Re: wip-ports-refactor

[Christopher Allan Webber]

Andy Wingo writes:

> Hi,
>
> I have been working on a refactor to ports.  The goal is to have a
> better concurrency story.  Let me tell that story then get down to the
> details.

Hoo, what an email!  I need to read your code before I can do a full
commentary.  But...

> More appropriate is 8sync, a new project by Chris Webber that is
> designed to be a kind of user-space threading library for Guile.

Hey, thanks!  I hope it's on the right track.

> I did give a try at prototyping such a thing a long time ago,
> "ethreads".  Ethreads are user-space threads, which are really delimited
> continuations with a scheduler.  If the thread -- the dynamic extent of
> a program that runs within a prompt -- if the thread would block on I/O,
> it suspends itself, returning to the scheduler, and then the scheduler
> resumes the thread when I/O can continue.  There's an epoll loop
> underneath.
>
> That hack seemed to work; I even got the web server working on it, and
> ran my web site on it for a while.  The problem was, though, that it
> completely bypassed ports.  It made its own port types and buffers and
> everything.  That's not really Guile -- that's a library.
>
>                             *  *  *
>
> Which brings us to the port refactor.  Ultimately I see ports as all
> having buffers.  These buffers can be accessed from Scheme.  Normal I/O
> goes to the buffer first.  When the buffers need filling or emptying,
> Scheme code can call Scheme code to do that.  There could be Scheme
> dynamic parameters defining whether filling/emptying blocks -- if it
> doesn't block, then if the read would block it could call out to some
> context to suspend the thread.  Since it's all Scheme code, that
> continuation can be resumed as well -- the delimited continuation does
> not capture a trampoline through C.  The buffer itself is represented as
> a bytevector with a couple of cursors, which gives us some basic
> threadsafety without locks on the Scheme side -- Scheme always checks
> that accesses are within bounds.
>
> But, currently in Guile 2.0 and in master, buffering is handled by the
> port implementation.  That means that there is no buffer to expose to
> Scheme, and no real path towards implementing efficient I/O operators
> that need to grovel in a buffer from Scheme.  It also means that there's
> no easy solution for non-blocking I/O, AFAIU.
>
> The wip-port-refactor branch is a step towards centralizing buffering
> management within the generic ports code.  It thins the interface to
> port implementations, instead assuming that the read/write functions are
> to unbuffered mutable stores, as Guile is the part handling the
> buffering.  I've documented what I can in the branch.

So, does this branch replace ethreads, or compliment it?  Where should I
be focusing my (currently limited) review / integration attempt energy?
I've been hoping to review ethreads this week but now I'm unsure.  Can
you explain how the efforts currently relate?

> The commits before the HEAD are fairly trivial I think; it's the last
> one that's a doozy.  It doesn't yet remove locks; there's still a lot of
> locks, and it's hard to know what we can do without locks given the
> leeway give to modern C compilers.  But it's a step.
>
> Going forward we need to define a Scheme data type for ports, and to
> allow the read/write procedures to be called from Scheme, and to allow
> Scheme implementaitons of those procedures.  We also need to figure out
> how to do non-blocking I/O, both on files and non-files; should we set
> all our FD's to O_NONBLOCK?  How does it affect our internal
> interfaces?  I do not know yet.

One other question is if this will help in the "no nice way to do custom
binary ports" stuff that was blocking the
tls-enabled-ports-in-guile-proper thing...

> There's still space for different schedulers.  I wouldn't want to
> include a scheduler and a thread concept in Guile 2.2.0 I don't think --
> but if we can build it in such a way that it seems natural, on top of
> ports, then it sounds like a good idea.

As I've said, I'm not tied to 8sync specifically if doing something more
internally makes more sense.  (Even if I have a nice site and logo
coming together now ;))

Exciting times!
 - Chris