...using a simplistic allocation of next-slot based on initialisation
of a thread_local storage. This implies that this helper can not be
reset or reused, and that there can not be multiple or long-lived instances.
Keep-it-simple for now...
...to sort out the interpretation of measurement results,
the actual duration and concurrency of ComputationLoad invocations
should be recorded, allowing to draw conclusions regarding the
Scheduler's performance as opposed to further system and thread
management effects due to concurrent operation under pressure.
After an extended break due to "real life issues"....
Pick up the investigation, with the goal to ascertain a valid definition
and understanding of all test parameters. A first step is to establish
a baseline ''without using a computational load''; this might be some kind
of base overhead of the scheduler.
However -- the way the test scaffolding was built, it is difficult to
create a feedback loop for the statistical test setup with binary search,
since it is not really clear how the single control parameter of the test algorithm,
the so called "stress factor", shall be interpreted and how it can be
combined with a base load.
An extended series of tests, while watching the observed value patterns qualitatively,
seems to corroborate the former results, indicating that the base expense
in my test setup (using a debug build) is at ~200µs / Node / core.
Yet the difficulty to interpret this result and arrive at a logical and generic model
prevents me from translating this into a measurement scheme, which can
be executed independently from a specific test setup and hardware
The goal is to devise a load more akin to the expected real-world processing patterns,
and then to increase the density to establish a breaking point.
Preliminary investigations focus on establishing the properties of this load
and to ensure the actual computation load behaves as expected.
Using the third Graph pattern prepared thus far, which produces
short chains of length=2, yet immediately spread out to maximum concurrency.
This leads to 5.8 Nodes / Level on average.
...as it turned out, this segfault was caused by flaws in the ScheduleCtx
used for generate the test-schedule; especially when all node-spreads are set
to zero and thus all jobs are scheduled immediately at t=0, there was a loophole
in the logic to set the dependencies for the final »wake-up« job.
When running such a schedule in the Stress-Test-Bench, the next measurement run
could be started due to a premature wake-up job, thereby overrunning the previous
test-run, which could be still in the middle of computations.
So this was not a bug in the Scheduler itself, yet something to take care of
later when programming the actual Job-Planning and schedule generation.
Search processing pattern for massive parallel test.
The goal is to get all cores into active processing most of the time,
thus we need a graph with low dependency management overhead, which is
also consistently wide horizontally to have several jobs in working state
all of the time. The investigation aims at finding out about systematic
overheads in such a setup.
This is just another (obvious) degree of freedom, which could be
interesting to explore in stress testing, while probably not of much
relevance in practice (if a job is expected to become runable earlier,
in can as well be just scheduled earlier).
Some experimentation shows that the timing measurements exhibit more
fluctuations, but also slightly better times when pressure is low, which
is pretty much what I'd expect. When raising pressure, the average
times converge towards the same time range as observed with time bound
propagation.
Note that enabling this variation requires to wire a boolean switch
over various layers of abstraction; arguably this is an unnecessary
complexity and could be retracted once the »experimentation phase«
is over.
This completes the preparation of a Scheduler Stress-Test setup.
The `volatile` was used asymmetrically and there was concern that
this usage makes the `ComutationalLoad` dependent on concurrency.
However, an impact could not be confirmed empirically.
Moreover, to simplify this kind of tests, make the `schedDepends`
directly configurable in the Stress-Test-Rig.
...watching those dumps on the example Graph with excessive dependencies
made blatantly clear that we're dispatching a lot of unnecessary jobs,
since the actual continuation is /always/ triggered by the dependency-NOTIFY.
Before the rework of NOTIFY-Handling, this was rather obscured, but now,
since the NOTIFY trigger itself is also dispatched by the Scheduler,
it ''must be this job'' which actually continues the calculation, since
the main job ''can not pass the gate'' before the dependency notification
arrives.
Thus I've now added a variation to the test setup where all these duplicate
jobs are simply omitted. And, as expected, the computation runs faster
and with less signs of contention. Together with the other additional
parameter (the base expense) we might now actually be able to narrow down
on the observation of a ''expense socket'', which can then be
attributed to something like an ''inherent scheduler overhead''
...actually difficult to integrate into the existing scheme,
which is entirely level-based. Can only be added to the individual Jobs,
not to the planning and completion-jobs — which actually shouldn't be a problem,
since it is beneficial to dispatch the planning runs earlier
The next goal is to determine basic performance characteristics
of the Scheduler implementation written thus far;
to help with these investigations some added flexibility seems expedient
- the ability to define a per-job base expense
- added flexibility regarding the scheduling of dependencies
This changeset introduces configuration options
While the idea with capturing observation values is nice,
it definitively does not belong into a library impl of the
search algorithm, because this is usage specific and grossly
complicates the invocation.
Rather, observation data can be captured by side-effect
from the probe-λ holding the actual measurement run.
- Result found in typically 6-7 steps;
- running 20 instead of 30 samples seems sufficient
Breaking point in this example at stress-Factor 0.47 with run-time 39ms
This statistical criterion defines when to count observed Scheduler performance
as loosing control. The test is comprised of three observations, which
all must be confirmed:
- an individual run counts as accidentally failed when the execution slips
away by more than 2ms with respect to the defined overall schedule.
When more than 55% of all observed runs are considered as failed,
the first condition is met
- moreover, the observed standard derivation must also surpass the
same limit of > 2ms, which indicates that the Scheduling mechanism
is under substantial strain (on average, the slip is ~ 200µs)
- the third condition is that the ''averaged delta'' has surpassed
4ms, which is 2 times the basic failure indicator.
These conditions are based on watching the Scheduler in operation;
typically all three conditions slip away by large margin after a
very narrow yet critical increase in the stress level.
Using three conditions together should improve robustness; often
the problems to keep up with the schedule build up over some parameter
range, yet the actual decision should be based on complete loss of control.
adapt the code written yesterday explicitly for the test case
into the new framework for performing a stress-test run.
Notable difference: times converted to millisecond immediately
Elaborate the draft to include all the elements used directly in the test case thus far;
the goal is to introduce some structuring and leave room for flexible confguration,
while implementing the actual binary search as library function over Lambdas.
My expectation is to write a series of individual test instances with varying parameters;
while it seems possible to add further performance test variations into that scheme later on.
- the goal is to run a binary search
- the search condition should be factored out
- thus some kind of framework or DSL is required,
to separate the technicalities of the measurement
from the specifics of the actual test case.
- repeated invocations of the same test setup for statistics
- the usual nasty 64-node graph with massive fork out
- limit concurrency to 4 cores
- tabulate data to look for clues regarding a trigger criteria
Hypothesis: The Scheduler slips off schedule when all of the
following three criteria are met:
- more than 55% glitches with Δ > 2ms
- σ > 2ms
- ∅Δ > 4ms
...this one was quite silly: obviously we need a separate instance
of the memory block ''per invocation'', otherwise concurrent invocations
would corrupt each other's allocation. The whole point of this variant
of the computation-load is to access a ''private'' memory block...
- schedule can now be adapted to concurrency and expected distribution of runtimes
- additional stress factor to press the schedule (1.0 is nominal speed)
- observed run-time now without Scheduler start-up and pre-roll
- document and verify computed numbers
...based on the adapted time-factor sequence
implemented yesterday in TestChainLoad itself
- in this case, the TimeBase from the computation load is used as level speed
- this »base beat« is then modulated by the timing factor sequence
- working in an additional stress factor to press the schedule uniformly
- actual start time will be added as offset once the actual test commences
...up to now, we've relied on a regular schedule governed solely
by the progression of node levels, with a fixed level speed
defaulting to 1ms per level.
But in preparation of stress tesging, we need a schedule adapted
to the expected distribution of computation times, otherwise
we'll not be able to factor out the actual computation graph
connectivity. The goal is to establish a distinctive
**breaking point** when the scheduler is unable to cope with
the provided schedule.
The helper developed thus far produces a sequence of
weight factors per level, which could then be multiplied
with an actual delay base time to produce a concrete schedule.
These calculations, while simple, are difficult to understand;
recommended to use the values tabulated in this test together
with a `graphviz` rendering of the node graph (🠲 `printTopologyDOT()`)
The intention is to establish a theoretical limit for the expense,
given some degree of concurrency. In reality, the expense should always
be greater, since the time is not just split by the number of cores;
rather we need to chain up existing jobs of various weight on the available
cores (which is a special case of the box packing problem).
With this formula, an ideal weight factor can be determined for each level,
and then summing up the sequence of levels gives us a guess for a sensible
timing for the overall scheduler
...so IterExplorer got yet another processing layer,
which uses the grouping mechanics developed yesterday,
but is freely configurable through λ-Functions.
At actual usage sit in TestChainLoad, now only the actual
aggregation computation must be supplied, and follow-up computations
can now be chained up easily as further transformation layers.
Yesterday I've written a simple loop-based implementation of
a grouping aggregation to count the node weights per level.
Unfortunately it turns out we'll use several flavours of this
and we'd have to chain up postprocessing -- thus from a usage perspective
it would be better to have the same functionality packaged as interator pipeline.
This turns out to be surprisingly tricky and there is no suitable library
function available, which means I'll have to write one myself.
This changeset is the first step into this direction: reformulate
the simple for-loop into a demand-driven grouping iterator
...the idea is to use the sum of node weights per level
to create a schedule, which more closely reflects the distribution
of actual computation time. Hopefully such a schedule can then be
squeezed or stretched by a time factor to find out a ''breaking point'',
at which the Scheduler is no longer able to keep up.
In-depth investigation and reasoning highlighted another problem,
which could lead to memory corruption in rare cases; in the end
I found a solution by caching the ''address'' of the current Epoch
and re-validating this address on each Epoch-overflow.
After some difficulties getting any reliable measurement for a Release-build,
it turned out that this solution even ''improves performance by 22%''
Remark-1: the static blockFlow::Config prevents simple measurements by
just recompiling one translation unit; it is necessary to build the
relevant parts of Vault-layer with optimisation to get reliable numbers
Remark-2: performing a full non-DEBUG build highlighted two missing
header-inclusions to allow for the necessary template specialisations.
...discovered by during investigation of latest Scheduler failures.
The root of the problems is that block overflow can potentially trigger
expansion of the allocation pool. Under some circumstances, this on-the fly
allocation requires a rotation of index slots, thereby invalidating
existing iterators.
While such behaviour is not uncommon with storage data structures (see std::vector),
in this case it turns out problematic because due to performance considerations,
a usage pattern emerged which exploits re-using existing storage »Slots« with known
deadline. This optimisation seems to have significant leverage on the
planning jobs, which happen to allocated and arrange a whole strike of
Activities with similar deadlines.
One of these problem situations can easily be fixed, since it is triggered
through the iterator itself, using a delegate function to request a storage expansion,
at which point the iterator is able to re-link and fix its internal index.
This solution also has no tangible performance implications in optimised code.
Unfortunately there remains one obscure corner case where such an pool expansion
could also have invalidated other iterators, which are then used later to
attach dependency relations; even a partial fix for that problem seems
to cause considerable performance cost of about -14% in optimised code.
- now there can not be any direct dispatch anymore when entering events
- thus there is no decision logic at entrance anymore
- rather the work-function implementation moved down into Layer-2
- so add a unit-test like coverage there (integration in SchedulerService_test)
This amounts to a rather massive refactoring, prompted by the enduring problems
observed when pressing the scheduler. All the various glitches and (fixed) crashes
are related to the way how planning-jobs enter the schedule items,
which is also closely tied to the difficulties getting the locking
for planning-jobs correct.
The solution pursued hereby is to reorder the main avenues into the
scheduler implementation. There is now a streamlined main entrance,
which **always** enqueues only, allowing to omit most checks and
coordination. On the other hand, the complete coordination and dispatch
of the work capacity is now shifted down into the SchedulerCommutator,
thereby linking all coordination and access control close together
into a single implementation facility.
If this works out as intended
- several repeated checks on the Grooming-Token could be omitted (performance)
- the planning-job would no longer be able to loose / drop the Token,
thereby running enforcedly single-threaded (as was the original intention)
- since all planning effectively originates from planning-jobs, this
would allow to omit many safety barriers and complexities at the
scheduler entrance avenue, since now all entries just go into the queue.
WIP: tests pass compiler, but must be adapted / reworked
- fix mistake in schdule time for planning chunks (must use start, not end of chunk)
- allow to configure the heuristics for pre-roll (time reserved for planning a node)
...observing multiple failures, which seem to be interconnected
- the test-setup with the planning chunk pre-roll is insufficient
- basically it is not possible to perform further concurrent planning,
without getting behind the actual schedule; at least in the setup
with DUMP print statements (which slowdown everything)
- muliple chained re-entrant calls into the planning function can result
- the **ASSERTION in the Allocator** was triggered again
- the log+stacktrace indicate that there **is still a Gap**
in the logic to protect the allocations via Grooming-Token
...causing the system to freeze due to excess memory allocation.
Fortunately it turned out this was not an error in the Scheduler core
or memory manager, but rather a sloppiness in the test scaffolding.
However, this incident highlights that the memory manager lacks some
sanity checks to prevent outright nonsensical allocation requests.
Moreover it became clear again that the allocation happens ''already before''
entering the Scheduler — and thus the existing sanity check comes too late.
Now I've used the same reasoning also for additional checks in the allocator,
limiting the Epoch increment to 3000 and the total memory allocation to 8GiB
Talking of Gibitbytes...
indeed we could use a shorthand notation for that purpose...
while my basic assessment is still that contention will not play a significant
role given the expected real world usage scenario — when testing with
tighter schedule and rather short jobs (500µs), some phases of massive contention
can be observed, leading to significant slow-down of the test.
The major problem seems to be that extended phases of contention will
effectively cause several workers to remain in an active spinning-loop for
multiple microseconds, while also permanently reading the atomic lock.
Thus an adaptive scheme is introduced: after some repeated contention events,
workers now throttle down by themselves, with polling delays increased
with exponential stepping up to 2ms. This turns out to be surprisingly
effective and completely removes any observed delays in the test setup.
Turns out that we need to implemented fine grained and explicit handling logic
to ensure that Activity planning only ever happens protected by the Grooming-Token.
This is in accordance to the original design, which dictates that all management tasks
must be done in »management mode«, which can only be entered by a single thread at a time.
The underlying assumption is that the effort for management work is dwarfed in comparison
to any media calculation work.
However, in
5c6354882d
...I discovered an insidious border condition, an in an attempt to fix it,
I broke that fundamental assumpton. The problem arises from the fact that we
do want to expose a *public API* of the Scheduler. Even while this is only used
to ''seed'' a calculation stream, because any further planning- and management work
will be performed by the workers themselves (this is a design decision, we do not
employ a "scheduler thread")
Anyway, since the Scheduler API ''is'' public, ''someone from the outside'' could
invoke those functions, and — unaware of any Scheduler internals — will
automatically acquire the Grooming-Token, yet never release it,
leading to deadlock.
So we need a dedicated solution, which is hereby implemented as a
scoped guard: in the standard case, the caller is a management-job and
thus already holds the token (and nothing must be done). But in the
rare case of an »outsider«, this guard now ''transparently'' acquires
the token (possibly with a blocking wait) and ''drops it when leaving scope''
...this feature seems to be no longer necessary now;
leaving the actual implementation in-code for the time being,
but removed it from the public access API.
The last round of refactorings yielded significant improvements
- parallelisation now works as expected
- processing progresses closer to the schedule
- run time was reduced
The processing load for this test is tuned in a way to overload the
scheduler massively at the end -- the result must be correct non the less.
There was one notable glitch with an assertion failure from the memory manager.
Hopefully I can reproduce this by pressing and overloading the Scheduler more...
The rework from yesterday turned out to be effective ... unfortunately
a bit to much: since now late follow-up notifications take precedence,
a single worker tends to process the complete chain depth-first, because
the first chain will be followed and processed, even before the worker
was able to post the tasks for the other branches. Thus this single
worker is the only one to get a chance to proceed.
After some consideration, I am now leaning towards a fundamental change,
instead of just fixing some unfavourable behaviour pattern: while the
language semantics remains the same, the scheduler should no longer
directly dispatch into the next chain **from λ-post**. That is, whenever
a POST / NOTIFY is issued from the Activity-chain, the scheduler goes
through prioritisation.
This has further ramifications: we do not need a self-inhibition mechanism
any more (since now NOTIFY picks up the schedule time of the target).
With these changes, processing seems to proceed more smoothly,
albeit still with lots of contention on the Grooming token,
at least in the example structure tested here.
While the recent refactoring...
206c67cc
...was a step into the right direction, it pushed too hard,
overlooking the requirement to protect the scheduler contents
and thus all of the Activity-chains against concurrent modification.
Moreover, the recent solution still seems not quite orthogonal.
Thus the handling of notifications was thoroughly reworked:
- the explicit "double-dispatch" was removed, since actual usage
of the language indicates that we only need notifications to
Gate (and Hook), but not to any other conceivable Activity.
- thus it seems unnecessary to turn "notification" into some kind
of secondary work mode. Rather, it is folded as special case
into the regular dispatch.
This leads to new processing rules:
- a POST goes into λ-post (obviously... that's its meaning)
- a NOTIFY now passes its *target* into λ-post
- λ-post invokes ''dispatch''
- and **dispatching a Gate now implies to notify the Gate**
This greatly simplifies the »state machine« in the Activity-Language,
but also incurs some limitations (which seems adequate, since it is
now clear that we do not ''schedule'' or ''dispatch'' arbitrary
Activities — rather we'll do this only with POST and NOTIFY,
and all further processing happens by passing activation
along the chain, without involving the Scheduler)
use a feature of the Activity-Language prepared for this purpose:
self-Inhibition of the Chain. This prevents a prerequisite-NOTIFY
to trigger a complete chain of available tasks, before these tasks
have actually reached their nominal scheduling time.
This has the effect to align the computations much more strictly
with the defined schedule
The main (test) thread is kept in a blocking wait until the
planned schedule is completed. If however the schedule overruns,
the wake-up job could just be triggered prematurely.
This can easily be prevented by adding a dependency from the last
computation job to the wake-up job. If the computation somehow
flounders, the SAFETY_TIMEOUT (5s) will eventually raise
an exception to let the test fail cleanly (shutting down
the Scheduler automatically)
...it seems impossible to solve this conundrum other than by
opening a path to override a contextual deadline setting from
within the core Activity-Language logic.
This will be used in two cases
- when processing a explicitly coded POST (using deadline from the POST)
- after successfully opening a Gate by NOTIFY (using deadline from Gate)
All other cases can now supply Time::NEVER, thereby indicating that
the processing layer shall use contextual information (intersection
of the time intervals)
...this is an interesting test failure, which highlights inconsistencies
with handling of deadlines when processing follow-up from NOTIFY-triggers
There was also some fuzziness related to the ''meaning'' of λ-post,
leading to at least one superfluous POST invocation for each propagation;
fixing this does not solve the problem yet removes unnecessary overhead
and lock-contention
...playing around with the graph for the Scheduler integration test
...single threaded run time seemed to behave irregular
...but in fact it is very close to what can be expected
based on an ''averaged node weight''
Fortunately its very simple to add that into the existing node statistics
Basically this is all done and settled already: this is the `usageExample()`
from `TestChainLoadTest`. However, the focus is slightly different here:
We want a demonstration that the Scheduler can work flawlessly through
a massive load. Thus the plan is to use much more challenging parameters,
and then lean back and watch what happens....
...which turns out to be due to the DUMP-Statements,
which seem to create quite some contention on their own.
Test cases with very tight schedule will slip away then;
without print statement everything is GREEN now
This partially reverts commit 72f11549e6.
"Chain-Load: Scheduler instrumentation for observation"
Hint: revert this changeset to re-introduce the print statements for diagnostic
* added benchmark over synchronous execution as point of reference
* verified running times and execution pattern
* Scheduler **behaves as expected** for this example
- Generally speaking, the calibration uses current baseline settings;
- There are now two different load generation methods, thus both must be calibrated
- Performance contains some socked and non-linear effects, thus calibration
should be done close to the work point, which can be achieved by incremental
calibration until the error is < 5%
Interestingly, longer time-base values run slightly faster than predicted,
which is consistent with the expectation (socket cost). And using a larger
memory block increases time values, which is also plausible, since
cache effects will be diminishing
..initial gauging is a tricky subject,
since existing computer's performance spans a wide scale
Allowing
- pre calibration -98% .. +190%
- single run ±20%
- benchmark ±5%
...which can be deliberately attached (or not attached) to the
individual node invocation functor, allowing to study the effect
of actual load vs. zero-load and worker contention
Within Chain-Load, the infrastructure to add this crucial feature
is minimal: each node gets a `weight` parameter, which is assigned
using another RandomDraw-Rule (by default `weight==0`).
The actual computation load will be developed as a separate component
and tied in from the node calculation job functor.
...during development of the Chain-Load, it became clear that we'll often
need a collection of small trees rather than one huge graph. Thus a rule
for pruning nodes and finishing graphs was added. This has the consequence
that there might now be several exit nodes scattered all over the graph;
we still want one single global hash value to verify computations,
thus those exit hashes must now be picked up from the nodes and
combined into a single value.
All existing hash values hard coded into tests must be updated
...with this change, processing is ''ahead of schedule'' from the beginning,
which has the nice side effect that the problematic contention situation
with these very short computation jobs can not arise, and most of the schedule
is processed by a single worker.
Processing pattern is now pretty much as expected
This is a trick to get much better scheduling and timing guesses.
Instead of targeting a specific level, rather a fixed number of nodes
is processed in each chunk, yet still always processing complete levels.
The final level number to expect can be retrieved from the chain-load graph.
With this refactoring, we can now schedule a wake-up job precisely
after the expected completion of the last level
Scheduling a wake-up job behind the end of the planned schedule did the trick.
Sometimes there is ''strong contention'' immediately after full provision of the WorkForce,
but this seems to be as expected, since the »Jobs« currently used have no
actually relevant run time on their own. It is even more surprising that
the Capacity-control logic is able to cope with this situation in a matter
of just some milliseconds, bringing the average Lag at ~ 300µs
Invent a special JobFunctor...
- can be created / bound from a λ
- self-manages its storage on the heap
- can be invoked once, then discards itself
Intention is to pass such one-time actions to the Scheduler
to cause some ad-hoc transitions tied to curren circumstances;
a notable example will be the callback after load-test completion.
In the first draft version, a blocked Gate was handled by
»polling« the Gate regularly by scheduling a re-invocation
repeatedly into the future (by a stepping defined through
ExecutionCtx::getWaitDelay()).
Yet the further development of the Activity-Language indicates
that the ''Notification mechanism'' is sufficient to handle all
foreseeable aspects of dependency management. Consequently this
''Gate poling is no longer necessary,'' since on Notification
the Gate is automatically checked and the activation impulse
is immediately passed on; thus the re-scheduled check would
never get an opportunity actually to trigger the Gate; such
an active polling would only be necessary if the count down
latch in the Gate is changed by "external forces".
Moreover, the first Scheduler integration tests with TestChainLoad
indicate that the rescheduled polling can create a considerable
additional load when longer dependency chains miss one early
prerequisite, and this additional load (albeit processed
comparatively fast by the Scheduler) will be shifted along
needlessly for quite some time, until all of the activities
from the failed chain have passed their deadline. And what
is even more concerning, these useless checks have a tendency
to miss-focus the capacity management, as it seems there is
much work to do in a near horizon, which in fact may not be
the case altogether.
Thus the Gate implementation is now *changed to just SKIP*
when blocked. This helped to drastically improve the behaviour
of the Scheduler immediately after start-up -- further observation
indicated another adjustment: the first Tick-duty-cycle is now
shortened, because (after the additional "noise" from gate-rescheduling
was removed), the newly scaled-up work capacity has the tendency
to focus in the time horizon directly behind the first jobs added
to the timeline, which typically is now the first »Tick«.
ð¡ this leads to a recommendation, to arrange the first job-planning
chunk in such a way that the first actual work jobs appear in the area
between 5ms and 10ms after triggering the Scheduler start-up.Scheduler¡
The first complete integration test with Chain-Load
highlighted some difficulties with the overall load regulation:
- it works well in the standard case (but is possibly to eager to scale up)
- the scale-up sometimes needs several cycles to get "off the ground"
- when the first job is dispatched immediately instead of going
through the queue, the scheduler fails to boot up
two rather obvious bugfixes
(well, after watching the Scheduler in action...)
- the first planning-chunk needs an offset
- the future to block on must be setup before any dispatch happens
- prime diagnostics with the first time invocation
- print timings relative to this first invocation
- DUMP output to watch the crucial scheduling operations
... so this (finally) is the missing cornerstone
... traverse the calculation graph and generate render jobs
... provide a chunk-wise pre-planning of the next batch
... use a future to block the (test) thread until completed
- test setup without actual scheduler
- wire the callbacks such to verify
+ all nodes are touched
+ levels are processed to completion
+ the planning chunk stops at the expected level
+ all node dependencies are properly reported through the callbacks
- decided to abstract the scheduler invocations as λ
- so this functor contains the bare loop logic
Investigation regarding hash-framework:
It turns out that boost::hash uses a different hash_combine,
than what we have extracted/duplicated in lib/hash-value.hpp
(either this was a mistake, or boost::hash did use this weaker
function at that time and supplied a dedicated 64bit implementation later)
Anyway, should use boost::hash for the time being
maybe also fix the duplicated impl in lib/hash-value.hpp
- use a ''special encoding'' to marshal the specific coordinates for this test setup
- use a fixed Frame-Grid to represent the ''time level''
- invoke hash calculation through a specialised JobFunctor subclass
The number of nodes was just defined as template argument
to get a cheap implementation through std::array...
But actually this number of nodes is ''not a characteristics of the type;''
we'd end up with a distinct JobFunctor type for each different test size,
which is plain nonsensical. Usage analysis reveals, now that the implementation
is ''basically complete,'' that all of the topology generation and statistic
calculation code does not integrate deeply with the node storage, but
rather just iterates over all nodes and uses the ''first'' and ''last'' node.
This can actually be achieved very easy with a heap-allocated plain array,
relying on the magic of lib::IterExplorer for all iteration and transformation.
- use a dedicated context "dropped off" the TestChainLoad instance
- encode the node-idx into the InvocationInstanceID
- build an invocation- and a planning-job-functor
- let planning progress over an lib::UninitialisedStorage array
- plant the ActivityTerm instances into that array as Scheduling progresses
Since Chain-Load shall be used for performance testing of the scheduler,
we need a catalogue of realistic load patterns. This extended effort
started with some parameter configurations and developed various graph
shapes with different degree of connectivity and concurrency, ranging
from a stable sequence of very short chains to large and excessively
interconnected dependency networks.
Through introduction of a ''pruning rule'', it is possible
to create exit nodes in the middle of the graph. With increased
intensity of pruning, it is possible to ''choke off'' the generation
and terminate the graph; in such a case a new seed node is injected
automatically. By combination with seed rules, an equilibrium of
graph start and graph termination can be achieved.
Following this path, it should be possible to produce a pattern,
which is random but overall stable and well suited to simulate
a realistic processing load.
However, finding proper parameters turns out quite hard in practice,
since the behaviour is essentially contingent and most combinations
either lead to uninteresting trivial small graph chunks, or to
large, interconnected and exponentially expanding networks
... seeding happens at random points in the middle of the chain
... when combined with reduction, the resulting processing pattern
resembles the real processing pattern of media calcualtions
... special rule to generate a fixed expansion on each seed
... consecutive reductions join everything back into one chain
... can counterbalance expansions and reductions
...as it turns out, the solution embraced first was the cleanest way
to handle dynamic configuration of parameters; just it did not work
at that time, due to the reference binding problem in the Lambdas.
Meanwhile, the latter has been resolved by relying on the LazyInit
mechanism. Thus it is now possible to abandon the manipulation by
side effect and rather require the dynamic rule to return a
''pristine instance''.
With these adjustments, it is now possible to install a rule
which expands only for some kinds of nodes; this is used here
to crate a starting point for a **reduction rule** to kick in.
- present the weight centres relative to overall level count
- detect sub-graphs and add statistics per subgraph
- include an evaluation for ''all nodes''
- include number of levels and subgraphs
- iterate over all nodes and classify them
- group per level
- book in per level statistics into the Indicator records
- close global averages
...just coded, not yet tested...
The graph will be used to generate a computational load
for testing the Scheduler; thus we need to compute some
statistical indicators to characterise this load.
As starting point sum counts and averages will be aggregated,
accounting for particular characterisation of nodes per level.
It seams indicated to verify the generated connectivity
and the hash calculation and recalculation explicitly
at least for one example topology; choosing a topology
comprised of several sub-graphs, to also verify the
propagation of seed values to further start-nodes.
In order to avoid addressing nodes directly by index number,
those sub-graphs can be processed by ''grouping of nodes'';
all parts are congruent because topology is determined by
the node hashes and thus a regular pattern can be exploited.
To allow for easy processing of groups, I have developed a
simplistic grouping device within the IterExplorer framework.
- with the new pruning option, start-Nodes can now be anywhere
- introduce predicates to detect start-Nodes and exit-Nodes
- ensure each new seed node gets the global seed on graph construction
- provide functionality to re-propagate a seed and clear hashes
- provide functionality to recalculate the hashes over the graph
up to now, random values were completely determined by the
Node's hash, leading to completely symmetrical topology.
This is fine, but sometimes additional randomness is desirable,
while still keeping everything deterministic; the obvious solution
is to make the results optionally dependent on the invocation order,
which is simply to achieve with an additional state field. After some
tinkering, I decided to use the most simplistic solution, which is
just a multiplication with the state.
this is only a minor rearrangement in the Algorithm,
but allows to re-boot computation should node connectivity
go to zero. With current capabilities, this could not happen,
but I'm considering to add a »pruning« parameter to create the
possibility to generate multiple shorter chains instead of one
complete chain -- which more closely emulates reality for
Scheduler load patterns.
...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.
...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.
- 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.
...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.
Use a simple destructor-trick to set up a concise notation
for temporarily manipulating a value for testing.
The manipulation will automatically be undone
when leaving scope
...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
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.
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
as an aside, the header lib/test/microbenchmark.hpp
turns out to be prolific for this kind of investigation.
However, it is somewhat obnoxious that the »test subject«
must expose the signature <size_t(size_t)>.
Thus, with some metaprogramming magic, an generic adaptor
can be built to accept a range of typical alternatives,
and even the quite obvious signature void(void).
Since all these will be wrapped directly into a lambda,
the optimiser will remove these adaptations altogether.
- 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 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...
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**
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 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)
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
- add preliminary deadline-check (directly instead of using the Activity)
- with this shortcut, now able to implement discarding obsoleted Epochs
- Iteration and use of the underlying `ExtentFamily` is also settled by now
💡 ''Implementation concept for the allocation scheme complete and validated''
...with the preceding IterableDecorator refactoring,
the navigation and access to the storage extents can now be
organised into a clear progression
Allocator::iterator -> EpochIter -> Epoch&
Convenience management and support functions can then be
pushed down into Epoch, while iteration control can be done
high-level in BlockFlow, based on the helpers in Epoch
..this is the most simple case, where no Epochs are opened yet
..add diagnostics to inspect alloc count and deadlines
..add accessors for the first/last underlying Extent
...continue to proceed test-driven
...scheduler internals turn out to be intricate and cohesive,
and thus the only hope is to adhere to strict testing discipline
Library: add "obvious" utility to the IterExplorer, allowing to
materialise all contents of the Pipeline into a container
...use this to take a snapshot of all currently active Extent addresses
- use a checksum to prove that ctor / dtor of "content" is not invoked
- let the usage of active extents "wrap around" so that the mem block is re-used
- verify that the same data is still there
The low-level allocator is basically implemented now,
but we still need to check thoroughly that the tricky
wrap-around and expansion logic behaves sane...
(see #1311)
Iteration should just yield an Reference to an Extent,
thereby hiding all details of the actual raw storage (char[]).
This can be achieved by usind a wrapper type around a pointer
into the managing vector; from this pointer we may convert
into a vector::iterator with the trick described here
https://stackoverflow.com/a/37101607/444796
Furthermore, continued planning of the Activity-Language,
basically clarified the complete usage scenario for now;
seems all implementable right away without further difficulties
- the idea is to use slot-0 in each extent for administrative metadata
- to that end, a specialised GATE-Activity is placed into slot-0
- decision to use the next-pointer for managing the next free slot
- thus we need the help of the underlying ExtentFamily for navigating Extents
Decision to refrain from any attempt to "fix" excessive memory usage,
caused by Epochs still blocked by pending IO operations. Rather, we
assume the engine uses sane parametrisation (possibly with dynamic adjustment)
Yet still there will be some safety limit, but when exceeding this limit,
the allocator will just throw, thereby killing the playback/render process
- decision to favour small memory footprint
- rather use several Activity records to express invocation
- design Activity record as »POD with constructor«
- conceptually, Activity is polymorphic, but on implementation
level, this is "folded down" into union-based data storage,
layering accessor functions on top
- decision how to handle the Extent storage (by forced-cast)
- decision to place the administrative record directly into the Extent
TODO not clear yet how to handle the implicit limitation for future deadlines
using a simple yet performant data structure.
Not clear yet if this approach is sustainable
- assuming that no value initialisation happens for POD payload
- performance trade-off growth when in wrapped-state vs using a list
The second design from 2017, based on a pipeline builder,
is now renamed `TreeExplorer` ⟼ `IterExplorer` and uses
the memorable entrance point `lib::explore(<seq>)`
✔
after completing the recent clean-up and refactoring work,
the monad based framework for recursive tree expansion
can be abandoned and retracted.
This approach from functional programming leads to code,
which is ''cool to write'' yet ''hard to understand.''
A second design attempt was based on the pipeline and decorator pattern
and integrates the monadic expansion as a special case, used here to
discover the prerequisites for a render job. This turned out to be
more effective and prolific and became standard for several exploring
and backtracking algorithms in Lumiera.
An extended series of refactoring and partial rewrites resulted
in a new definition of the `Dispatcher` interface and completes
the buildup of a Job-Planning pipeline, including the ability
to discover prerequisites and compute scheduling deadlines.
At this point, I am about to ''switch to the topic'' of the `Scheduler`,
''postponing'' the completion of the `RenderDrive` until the related
questions regarding memory management and Scheduler interface are settled.
- allow to configure the expected job runtime in the test spec
- remove link to EngineConfig and hard-wire the engine latency for now
... extended integration testing reveals two further bugs ;-)
... document deadline calculation
This finishes the last series of refactorings; the basic concept
remains the same, but in the initial version we arranged the expander
function in the pipeline to maintain a Tuple (parent, child) for the
JobTickets. Unfortunately this turned out to be insufficient, since
JobTicket is effectively const and responsible for a complete Sement,
so there is no room to memorise a Deadline for the parent dependency.
This leads to the better idea to link the JobPlanning aggregators
themselves by parent-child references, which is possible since the
whole dependency chain actually sits in the stack embedded into the
Expander (in the pipeline)
