...after resolving the fundamental design problems,
a policy mix-in can be defined now for a thread that deletes
its own wrapper at the end of the thread-function.
Such a setup would allow for »fire-and-forget« threads, but with
wrapper and ensuring safe allocations. The prominent use case
for such a setup would be the GUI-Thread.
Concept study of the intended solution successful.
Can now transparently embed any conceivable functor
and an arbitrary argument sequence into a launcher-λ
Materialising into a std::tuple<decay_t<TYPES...>> did the trick.
Considering a solution to shift the actual launch of the new thread
from the initialiser list into the ctor body, to circumvent the possible
"undefined behaviour". This would also be prerequisite for defining
a self-managed variant of the thread-wrapper.
Alternative / Plan.B would be to abandon the idea of a self-contained
"thread" building block, instead relying on precise setup in the usage
context -- however, not willing to yield yet, since that would be exactly
what I wanted to avoid: having technicalities of thread start, argument
handover and failure detection intermingled with the business code.
On a close look, the wrapper design as pursued here
turns out to be prone to insidious data race problems.
This was true also for the existing solution, but becomes
more clear due to the precise definitions from the C++ standard.
This is a confusing situation, because these races typically do not
materialise in practice; due to the latency of the OS scheduler the
new thread starts invoking user code at least 100µs after the Wrapper
object is fully constructed (typically more like 500µs, which is a lot)
The standard case (lib::Thread) in its current form is correct, but borderline
to undefined behaviour, and any initialisation of members in a derived class
would be off limits (the thread-wrapper should not be used as baseclass,
rather as member)
...while reworking the application code, it became clear that
actually there are two further quite distinct variants of usage.
And while these could be implemented with some trickery based on
the Thread-wrapper defined thus far, it seems prudent better to
establish a safely confined explicit setup for these cases:
- a fire-and-forget-thread, which manages its own memory autonomously
- a thread with explicit lifecycle, with detectable not-running state
FamilyMember::allocateNextMember() was actually a post-increment,
so (different than with TypedCounter) here no correction is necessary
As an asside, WorkForce_test is sometimes unstable immediately after a build.
Seemingly a headstart of 50µs is not enough to compensate for scheduler leeway
Set ulimit -v setting to 8 GiB (setting is given in kbyte)
Otherwise it is not possible to start 100 Threads.
This is surprising, because the actual memory usage of the tests in question
are minuscule and also TOP does not show any significant memory peak when running the test.
The existing TypedCounter_test was excessively clever and convoluted,
yet failed to test the critical elements systematically. Indeed, two
bugs were hidden in synchronisation and instance access.
- build a new concurrent test from scratch, now using the threadBenchmark
function for the actual concurrent execution and just invoked a
random selected access to the counter repeatedly from a large number
of threads.
- rework the TypedContext and counter to use Atomics where applicable;
measurements indicate however that this has only negligible impact
on the amortised invocation times, which are around 60ns for single-threaded
access, yet can increase by factor 100 due to contention.
...these were already written envisionaging he new API,
so it's more or less a drop-in replacement.
- cant use vector anymore, since thread objects are move-only
- use ScopedCollection instead, which also has the benefit of
allocating the requires space up-front. Allow to deduce the
type parameter of the placed elements
... which became apparent after switching to the new Thread-wrapper implementation
... the reason is a bug in the Thread-Monitor (which will also be reworked soon)
While seemingly subtle, this is a ''deep change.''
Up to now, the project attempted to maintain two mutually disjoint
systems of error reporting: C-style error flags and C++ exceptions.
Most notably, an attempt was made to keep both error states synced.
During the recent integration efforts, this increasingly turned out
as an obstacle and source for insidious problems (like deadlocks).
As a resolve, hereby the relation of both systems is **clarified**:
* C-style error flags shall only be set and used by C code henceforth
* C++ exceptions can (optionally) be thrown by retrieving the C-style error code
* but the opposite is now ''discontinued'' : Exceptions ''do not set'' the error flag anymore
- the deadlock was caused by leaking error state through the C-style lumiera_error
- but the reason for the deadlock lies in the »convenience shortcut«
in the Object-Monitor scope guard for entering a wait state immediately.
This function undermines the unlocking-guarantee, when an exception
emanates from within the wait() function itself.
...this function was also ported to the new wrapper,
and can be verified now in a much more succinct way.
''This completes porting of the thread-wrapper''
Since the decision was taken to retain support for this special feature,
and even extend it to allow passing values, the additional functionality
should be documented in the test. Doing so also highlighted subtle problems
with argument binding.
Now the ThreadWrapper_test offers both
- a really simple usage example
- a comprehensive test to verify that actually the
thread-function is invoked the expected number of times
and that this invocations must have been parallelised
- it is not directly possible to provide a variadic join(args...),
due to overload resolution ambiguities
- as a remedy, simplify the invocation of stringify() for the typical cases,
and provide some frequently used shortcuts
A common usage pattern is to derive from lib::Thread
and then implement the actual thread function as a member function
of this special-Thread-object (possibly also involving other data members)
Provide a simplified invocation for this special case,
also generating the thread-id automatically from the arguments
after all this groundwork, implementing the invocation,
capturing and hand-over of results is simple, and the
thread-wrapper classes became fairly understandable.
This relieves the Thread policy from a lot of technicalities,
while also creating a generally useful tool: the ability to invoke
/anything callable/ (thanks to std::invoke) in a fail-safe way and
transform the exception into an Either type
on second thought, the ability to transport an exception still seems
worthwhile, and can be achieved by some rearrangements in the design.
As preparation, reorganise the design of the Either-wrapper (lib::Result)
- relocate some code into a dedicated translation unit to reduce #includes
- actually set the thread-ID (the old implementation had only a TODO at that point)
While it would be straight forward from an implementation POV
to just expose both variants on the API (as the C++ standard does),
it seems prudent to enforce the distinction, and to highlight the
auto-detaching behaviour as the preferred standard case.
Creating worker threads just for one computation and joining the results
seemed like a good idea 30 years ago; today we prefer Futures or asynchronous
messaging to achieve similar results in a robust and performant way.
ThreadJoinable can come in handy however for writing unit tests, were
the controlling master thread has to wait prior to perform verification.
So the old design seems well advised in this respect and will be retained
- cut the ties to the old POSIX-based custom threadpool framework
- remove operations deemed no longer necessary
- sync() obsoleted by the new SyncBarrier
- support anything std::invoke supports
...which is the technique used in the existing Threadpool framwork.
As expected, such a solution is significantly slower than the new
atomics-based implementation. Yet how much slower is still striking.
Timing measurements in concurrent usage situation.
Observed delay is in the order of magnitude of known scheduling leeway;
assuming thus no relevant overhead related to implementation technique
Over time, a collection of microbenchmark helper functions was
extracted from occasional use -- including a variant to perform
parallelised microbenchmarks. While not used beyond sporadic experiments yet,
this framework seems a perfect fit for measuring the SyncBarrier performance.
There is only one catch:
- it uses the old Threadpool + POSIX thread support
- these require the Threadpool service to be started...
- which in turn prohibits using them for libary tests
And last but not least: this setup already requires a barrier.
==> switch the existing microbenchmark setup to c++17 threads preliminarily
(until the thread-wrapper has been reworked).
==> also introduce the new SyncBarrier here immediately
==> use this as a validation test of the setup + SyncBarrier
Using the same building blocks, this operation can be generalised even more,
leading to a much cleaner implementation (also with better type deduction).
The feature actually used here, namely summing up all values,
can then be provided as a convenience shortcut, filling in std::plus
as a default reduction operator.
...first used as part of the test harness;
seemingly this is a generic and generally useful shortcut,
similar to algorithm::reduce (or some kind of fold-left operation)
Intended as replacement for the Mutex/ConditionVar based barrier
built into the exiting Lumiera thread handling framework and used
to ensure safe hand-over of a bound functor into the starting new
thread. The standard requires a comparable guarantee for the C++17
concurrency framework, expressed as a "synchronizes_with" assertion
along the lines of the Atomics framework.
While in most cases dedicated synchronisation is thus not required
anymore when swtiching to C++17, some special extended use cases
remain to be addressed, where the complete initialisation of
further support framework must be ensured.
With C++20 this would be easy to achieve with a std::latch, so we
need a simple workaround for the time being. After consideration of
the typical use case, I am aiming at a middle ground in terms of
performance, by using a yield-wait until satisfying the latch condition.
The investigation for #1279 leads to the following conclusions
- the features and the design of our custom thread-wrapper
almost entirely matches the design chosen meanwhile by the C++ committee
- the implementation provided by the standard library however uses
modern techniques (especially Atomics) and is more precisely worked out
than our custom implementation was.
- we do not need an *active* threadpool with work-assignment,
rather we'll use *active* workers and a *passive* pool,
which was easy to implement based on C++17 features
==> decision to drop our POSIX based custom implementation
and to retrofit the Thread-wrapper as a drop-in replacement
+++ start this refactoring by moving code into the Library
+++ create a copy of the Threadwrapper-code to build and test
the refactorings while the application itself still uses
existing code, until the transition is complete
While in principle it would be possible (and desirable)
to control worker behaviour exclusively through the Work-Functor's return code,
in practice we must concede that Exceptions can always happen from situations
beyond our control. And while it is necessary for the WorkForce-dtor to
join and block (we can not just pull away the resources from running threads),
the same destructor (when called out of order) must somehow be able
at least to ask the running threads to terminate.
Especially for unit tests this becomes an obnoxious problem -- otherwise
each test failure would cause the test runner to hang.
Thus adding an emergency halt, and also improve setup for tests
with a convenience function to inject a work-function-λ
No new functionality, and implementation works as expected.
This test case covers an especially tricky setup, where a calculation
shall be triggered from an external event, while ensuring that the actual
processing can start only after also the regular time-bound scheduling
has taken place (this might be used to prevent an unexpectedly early
external signal to cause writing into an output buffer before the
defined window of data delivery)
...based on the new ability in the ActivityDetector, we can now assign
a custom λ, which deflects back the ctx.post() call into the ActivityLang
instance used for this test case.
While the previously seen behaviour was correct, it was not the call sequence
expected in the real implementation; with this change, on the main-chain
activation the post() now immediately dispatches the notification, which in turn
dispatches the rest of the chain, so that the JobFunctor is indeed
called in this second test case as expected
Up to now, the DiagnosticFun mock in ActivityDetector only
created an EventLog entry on invocation and was able to retunr
a canned result value. Yet for the job invocation scenario test,
it would be desirable to hook-in a λ with a fake implementation
into the ExecutionContext. As a further convenience, the
return value is now default initialised, instead of being
marked as uninitialised until invocation of "returning(val)"
...seems to work, but not really happy with the test setup,
since in real usage the post()-calls would dispatch, while here,
using the ActivityDetector, these calls just log invoation,
and thus the activation is not passed on
...regarding the kind of activity (the verb),
and also for some special case access of payload data;
deliberately asserting the correct verb, but no mandatory check,
since this whole Activity-Language is conceived as cohesive
and essentially sealed (not meant to be extended)
...to show in test that indeed the actual time is retrieved on each activation,
we can assign a λ -- which is rigged to increase the time on each access
It is not sufficient just to pass this "current time" as parameter
into the ActivityLang::dispatchChain(), since some Activities within
this chain will essentially be long-running (think rendering); thus
we need a real callback from within the chain. The obvious solution
is to make this part of the Execution Context, which is an abstraction
of the scheduler environment anyway
...turns out there is still a lot of leeway in the possible implementation,
and seemingly it is too early to decide which case to consider the default.
Thus I'll proceed with the drafted preliminary solution...
- on primary-chain, an inhibited Gate dispatches itself into future for re-check
- on Notification, activation happens if and only if this very notification opens the Gate
- provide a specifically wired requireDirectActivation() to allow enforcing a minimal start time
...assembled from parts already implemented
TODO
- need a way to access the »current scheduler time«
- need builder extension points to connect notifications
...this completes the basic setup
- Term builder mechanism working properly
- Memory allocator behaves sane
- the simple default wiring allows to invoke a Job
Solved by special treatment of a notification, which happens
to decrement the latch to zero: in this case, the chain is
dispatched, but also the Gate is locked permanently to block
any further activations scheduled or forwareded otherwise
TODO: while correct as implemented, the handling of the
notification seems questionable, since re-scheduling the chain immediately
may lead to multiple invocations of the chain, since it might have been "spinned"
and thus re-scheduled already, and we have no way to find out about that
...can not take a shortcut here, since the timing information
embedded into the POST-Activity must somehow be transported
to the Scheduler; key point to note is that the chain will
be performed in »management mode« (single threaded)
...attempt to get this intricate state machine sorted out
Notification turned out quite tricky, since it may emanate
from a concurrently executed phase and we try to avoid having
to protect the gate directly with a lock; rather we re-dispatch
the notification through the queue, which indirectly also ensures
that the worker de-queuing the NOTIFY-Activity operates in
management mode (single threaded, holding the GroomingToken)
Decision how to handle a failed Gate-check
- spin forward (re-scheduler) by some time amount
- this spin-offset parameter is retrieved from the Execution Context
- thus it will be some kind of engine parameter
With these determinations and the framework for the Execution Context
it is now possible to code up the logic for Gate check, which in turn
can then be verified by the watchGate diagnostics
due to technical limitations this requires to wire the adaptor
as replacement for the subject Activity, so that it can capture
and log the activation, and then pass it on to its watched subject
requires to supplement EventLog matching primitives
to pick and verify a specific positional argument.
Moreover, it is more or less arbitrary which job invocation parameters
are unpacked and exposed for verification; we'll have to see what is
actually required for writing tests...
doing so would contradict the fundamental architecture,
all kinds of failures and timeouts need to be handled within
Scheduler-Layer-2 rather.
Jobs are never aborted, nor do they need to know if and when they are invoked
Testcase (detect function invocation) passes now as expected
Some Library / Framework changes
- rename event-log-test.cpp
- allow the ExpectString also to work with concatenated expectation strings
Remark: there was a warning in the comment in event-log.hpp,
pointing out that negative assertions are shallow.
However, after the rework in 9/2018 (commit: d923138d1)
...this should no longer be true, since we perform proper backtracking,
leading to an exhaustive search.
ActivityMatch inherits privately from the EventMatch object,
and is thus able to delegate relevant matching queries, but
also to provide high-level special matchers.
This new design resolves the ambiguity regarding function arguments.
Moreover, we can now record the current sequence-Number as *attribute*
in the respective log record (this is the benefit of using structured
log entries instead of just a textual log), thereby avoiding the various
pitfalls with explicit bracketing sequence-number log entries
bottom line: this reworked design seems to be a better fit,
even while technically the implementation with the wrapped matcher
is somewhat ugly...
The EventLog seems to provide all the building blocks, but we need
some higher level special matchers (and maybe we also want to hide
some of the basic EventLog matchers). A soulution might be to wrap
the EventMatcher and delegate all follow-up builder calls.
This seems adequate, since the EventLog-Matcher is basically used as black box,
building up more elaborate matchers from the provided basic matchers...
Spent some time again to understand how EventLog matching works.
My feelings towards this piece of code are always the same: it is
somewhat too "tricky", but I am not aware of any other technique
to get this degree of elaborate chained matching on structured records,
short of building a dedicated matching engine from scratch.
The other alternative would be to use a flat textual log (instead of
the structured log records from EventLog), but then we'd have to
generate quite intricate regular expressions from the builder,
and I'm really doubtful it would be easier and clearer....
...turns out this is entirely generic and not tied to the context
within ActivityDetector, where it was first introduced to build a
mock functor to log all invocations.
Basically this meta-function generates a new instantiation of the
template X, using the variadic argument pack from template U<ARGS...>
...for coverage of the Activity-Language,
various invocations of unspecific functions must be verified,
with the additional twist that the implementation avoids indirections
and is thus hard to rig for tests.
Solution-Idea: provide a λ-mock to log any invocation into the
Event-Log helper, which was created some years ago to trace GUI communication...
Further extensive testing with parameter variations,
using the test setup in `BlockFlow_test::storageFlow()`
- Tweaks to improve convergence under extreme overload;
sudden load peaks are now accomodated typically < 5 sec
- Make the test definition parametric, to simplify variations
- Extract the generic microbenchmark helper function
- Documentation
There seems to be a ''sweet spot'' for somewhat larger Epoch sizes around 500 slots.
At least in the test setup used here, which works with a load of 200 Frames / sec,
which is significantly over the typical value of 50fps (video + audio) for simple playback.
The optimisation of averaged allocation times can not be much improved **below 30ns**.
Overall, this can be considered a good result,
since this allocation scheme does way more than just allocate memory,
it also provides a means to track dependencies and lifecycle.
__For context__:
- we should strive at processing one frame in ~ 10ms
- for 10 Activity records per Frame, we currently use < 0.5 µs for
memory and dependency management in the scheduler
- this leaves enough room for the further administrative efforts
(priority queue, job planning, buffer management)
