponding critical section. For example, the \CC \code{std::atomic<T>} which offer an easy way to express mutual-exclusion on a restricted set of operations (.e.g: reading/writing large types atomically). Another challenge with low-level locks is composability. Locks are not composable because it takes careful organising for multiple locks to be used while preventing deadlocks. Easing composability is another feature higher-level mutual-exclusion mechanisms often offer.
     12As mentionned above, mutual-exclusion is the guarantee that only a fix number of threads can enter a critical section at once. However, many solution exists for mutual exclusion which vary in terms of performance, flexibility and ease of use. Methods range from low level locks, which are fast and flexible but require significant attention to be correct, to  higher level mutual-exclusion methods, which sacrifice some performance in order to improve ease of use. Often by either guaranteeing some problems cannot occur (e.g. being deadlock free) or by offering a more explicit coupling between data and corresponding critical section. For example, the \CC \code{std::atomic<T>} which offer an easy way to express mutual-exclusion on a restricted set of features (.e.g: reading/writing large types atomically). Another challenge with low level locks is composability. Locks are said to not be composable because it takes careful organising for multiple locks to be used and once while preventing deadlocks. Easing composability is another feature higher-level mutual-exclusion mechanisms often offer.
    1913
    2014\subsection{Synchronization}
    21 As for mutual-exclusion, low level synchronisation primitive 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, .eg., message passing, or offering simple solution to otherwise involved challenges. An example of this is barging. As mentionned above synchronization can be expressed as guaranteeing that event \textit{X} always happens before \textit{Y}. Most of the time synchronisation happens around a critical section, where threads most acquire said critical section in a certain order. However, it may also be desired to be able to guarantee that event \textit{Z} does not occur between \textit{X} and \textit{Y}. This is called barging, where event \textit{X} tries to effect event \textit{Y} but anoter thread races to grab the critical section and emits \textit{Z} before \textit{Y}. Preventing or detecting barging is an involved challenge with low-level locks, which can be made much easier by higher-level constructs.
     15As for mutual-exclusion, low level synchronisation primitive often offer great 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, for example message passing, or offering simple solution to otherwise involved challenges. An example of this is barging. As mentionned above synchronization can be expressed as guaranteeing that event \textit{X} always happens before \textit{Y}. Most of the time synchronisation happens around a critical section, where threads most acquire said critical section in a certain order. However, it may also be desired to be able to guarantee that event \textit{Z} does not occur between \textit{X} and \textit{Y}. This is called barging, where event \textit{X} tries to effect event \textit{Y} but anoter thread races to grab the critical section and emits \textit{Z} before \textit{Y}. Preventing or detecting barging is an involved challenge with low-level locks, which can be made much easier by higher-level constructs.
    2216
    2317% ======================================================================
    … …  
    2620% ======================================================================
    2721% ======================================================================
    28 A monitor is a set of routines that ensure mutual exclusion when accessing shared state. This concept is generally associated with Object-Oriented Languages like Java~\cite{Java} or \uC~\cite{uC++book} but does not strictly require OO semantics. The only requirements is the ability to declare a handle to a shared object and a set of routines that act on it :
     22A monitor is a set of routines that ensure mutual exclusion when accessing shared state. This concept is generally associated with Object-Oriented Languages like Java~\cite{Java} or \uC~\cite{uC++book} but does not strictly require OOP semantics. The only requirements is the ability to declare a handle to a shared object and a set of routines that act on it :
    2923\begin{cfacode}
    3024        typedef /*some monitor type*/ monitor;
    … …  
    4236% ======================================================================
    4337% ======================================================================
    44 The above monitor example displays some of the intrinsic characteristics. First, it is necessary to use pass-by-reference over pass-by-value for monitor routines. This semantics is important because at their core, monitors are implicit mutual-exclusion objects (locks), and these objects cannot be copied. Therefore, monitors are implicitly non-copyable objects.
    45 
    46 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 :
     38The above monitor example displays some of the intrinsic characteristics. Indeed, it is necessary to use pass-by-reference over pass-by-value for monitor routines. This semantics is important because at their core, monitors are implicit mutual-exclusion objects (locks), and these objects cannot be copied. Therefore, monitors are implicitly non-copyable.
     39
     40Another 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 be both generic helper routines (\code{swap}, \code{sort}, etc.) or specific helper routines like the following to implement an atomic counter :
    4741
    4842\begin{cfacode}
    … …  
    5246        size_t ++?(counter_t & mutex this); //increment
    5347
    54         //need for mutex is platform dependent
     48        //need for mutex is platform dependent here
    5549        void ?{}(size_t * this, counter_t & mutex cnt); //conversion
    5650\end{cfacode}
    … …  
    5852Here, 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 constructed 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 an \code{size_t} is an atomic operation.
    5953
    60 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 to make having exactly one of these keywords mandatory, which would provide the same semantics but without the ambiguity of supporting routines 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 a doubt wheter 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.
     54Having both \code{mutex} and \code{nomutex} keywords could be argued to be 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}. On the other hand, the option of having routine \code{void foo(counter_t & this)} mean \code{nomutex} is unsafe by default and may easily 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 to make having exactly one of these keywords mandatory, which would provide the same semantics but without the ambiguity of supporting routines 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 a doubt wheter 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.
    6155
    6256
    … …  
    6660int f2(const monitor & mutex m);
    6761int f3(monitor ** mutex m);
    68 int f4(monitor * mutex m []);
     62int f4(monitor *[] mutex m);
    6963int f5(graph(monitor*) & mutex m);
    7064\end{cfacode}
    … …  
    7468int f1(monitor & mutex m);   //Okay : recommanded case
    7569int f2(monitor * mutex m);   //Okay : could be an array but probably not
    76 int f3(monitor mutex m []);  //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
     70int f3(monitor [] mutex m);  //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
    7771int f4(monitor ** mutex m);  //Not Okay : Could be an array
    78 int f5(monitor * mutex m []); //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
     72int f5(monitor *[] mutex m); //Not Okay : Array of unkown length
    7973\end{cfacode}
    8074
Note: See TracChangeset for help on using the changeset viewer.