...so this was yet another digression, caused by the desire
somehow to salvage this problematic component design. Using a
DSL token fluently, while internally maintaining a complex and
totally open function based configuration is a bit of a stretch.
For context: I've engaged into writing a `LazyInit` helper component,
to resolve the inner contradiction between DSL use of `RandomDraw`
(implying value semantics) and the design of a processing pipeline,
which quite naturally leads to binding by reference into the enclosing
implementation.
In most cases, this change (to lazy on-demand initialisation) should be
transparent for the complete implementation code in `RandomDraw` -- with
one notable exception: when configuring an elaborate pipeline, especially
with dynamic changes of the probability profile during the simulation run,
then then obviously there is the desire to use the existing processing
pipeline from the reconfiguration function (in fact it would be quite
hard to explain why and where this should be avoided). `LazyInit` breaks
this usage scenario, since -- at the time the reconfiguration runs --
now the object is not initialised at all, but holds a »Trojan« functor,
which will trigger initialisation eventually.
After some headaches and grievances (why am I engaging into such an
elaborate solution for such an accidental and marginal topic...),
unfortunately it occurred to me that even this problem can be fixed,
with yet some further "minimal" adjustments to the scheme: the LazyInit
mechanism ''just needs to ensure'' that the init-functor ''sees the
same environment as in eager init'' -- that is, it must clear out the
»Trojan« first, and it ''could apply any previous pending init function''
fist. That is, with just a minimal change, we possibly build a chain
of init functors now, and apply them in given order, so each one
sees the state the previous one created -- as if this was just
direct eager object manipulation...
...this is a more realistic demo example, which mimics
some of the patterns present in RandomDraw. The test also
uses lambdas linking to the actual storage location, so that
the invocation would crash on a copy; LazyInit was invented
to safeguard against this, while still allowing leeway
during the initialisation phase in a DSL.
...oh my.
This is getting messy. I am way into danger territory now....
I've made a nifty cool design with automatically adapted functors;
yet at the end of the day, this does not bode well with a DSL usage,
where objects appear to be simple values from a users point of view.
- Helper function to find out of two objects are located
"close to each other" -- which can be used as heuristics
to distinguish heap vs. stack storage
- further investigation shows that libstdc++ applies the
small-object optimisation for functor up to »two slots«
in size -- but only if the copy-ctor is trivial. Thus
a lambda capturing a shared_ptr by value will *always*
be maintained in heap storage (and LazyInit must be
redesigned accordingly)...
- the verify_inlineStorage() unit test will now trigger
if some implementation does not apply small-object optimisation
under these minimal assumptions
...which is crucial for the solution pursued at the moment;
std::function is known to apply a small-object optimisation,
yet unfortunately there are no guarantees by the C++ standard
(it is only mandated that std::function handles a bare function
pointer without overhead)
Other people have investigated that behaviour already,
indicating that at least one additional »slot« of data
can be handled with embedded storage in all known implementations
(while libstdc++ seemingly imposes the strongest limitations)
https://stackoverflow.com/a/77202545/444796
This experiment in the unit-test shows that for my setup
(libstdc++ and GCC-8) only a lambda capturing a single pointer
is handled entirely embedded into the std::function; already
a lambda capturing a shared-ptr leads to overflow into heap
the RandomDraw rules developed last days are meant to be used
with user-provided λ-adapters; employing these in a context
of a DSL runs danger of producing dangling references.
Attempting to resolve this fundamental problem through
late-initialisation, and then locking the component into
a fixed memory location prior to actual usage. Driven by
the goal of a self-contained component, some advanced
trickery is required -- which again indicates better
to write a library component with adequate test coverage.
RandomDraw as a library component was extracted and (grossly) augmented
to cut down the complexity exposed to the user of TestChainLoad.
To control the generated topology, random-selected parameters
must be configured, defining a probability profile; while
this can be achieved with simple math, getting it correct
turned out surprisingly difficult.
...now using the reworked partial-application helper...
...bind to *this and then recursively re-invoke the adaptation process
...need also to copy-capture the previously existing mapping-function
first test seems to work now
Investigation in test setup reveals that the intended solution
for dynamic configuration of the RandomDraw can not possibly work.
The reason is: the processing function binds back into the object instance.
This implies that RandomDraw must be *non-copyable*.
So we have to go full circle.
We need a way to pass the current instance to the configuration function.
And the most obvious and clear way would be to pass it as function argument.
Which however requires to *partially apply* this function.
So -- again -- we have to resort to one of the functor utilities
written several years ago; and while doing so, we must modernise
these tools further, to support perfect forwarding and binding
of reference arguments.
- strive at complete branch coverage for the mapping function
- decide that the neutral value can deliberately lie outside
the value range, in which case the probability setting
controls the number of _value_ result incidents vs
neutral value result incidents.
- introduce a third path to define this case clearly
- implement the range setting Builder-API functions
- absorb boundrary and illegal cases
For sake of simplicity, since this whole exercise is a byproduct,
the mapping calculations are done in doubles. To get even distribution
of values and a good randomisation, it is thus necessary to break
down the size_t hash value in a first step (size_t can be 64bit
and random numbers would be subject to rounding errors otherwise)
The choice of this quantiser is tricky; it must be a power of two
to guarantee even distribution, and if chosen to close to the grid
of the result values, with lower probabilities we'd fail to cover
some of the possible result values. If chosen to large, then
of course we'd run danger of producing correlated numbers on
consecutive picks.
Attempting to use 4 bits of headroom above the log-2 of the
required value range. For example, 10-step values would use
a quantiser of 128, which looks like a good compromise.
The following tests will show how good this choice holds up.
The first step was to allow setting a minimum value,
which in theory could also be negative (at no point is the
code actually limited to unsigned values; this is rather
the default in practice).
But reconsidering this extensions, then you'd also want
the "neutral value" to be handled properly. Within context,
this means that the *probability* controls when values other
than the neutral value are produced; especially with p = 1.0
the neutral value shall not be produced at all
...since the Policy class now defines the function signature,
we can no longer assume that "input" is size_t. Rather, all
invocations must rely on the generic adaptaion scheme.
Getting this correct turns out rather tricky again;
best to rely on a generic function-composition.
Indeed I programmed such a helper several years ago,
with the caveat that at that time we used C++03 and
could not perfect-forward arguments. Today this problem
can be solved much more succinct using generic Lambdas.
to define this as a generic library component,
any reference to the actual data source moust be extracted
from the body of the implementation and supplied later
at usage site. In the actual case at hand the source
for randomness would be the node hash, and that is
absolutely an internal implementation detail.
The idea is to use some source of randomness to pick a
limited parameter value with controllable probability.
While the core of the implementation is nothing more
than some simple numeric adjustments, these turn out
to be rather intricate and obscure; the desire to
package these technicalities into a component
however necessitates to make invocations
at usage site self explanatory.
This might seem totally overblown -- but already the development
of this prototype showed me time and again, that it is warranted.
Because it is damn hard to get the probabilities and the mappings
to fixed output values correct.
After in-depth analysis, I decided completely to abandon the
initially chosen approach with the Cap helper, where the user
just specifies an upper and lower bound. While this seems
compellingly simple at start, it directly lures into writing
hard-to-understand code tied to the implementation logic.
With the changed approach, most code should get along rather with
auto myRule = Draw().probabilty(0.6).maxVal(4);
...which is obviously a thousand times more legible than
any kind of tricky modulus expressions with shifted bounds.
While the Cap-Helper introduced yesterday was already a step in the
right direction, I had considerable difficulties picking the correct
parameters for the upper/lower bounds and the divisor for random generation
so as to match an intended probability profile. Since this tool shall be
used for load testing, an easier to handle notation will both help
with focusing on the main tasks and later to document the test cases.
Thus engaging (again) into the DSL building game...
...start with putting the topology generator to work
- turns out it is still challenging to write the ctrl-rules
- and one example tree looked odd in the visualisation
- which (on investigation) indicated unsound behaviour
...this is basically harmless, but involves an integer wrap-around
in a variable not used under this conditions (toReduce), but also
a rather accidental and no very logical round-up of the topology.
With this fix, the code branch here is no longer overloaded with two
distinct concerns, which I consider an improvement
by default, a linear chain without any forking is generated,
and the result hash is computed by hash-chaining from the seed.
Verify proper connections and validate computed hash
..as can be expected, had do chase down some quite hairy problems,
especially since consumption of the fixed amount of nodes is not
directly linked to the ''beat'' of the main loop and thus boundary
conditions and exhausted storage can happen basically anywhere.
Used a simple expansion rule and got a nod graph,
which looks coherent in DOT visualisation.
writing a control-value rule for topology generation typically
involves some modulus and then arthmetic operations to map
only part of the value range to the expected output range.
These calculations are generic, noisy and error-prone.
Thus introduce a helper type, which allows the client just
to mark up the target range of the provided value to map and
transform to the actually expected result range, including some
slight margin to absorb rounding errors. Moreover, all calculations
done in double, to avoid the perils of unsigned-wrap-around.
...these were developed driven by the immediate need
to visualise ''random generated computation patterns''
for ''Scheduler load testing.''
The abstraction level of this DSL is low
and structures closely match some clauses of the DOT language;
this approach may not yet be adequate to generate more complex
graph structures and was extracted as a starting point
for further refinements....
With all the preceding DSL work, this turns out to be surprisingly easy;
the only minor twist is the grouping of nodes into (time)levels,
which can be achieved with a "lagging" update from the loop body
Note: next step will be to extract the DSL helpers into a Library header
...using a pre-established example as starting point
It seems that building up this kind of generator code
from a set of free functions in a secluded namespace
is the way most suitable to the nature of the C++ language
..the idea is to generate a Graphviz-DOT diagram description
by traversing the internal data structures of TestChainLoad.
- refreshed my Graphviz knowledge
- work out a diagram scheme that can be easily generated
- explore ways to structure code generation as a DSL to keep it legible
...introduce statistical control functions (based on hash)
...add processing stage for current set of nodes
...process forking, reduction and injection of new nodes
- use a specialised class, layered on top of std::array
- use additional storage to mark filling degree
- check/fail on link owerflow directly there
We still use fixed size inline storage for the node links,
yet adding this comparatively small overhead in storage helps
getting the code simpler and adding links is now constant-complexity
A »Node« represents one junction point in the dependency graph,
knows his predecessors and successors and carries out one step
of the chained hash calculation.
...refine the handling of FrameRates close to the definition bounds
...implement the actual rule to scale allocator capacity on announcement
...hook up into the seedCalcStream() with a default of +25FPS
+ test coverage
...whenever a new CalcStream is seeded, it would be prudent
not only to step up the WorkForce (which is already implemented),
but also to provide a hint to the BlockFlow allocator regarding
the expected calculation density.
Such a hint would allow to set a more ample »epoch« spacing,
thereby avoiding to drive the allocator into overload first.
The allocator will cope anyway and re-balance in a matter of
about 2 seconds, but avoiding this kind of control oscillations
altogether will lead to better performance at calculation start.
The test case "scheduleRenderJob()" -- while deliberately operated
quite artificially with a disabled WorkForce (so the test can check
the contents in the queue and then progress manually -- led to discovery
of an open gap in the logic: in the (rare) case that a new task is
added ''from the outside'' without acquiring the Grooming-Token, then
the new task could sit in the entrace queue, in worst case for 50ms,
until the next Scheduler-»Tick« routinely sweeps this queue. Under
normal conditions however, each dispatch of another activity will
also sweep the entrance queue, yet if there happens to be no other
task right now, a new task could be stuck.
Thinking through this problem also helped to amend some aspects
of Grooming-Token handling and clarified the role of the API-functions.
For now, the `EngineObserver` is defined as an empty shell,
outfitted with a low-level binary message dispatch API.
Messages are keyed by a Symbol, which allows evolution of private message types.
Routing and Addressing is governed by an opaque size_t hash.
The `EngineEvent` data base class provides »4 Slots« of inline binary storage;
concrete subclasses shall define the mapping of actual data into this space
and provide a convenience constructor for events.
For use by the Scheduler, a `WorkTiming`-Event is defined based on this scheme;
this allows to implement the λ-work and λ-done of the Scheduler-`ExecutionCtx`.
These hooks will be invoked at begin and end of any render calculations.
...especially to prevent a deadline way too far into the future,
since this would provoke the BlockFlow (epoch based) memory manager
to run out of space.
Just based on gut feeling, I am now imposing a limit of 20seconds,
which, given current parametrisation, with a minimum spacing of 6.6ms
and 500 Activities per Block would at maximum require 360 MiB for
the Activities, or 3000 Blocks. With *that much* blocks, the
linear search would degrade horribly anyway...
WorkForce scales down automatically after 2 seconds when
workers fall idle; thus we need to step up automatically
with each new task.
Later we'll also add some capacity management to both the
LoadController and the Job-Planning, but for now this rather
crude approach should suffice.
NOTE: most of the cases in SchedulerService_test verify parts
of the component integration and thus need to bypass this
automatism, because the test code wants to invoke the
work-Function directly (without any interference
from running workers)
While building increasingly complex integration tests for the Scheduler,
it turns out helpful to be able to manipulate the "full concurreency"
as used by Scheduler, WorkForce and LoadController.
In the current test, I am facing a problem that new entries from the
threadsafe entrance queue are not propagated to the priority queue
soon enough; partly this is due to functionality still to be added
(scaling up when new tasks are passed in) -- but this will further
complicate the test setup.
The invocation structure is effectively determined by the
Activity-chain builder from the Activity-Language; but, taking
into account the complexity of the Scheduler code developed thus far,
it seems prudent to encapsulate the topic of "Activities" altogether
and expose only a convenience builder-API towards the Job-Planning
With the previous change, we allways have an execution scope now,
which (among other things) defines a time-window (start,deadline).
However, the entrance point to an Activity-chain, the POST-Activity
also defines a time window, which is now combined with this scope
by maximum / minimum constraining.
The problem with passing the deadline was just a blatant symptom
that something with the overall design was not quite right, leading
to mix-up of interfaces and implementation functions, and more and more
detail parameters spreading throughout the call chains.
The turning point was to realise the two conceptual levels
crossing and interconnected within the »Scheduler-Service«
- the Activity-Language describes the patterns of processing
- the Scheduler components handle time-bound events
So by turning the (previously private) queue entry into an
ActivationEvent, the design could be balanced.
This record becomes the common agens within the Scheduler,
and builds upon / layers on top of the common agens of the
Language, which is the Activity record.
This is the first step to address the conceptual problems identified yesterday,
and works largely as a drop-in replacement. Instead of just retrieving
the Activity*, now the Queue entry itself is exposed to the rest of the
scheduler implementation, augmented with implicit conversion, allowing
all of the tests to remain unaltered (and legible, without boilerplate)
the attempt to integrate additional deadline and significance parameters
unveils a design problem due to the layering of contexts
- the Activity-Language attempts to abstract away the ''Scheduler mechanics''
- but this implementation logic now needs to pass additional parameters
- and notably there is the possibility of direct re-scheduling from within
the Activity-Dispatch
The symptom of this problem is that it's no longer possible
to implement the ExecutionCtx.post() function in the real Scheduler-context
...it is clear that there must be a way to flush the scheduler queues
an thereby silently drop any obsoleted or irrelevant entries. This topic
turns out to be somewhat involved, as it requires to consider the
deadline (due to the memory management, which is based on deadlines).
Furthermore there is a relation to yet another challenging conceptual
requirement, which is the support for other operation modes beyond
just time-bound rendering; these concerns make it desirable to
expand the internal representation of entries in the queue.
Concerns regarding performance are postponed deliberately,
until we can demonstrate the Scheduler-Service running under
regular operational conditions.
This is the first kind of integration,
albeit still with a synthetic load.
- placed two excessive load peaks in the scheduling timeline
- verified load behaviour
- verified timings
- verified that the scheduler shuts down automatically when done
- sample distance to scheduler head whenever a worker asks for work
- moving average with N = worker-pool size and damp-factor 2
- multiply with the current concurrency fraction
- An important step towards a complete »Scheduler Service«
- Correct timing pattern could be verified in detail by tracing
- Spurred some further concept and design work regarding Load-control
- draft the duty cycle »tick«
- investigate corner cases of state updates and allocation managment
- implement start and forcible stop of the scheduler service
Obviously the better choice and a perfect fit for our requirements;
while the system-clock may jump and even move backwards on time service
adjustments, the steady clock just counts the ticks since last boot.
In libStdC++ both are implemented as int64_t and use nanoseconds resolution
- Ensure the grooming-token (lock) is reliably dropped
- also explicitly drop it prior to trageted sleeps
- properly signal when not able to acquire the token before dispatch
- amend tests broken by changes since yesterday
Notably the work-function is now completely covered, by adding
this last test, and the detailed investigations yesterday
ultimately unveiled nothing of concern; the times sum up.
Further reflection regarding the overall concept led me
to a surprising solution for the problem with priority classes.
...especially for the case »outgoing to sleep«
- reorganise switch-case to avoid falling through
- properly handle the tendedNext() predicate also in boundrary cases
- structure the decision logic clearer
- cover the new behaviour in test
Remark: when the queue falls empty, the scheduler now sends each
worker once into a targted re-shuffling delay, to ensure the
sleep-cycles are statistically evenly spaced
...there seemed to be an anomaly of 50...100µs
==> conclusion: this is due to the instrumentation code
- it largely caused by the EventLog, which was never meant
to be used in performance-critical code, and does hefty
heap allocations and string processing.
- moreover, there clearly is a cache-effect, adding a Factor 2
whenever some time passed since the last EventLog call
==> can be considered just an artifact of the test setup and
will have no impact on the scheduler
remark: this commit adds a lot of instrumentation code
To cover the visible behaviour of the work-Function,
we have to check an amalgam of timing delays and time differences.
This kind of test tends to be problematic, since timings are always
random and also machine dependent, and thus we need to produce pronounced effects
...to make that abundantly clear: we do not aim at precision timing,
rather the goal is to redistribute capacity currently not usable...
Basically we're telling the worker "nothing to do right now, sorry,
but check back in <timespan> because I may need you then"
Workers asking for the next task are classified as belonging
to some fraction of the free capacity, based on the distance
to the closest next Activity known to the scheduler
...to bring it more in line with all the other calls dealing with Activity*
...allows also to harmonise the ActivityLang::dispatchChain()
...and to compose the calls in Scheduler directly
NOTE: there is a twist: our string-formatting helper did not render
custom string conversions for objects passed as pointer. This was a
long standing problem, caused by ambiguous templates overloads;
now I've attempted to solve it one level more down, in util::StringConv.
This solution may turn out brittle, since we need to exclude any direct
string conversion, most notably the ones for C-Strings (const char*)
In case this solution turns out unsustainable, please feel free
to revert this API change, and return to passing Activity& in λ-post,
because in the end this is cosmetics.
- organise by principles rather than implementing a mechanism
- keep the first version simple yet flexible
- conduct empiric research under synthetic load
Basic scheme:
- tend for next
- classify free capacity
- scattered targeted wait
The signature for the »post« operation includes the ExecutionCtx itself,
which is obviously redundant, given that this operation is ''part of this context.''
However, for mock-implementation of the ExecutionCtx for unit testing,
the form of the implementation was deliberately kept unspecified, allowing
to use functor objects, which can be instrumented later. Yet a functor
stored as member has typically no access to the "this"-ptr...
The approach to provide the ExecutionCtx seems to work out well;
after some investigation I found a solution how to code a generic
signature-check for "any kind of function-like member"...
(the trick is to pass a pointer or member-pointer, which happens
to be syntactically the same and can be handled with our existing
function signature helper after some minor tweaks)
The Activity-Language can be defined by abstracting away
some crucial implementation functionality as part of an generic
»ExecutionCtx«, which in the end will be provided by the Scheduler.
But how actually?
We want to avoid unnecessary indirections, and ideally we also want
a concise formulation in-code. Here I'm exploring the idea to let the
scheduler itself provide the ExecutionCtx-operations as member functions,
employing some kind of "compile-time duck-typing"
This seems to work, but breaks the poor-man's preliminary "Concept" check...
Notably I wanted an entirely static and direct binding
to the internals of the Scheduler, which can be completely inlined.
The chosen solution also has the benefit of making the back-reference
to the Scheduler explicitly visible to the reader. This is relevant,
since the Config-Subobject is *copied* into each Worker instance.
The »Scheduler Service« will be assembled
from the components developed during the last months
- Layer-1
- Layer-2
- Activity-Language
- Block-Flow
- Work-Force
* the implementation logic of the Scheduler is essentially complete now
* all functionality necessary for the worker-function has been demonstrated
As next step, the »Scheduler Service« can be assembled from the two
Implementation Layers, the Activity-Language and the `BlockFlow` allocator
This should then be verified by a multi-threaded integration test...
This central operation sits at a crossroad and is used
- from external clients to fed new work to the Scheduler
- from Workers to engage into execution of the next Activity
- recursively from the execution of an Activity-chain
From these requirements the semantics of behaviour can be derived
regarding the GroomingToken and the result values, which indicate
when follow-up work should be processed
Ensure the GroomingToken mechanism indeed creates an
exclusive section protected against concurrent corruption:
Use a without / with-protection test and verify
the results are exact vs. grossly broken
T thread holding the »Grooming Token" is permitted to
manipulate scheduler internals and thus also to define new
activities; this logic is implemented as an Atomic lock,
based on the current thread's ID.
Notably both Layers are conceived as functionality providers;
only at Scheduler top-Level will functionality be combined with
external dependencies to create the actual service.
At first sight, this seems confusing; there is a time window,
there is sometimes a `when` parameter, and mostly a `now` parameter
is passed through the activation chain.
However, taking the operational semantics into account, the existing
definitions seem to be (mostly) adequate already: The scheduler is
assumed to activate a chain only ''when'' the defined start time is reached.
As follow-up to the rework of thread-handling, likewise also
the implementation base for locking was switched over from direct
usage of POSIX primitives to the portable wrappers available in
the C++ standard library. All usages have been reviewed and
modernised to prefer λ-functions where possible.
With this series of changes, the old threadpool implementation
and a lot of further low-level support facilities are not used
any more and can be dismantled. Due to the integration efforts
spurred by the »Playback Vertical Slice«, several questions of
architecture could be decided over the last months. The design
of the Scheduler and Engine turned out different than previously
anticipated; notably the Scheduler now covers a wider array of
functionality, including some asynchronous messaging. This has
ramifications for the organisation of work tasks and threads,
and leads to a more deterministic memory management. Resource
management will be done on a higher level, partially superseding
some of the concepts from the early phase of the Lumiera project.
This is Step-2 : change the API towards application
Notably all invocation variants to support member functions
or a reference to bool flags are retracted, since today a
λ-binding directly at usage site tends to be more readable.
The function names are harmonised with the C++ standard and
emergency shutdown in the Subsystem-Runner is rationalised.
The old thread-wrapper test is repurposed to demonstrate
the effectiveness of monitor based locking.
After the fundamental switch from POSIX to the C++14 wrappers
the existing implementation of the Monitor can now be drastically condensed,
removing several layers of indirection. Moreover, all signatures
shall be changed to blend in with the names and patterns established
by the C++ standard.
This is Step-1 : consolidate the Implementation.
(to ensure correctness, the existing API towards application code was retained)
While not directly related to the thread handling framework,
it seems indicated to clean-up this part of the application alongside.
For »everyday« locking concerns, an Object Monitor abstraction was built
several years ago and together with the thread-wrapper, both at that time
based on direct usage of POSIX. This changeset does a mere literal
replacement of the POSIX calls with the corresponding C++ wrappers
on the lowest level. The resulting code is needlessly indirect, yet
at API-level this change is totally a drop-in replacment.
The WorkForce (passive worker pool) has been coded just recently,
and -- in anticipation of this refactoring -- directly against std::thread
instead of using the old framework.
...the switch is straight-forward, using the default case
...add the ability to decorate the thread-IDs with a running counter
This solution is basically equivalent to the version implemented directly,
but uses the lifecycle-Hooks available through `ThreadHookable`
to structure the code and separate the concerns better.
This largely completes the switch to the new thread-wrapper..
**the old implementation is not referenced anymore**
...likewise using an detached »autonomous« Thread.
In this case however it is simpler to embed the complete use
of GtkLumiera into a lambda function, which ends with invoking
the terminationSignal functor. This way, the order of creation,
running the GTK-Loop and destroying the GUI is hard coded.
This, and the GUI thread prompted an further round of
design extensions and rework of the thread-wrapper.
Especially there is now support for self-managed threads,
which can be launched and operate completely detached from the
context used to start them. This resolves an occasional SEGFAULT
at shutdown. An alternative (admittedly much simpler) solution
would have been to create a fixed context in a static global
variable and to attach a regular thread wrapper from there,
managed through unique_ptr.
It seems obvious that the new solution is preferable,
since all the tricky technicalities are encapsulated now.
Add a complete demonstration for a setup akin to what we use
for the Session thread: a threaded component which manages itself
but also exposes an external interface, which is opened/closed alongside
...extract and improve the tuple-rewriting function
...improve instance tracking test dummy objects
...complete test coverage and verify proper memory handling
After quite some detours, with this take I'm finally able to
provide a stringent design to embody all the variants of thread start
encountered in practice in the Lumiera code base.
Especially the *self-managed* thread is now represented as a special-case
of a lifecycle-hook, and can be embodied into a builder front-end,
able to work with any client-provided thread-wrapper subclass.
to cover the identified use-cases a wide variety of functors
must be accepted and adapted appropriately. A special twist arises
from the fact that the complete thread-wrapper component stack works
without RTTI; a derived class can not access the thread-wrapper internals
while the policy component to handle those hooks can not directly downcast
to some derived user provided class. But obviously at usage site it
can be expected to access both realms from such a callback.
The solution is to detect the argument type of the given functor
and to build a two step path for a safe static cast.
after some further mulling over the design, it became clear that
a rather loose coupling to the actual usage scenario is preferrable.
Thus, instead of devising a fixed scheme how to reflect the thread state,
rather the usage can directly hook into some points in the thread lifecycle.
So this policy can be reduced to provide additional storage for functon objects.
...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.
So this finally solves the fundamental problem regarding a race on
initialisation of the thread-wrapper; it does *not* solve the same problem
for classes deriving from thread-wrapper, which renders this design questionable
altogether -- but this is another story.
In the end, this initialisation-race is rooted in the very nature of starting a thread;
it seems there are the two design alternatives:
- expose the thread-creation directly to user code (offloading the responsibility)
- offer building blocks which are inherently dangerous
this is a mere rearrangement of code (+lots of comments),
but helps to structure the overall construction better.
ThreadWrapper::launchThread() now does the actual work to build
the active std::thread object and assign it to the thread handle,
while buildLauncher is defined in the context of the constructors
and deals with wiring the functors and decaying/copying of arguments.
If we package all arguments together into a single tuple,
even including the member-function reference and the this-ptr
for the invokeThreadFunction(), which is the actual thread-functor,
then we can rely on std::make_from_tuple<T>(tuple), which implements
precisely the same hand-over via a std::index_sequence, as used by the
explicitly coded solution -- getting rid of some highly technical boilerplate
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
...hitting a roadblock however:
The existing Threads in the Lumiera application were effectively "detached"
But the C++14 framework requires us to keep the Thread-object alive
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
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.
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
...which however brings the problem that we can no longer block the destructor
of WorkForce by simply joining on all joinable threads (there is a race
between testing joinable() and invoking join(), which does not tolerate
non-joinable state.
There is a second problem: we need to detect and clean-up terminated workers,
even for just finding out how many workers are still active. Fortunately
doing so also solves the waiting problem in the destructor
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
- investigate consistency guarantees through acquire-release
==> turns out we do not need a fence, but it is tantamount
to have a guard variable and actually load and check
the value to ensure we indeed get a happens-before
- elaborate design of the WorkForce
+ no shared control variables necessary
+ no ability to forcibly shut-down the WorkForce
+ rather, all control will be exerted through the return value
of the Work-Functor
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)"
...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
While the ''general direction'' seems clear, some in-depth
analysis was required to find out what information can reasonably
be expected to be available at this point.
The decision was made to shift the actual deadline calculation
into the Job-Planning altogether, assuming that a preliminary solution
based on data implicitly available there will be enough to implement
simple linear playback, while precise management of job start times
can be added in later, when observation of actual timing behaviour
is available...
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
...turns out that util::toString does not explicitly handle pointers differently,
for very good reasons; this function must always work, always produce a simple and
compact representation, and it must be possible to instantiate the template
and take a function reference (which precludes adding an overload for pointers)
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...
essentially define a concept how to ''perform'' render activities in the Scheduler.
This entails to specify the operation patterns for the four known base cases
and to establish a setup for the implementation.
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)
... while this a comparison of apples and oranges, since the standard
heap allocator does not offer any dependency and lifecycle managmenet,
while the BlockFlow scheme developed here is much more complex and
offers a lifetime and dependency control specifically tailored to
the needs of the Scheduler.
Anyway, with the latest tweaks and refactorings, the test case
now shows averaged times per allocation on a comparable level
(both in the range of ~30ns)
BUT -> +50% runtime in -O3 (+20ns)
Investigation seems to indicate
- that the increased (+1 Epochs, 10 -> 11) moving average
caused the Algo to perform worse (strong effect)
- that the Optimiser has problems with boost::rational, which however
yields only a minute effect (+5ns), and only on the critical path
The access via Meyers Singleton has no adverse effect,
rather the new setup gives a tiny benefit (46ns -> 37ns).
Surprisingly, the increased pre-allocation has no observable effect.
On the long run, there will be a central Render Engine parametrisation;
some parameters can even be expected to be dynamic; thus prepare the
BlockFlow allocator to fit in with this expectation
For comparison: use individual managment by refcount.
This supports the conclusion that BlockFlow is more than just a
custom allocator; it also supports a non-trivial lifetime management,
and this comes at a cost.
Playing around with various load patterns uncovers further weak spots
in the regulation mechanism. As a remedy, introduce a stronger feed-back
and especially set the target load factor from 100% -> 90%
to add some headroom to absorb intermittent load peaks
Presumably ''much more observation and fine-tuning'' will be necessary
under real-world load conditions (⟹ Ticket #1318 for later)
- BUG: must prevent the Epoch size to become excessive low
- Problem: feedback signal should not be overly aggressive
Fine-Tuning:
- Dose for Overflow-compensation is delicate
- Moving average and Overflow should be balanced
- ideally the compensatory actions should be one order of magnitude
slower than the characteristic regulation time
Improvement: perform Moving-Average calculations in doubles
...leading to PATHETICALLY bad timing comparison
...it seems clear that the Epoch-Step went to zero
(which was neither anticipated, nor protected against)
However, even individual heap allocations fare surprisingly well
under full optimisation; just they don't solve our problem with
tracking dependencies; the most simplest solution that would
also fulfil this requirement would be using shared_ptr
..as a heuristic to regulate optimal Epoch duration;
when Epochs are discarded, the effective fill factor can be used
to guess an Epoch duration time, which would (in hindsight)
lead to perfect usage of storage space
..using a simplistic implementation for now: scale down the
Epoch-stepping by 0.9 to increase capacity accordingly.
This is done on each separate overflow event, and will be
counterbalanced by the observation of Epoch fill ratio
performed later on clean-up of completed Epochs
further implementation makes clear that the AllocationHandle,
which is the primary usage front-end, has to rely both on
services of the underlying ExtentFamily allocator, as well
as on the BlockFlow itself for managing the Epoch spacing.
- fix a bug in IterExplorer: when iterating a »state core« directly,
the helper CoreYield passed the detected type through ValueTypeBindings.
This is logically wrong, because we never want to pick up some typedefs,
rather we always want to use the type directly returned from CORE::yield()
Here the iterator returns an Epoch&, which itself is again iterable
(it inherits from std::array<Activity, N>). However, it is clear
that we must not descent into such a "flatMap" style recursive expansion
- draft a simple scheme how to regulate Epoch lengths dynamically
- add diagnostics to pinpoint a given Activity and find out into which
Epoch it has been allocated; used to cover the allocator behaviour
