The invocation structure is effectively determined by the
Activity-chain builder from the Activity-Language; but, taking
into account the complexity of the Scheduler code developed thus far,
it seems prudent to encapsulate the topic of "Activities" altogether
and expose only a convenience builder-API towards the Job-Planning
With the previous change, we allways have an execution scope now,
which (among other things) defines a time-window (start,deadline).
However, the entrance point to an Activity-chain, the POST-Activity
also defines a time window, which is now combined with this scope
by maximum / minimum constraining.
The problem with passing the deadline was just a blatant symptom
that something with the overall design was not quite right, leading
to mix-up of interfaces and implementation functions, and more and more
detail parameters spreading throughout the call chains.
The turning point was to realise the two conceptual levels
crossing and interconnected within the »Scheduler-Service«
- the Activity-Language describes the patterns of processing
- the Scheduler components handle time-bound events
So by turning the (previously private) queue entry into an
ActivationEvent, the design could be balanced.
This record becomes the common agens within the Scheduler,
and builds upon / layers on top of the common agens of the
Language, which is the Activity record.
This is the first step to address the conceptual problems identified yesterday,
and works largely as a drop-in replacement. Instead of just retrieving
the Activity*, now the Queue entry itself is exposed to the rest of the
scheduler implementation, augmented with implicit conversion, allowing
all of the tests to remain unaltered (and legible, without boilerplate)
the attempt to integrate additional deadline and significance parameters
unveils a design problem due to the layering of contexts
- the Activity-Language attempts to abstract away the ''Scheduler mechanics''
- but this implementation logic now needs to pass additional parameters
- and notably there is the possibility of direct re-scheduling from within
the Activity-Dispatch
The symptom of this problem is that it's no longer possible
to implement the ExecutionCtx.post() function in the real Scheduler-context
...it is clear that there must be a way to flush the scheduler queues
an thereby silently drop any obsoleted or irrelevant entries. This topic
turns out to be somewhat involved, as it requires to consider the
deadline (due to the memory management, which is based on deadlines).
Furthermore there is a relation to yet another challenging conceptual
requirement, which is the support for other operation modes beyond
just time-bound rendering; these concerns make it desirable to
expand the internal representation of entries in the queue.
Concerns regarding performance are postponed deliberately,
until we can demonstrate the Scheduler-Service running under
regular operational conditions.
This is the first kind of integration,
albeit still with a synthetic load.
- placed two excessive load peaks in the scheduling timeline
- verified load behaviour
- verified timings
- verified that the scheduler shuts down automatically when done
- sample distance to scheduler head whenever a worker asks for work
- moving average with N = worker-pool size and damp-factor 2
- multiply with the current concurrency fraction
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 signature for the »post« operation includes the ExecutionCtx itself,
which is obviously redundant, given that this operation is ''part of this context.''
However, for mock-implementation of the ExecutionCtx for unit testing,
the form of the implementation was deliberately kept unspecified, allowing
to use functor objects, which can be instrumented later. Yet a functor
stored as member has typically no access to the "this"-ptr...
The approach to provide the ExecutionCtx seems to work out well;
after some investigation I found a solution how to code a generic
signature-check for "any kind of function-like member"...
(the trick is to pass a pointer or member-pointer, which happens
to be syntactically the same and can be handled with our existing
function signature helper after some minor tweaks)
The Activity-Language can be defined by abstracting away
some crucial implementation functionality as part of an generic
»ExecutionCtx«, which in the end will be provided by the Scheduler.
But how actually?
We want to avoid unnecessary indirections, and ideally we also want
a concise formulation in-code. Here I'm exploring the idea to let the
scheduler itself provide the ExecutionCtx-operations as member functions,
employing some kind of "compile-time duck-typing"
This seems to work, but breaks the poor-man's preliminary "Concept" check...
Notably I wanted an entirely static and direct binding
to the internals of the Scheduler, which can be completely inlined.
The chosen solution also has the benefit of making the back-reference
to the Scheduler explicitly visible to the reader. This is relevant,
since the Config-Subobject is *copied* into each Worker instance.
The »Scheduler Service« will be assembled
from the components developed during the last months
- Layer-1
- Layer-2
- Activity-Language
- Block-Flow
- Work-Force
* the implementation logic of the Scheduler is essentially complete now
* all functionality necessary for the worker-function has been demonstrated
As next step, the »Scheduler Service« can be assembled from the two
Implementation Layers, the Activity-Language and the `BlockFlow` allocator
This should then be verified by a multi-threaded integration test...
This central operation sits at a crossroad and is used
- from external clients to fed new work to the Scheduler
- from Workers to engage into execution of the next Activity
- recursively from the execution of an Activity-chain
From these requirements the semantics of behaviour can be derived
regarding the GroomingToken and the result values, which indicate
when follow-up work should be processed
