[Openmcl-devel] Coroutines/lightweight threads

Andrew Lyon orthecreedence at gmail.com
Tue Nov 13 19:14:09 UTC 2012


Gary, this is pretty much what I was wondering, and I think you answered it
well...it would be a lot of work and duplicated effort. To be honest, it's
probably something that I would not be able to accomplish without intimate
knowledge of the internals of CCL, and even then would take me a long time
to do. I think for now I'll give your idea a shot and see how it fares, or
use some sort of code walker that pretends to do what I want.

Thanks for your in-depth responses.

On Tue, Nov 13, 2012 at 2:54 AM, Gary Byers <gb at clozure.com> wrote:

> A lot of my motivation for trying to steer this towards basing coroutines
> on native threads is that it avoids reinventing a lot of wheels
> (thread-specific
> special bindings and CATCH/UNWIND-PROTECT context all involve the concept
> of
> thread-local data in CCL (and it's likely that that's true of many or all
> of
> those things in other implementations as well.)  There's another set of
> things
> that I'll just call "GC integration" that basically involve how the GC
> views
> and interacts with threads and I think that this all makes me very leary of
> introducing some new kind of primitive non-native thread.
>
> You're right that the kind of context switch that'd occur when thread A
> releases
> a lock that thread B has been waiting for is likely to be much slower than
> a
> context switch that involves saving and restoring some registers.  If it's
> the case that many lispy things depend native threads in subtle ways, then
> user-space context switch is infinitely slow (because it doesn't get you
> anywhere that you want to be.)  The assumption that all threads are native
> threads isn't CCL- or Lisp-specific: a lot of C runtime functions may
> involve
> locking, and locking generally involves some notion of what the current
> (native)
> thread is.
>
> Unless you want to reimplement all of the things that depend on threads
> being
> native threads, I don't think that there's really much of an alternative to
> the general idea that I suggested earlier.
>
>
> On Tue, 13 Nov 2012, Andrew Lyon wrote:
>
>  A lot of what you said makes sense. My main goal is to replace CPS in an
>> asynchronous application (without littering my code with cl-cont macros).
>> So
>> select() and poll() are what I'm using already, but transfer of control
>> from
>> one operation to the next around a non-blocking operation has to take
>> place
>> via a callback. One could build "coroutines" around real OS threads as
>> you've laid out, but I'm guessing there would be a significant performance
>> penalty associated (memory/context switching/etc). From my understanding,
>> having a bunch of coroutines laying around is a lot cheaper than the same
>> amount of OS threads in both memory and switch time. However, my
>> understanding might be flawed...I really don't know what it would take to
>> implement coroutines in lisp, so maybe there wouldn't be a significant
>> amount of difference between that and using OS threads.
>> Also, I'd like to echo as well that I don't really want "green threads"
>> where the lisp is scheduling things for me, I'd much rather have explicit
>> control.
>>
>> On Mon, Nov 12, 2012 at 10:57 PM, Gary Byers <gb at clozure.com> wrote:
>>       I've heard some people express interest before; I'd say that the
>>       interest
>>       seemed to be low-to-moderate, but non-zero. ?When it's come up,
>>
>>       I think that
>>       my first reaction to hearing someone say "I want cooperative
>>       threads" is to
>>       say "no, you don't", but I may be failing to consider all
>>       aspects of the issue.
>>
>>       One approach to layering cooperative threads on top of native
>>       threads is to
>>       use some kind of object very much like a lock; a cooperative
>>       thread is just
>>       a (native) thread that waits for that lock before doing
>>       anything, and yelding
>>       to another (unspecified) coooperative thread basically involves
>>       releasing that
>>       lock and then waiting to obtain it again.
>>
>>
>>       ? (defvar *the-cooperative-thread-lock* (make-lock))
>>       *THE-COOPERATIVE-THREAD-LOCK*
>>       ? (defun yin () (loop (with-lock-grabbed
>>       (*the-cooperative-thread-lock***) (print "Yin!")) (sleep 1)))
>>       YIN
>>       ? (defun yang () (loop (with-lock-grabbed
>>       (*the-cooperative-thread-lock***) (print "Yang!")) (sleep 1)))
>>       YANG
>>       ? (progn (process-run-function "yin" #'yin)
>>       (process-run-function "yang" #'yang))
>>
>>
>>       Yow. ?Are we COROUTINING yet ?
>>
>>
>>       That's a bit of a rhetorical question: the old stack-groups API
>>       that Scott
>>       referred to is a little richer than that and provides a clean
>>       way of transferring
>>       values between threads; that's left as an exercise. ?I wrote
>>
>>       that in terms of
>>       WITH-LOCK-GRABBED and we might actually want to use GRAB-LOCK
>>       and RELEASE-LOCK
>>       directly, so:
>>
>>
>>       (defun yield-to-any-cooperative-**thread ()
>>       ?(release-lock *the-cooperative-thread-lock*)
>>       ?(grab-lock *the-cooperative-thread-lock*)**)
>>
>>
>>       That's almost suspiciously simple, but it's almost exactly what
>>       Apple did to
>>       implement traditional cooperative threads in Carbon; there are
>>       some classic
>>       problems for which coroutines provide a natural solution, and
>>       the mechanism
>>       above (augmented with some means of transferring values around)
>>       is probably
>>       adequate to address many such problems (Google for "samefringe
>>       problem" if
>>       you're looking for an example.)
>>
>>       If we have problems for which we need more than two cooperative
>>       threads,
>>       then we may need to say "yield to some specific other
>>       cooperative thread",
>>       and that would be something like:
>>
>>       (defun yield-to-specific-cooperative-**thread (other-guy)
>>       ?(release-lock-and-transfer-**ownership-to
>>       *the-cooperative-thread-lock* other-guy)
>>       ?(grab-lock *the-cooperative-thread-lock*)**)
>>
>>
>>       and the functionality that I'm calling
>>       RELEASE-LOCK-AND-TRANSFER-**OWNERSHIP-TO
>>       doesn't exist in CCL and is a bit hard to implement reliably.
>>       ?(CCL locks
>>
>>       generally don't keep track of which threads are waiting for them
>>       and a thread
>>       that's waiting for a lock can abandon that wait - via
>>       PROCESS-INTERRUPT - whenever
>>       it wants to, so the global lock in my example above may be
>>       something a little
>>       different from a CCL lock.)
>>
>>       I haven't needed to solve the SAMEFRINGE problem elegantly in a
>>       long
>>       time and when I hear terms like "a blocking wrapper around
>>       non-blocking I/O" I wonder if or how that differs from things
>>       like
>>       #_select or #_poll. ?I'm willing to believe that there could be
>>
>>       cases
>>       where coroutines (the ability to control the scheduling of a
>>       small
>>       number of threads relative to each other) could be useful, ?but
>>
>>       I think
>>       that that could be provided by fleshing out the interface that's
>>       sketched
>>       above.
>>
>>       Lisp implememtations that provide(d) cooperative threads (I
>>       don't know
>>       of any implementations that still do so) typically provided a
>>       "lisp
>>       scheduler" on top of what I described above; that layer
>>       generally
>>       tried to do some sort of periodic preemption (so that a thread
>>       that
>>       hadn't yielded in a while was made to do so) and that layer was
>>       effectively spread all over the implementation (so that blocking
>>       operations were replaced with code which combined yielding and
>>       polling.)
>>       I would not want to see that kind of code reappear and if
>>       anyone's
>>       saying that they want that, I'm still very much at the "no, you
>>       don't"
>>       stage.
>>
>>
>>       On Mon, 12 Nov 2012, Andrew Lyon wrote:
>>
>>       Hello, I'm an avid CCL user (have been for over a year
>>       now). This is my
>>       first post on the dev list, and I did a lot of research on
>>       this topic before
>>       deciding to post to make sure this hasn't been covered
>>       before.
>>       Is there any interest in the ClozureCL community in having
>>       lightweight/cooperative threading available in the
>>       implementation? I have a
>>       few problems that would be a perfect fit for this (for
>>       instance, creating a
>>       blocking interface over non-blocking IO) and I'd love to
>>       not only voice my
>>       support for the feature, but also know if anybody else
>>       would also like
>> something like this.?
>>
>> I think the most ideal implementation would be where
>> you?explicitly?give up
>> control of the current "micro-thread" to another known thread
>> (on top of
>> this, something like "yield" could be built in the app itself,
>> if needed).
>> Matching this to the way OS threads currently work would be
>> awesome...for
>> instance, unwind-protect would only work for the coroutine it's
>> wrapping
>> around, so if you give control to another coroutine, that
>> unwind-protect
>> won't fire if there is an exception. Obviously this would be a
>> big feature,
>> and probably at least a few people would have opinions on how it
>> would be
>> implemented, not to mention there's probably a lot going on
>> under the hood
>> that I'm not aware about...but I'd like to at least open a
>> discussion.
>>
>> I did try to implement coroutines outside of CCL via libpcl/CFFI
>> (http://xmailserver.org/**libpcl.html<http://xmailserver.org/libpcl.html>)
>> but was met with much
>> resistance and
>> many segfaults.
>>
>> Although I'm not familiar with the internals of CCL more than
>> reading the
>> "Internals" page and most of the docs, I'm more than happy to
>> try getting my
>> hands dirty and add support myself with some guidance from
>> others (where do
>> I start, what are the caveats, has anyone else tried this, etc).
>> I'd also
>> like to know if this is possible using the Virtual Instructions
>> in the
>> compiler.
>>
>> I'd love to hear anyone's thoughts on this, and thanks for the
>> great
>> implementation.
>>
>> Andrew
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.clozure.com/pipermail/openmcl-devel/attachments/20121113/ac18e3d2/attachment.html>


More information about the Openmcl-devel mailing list