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
Especially for the BlockFlow allocator, sanity checks are elided
for performance reasons; yet, generally speaking, it can be a very bad idea
to "optimise" away sanity checks. Thus an additional adaptor is provided
to layer such checks on top of an existing core; and IterEplorer now
always wires in this additional adaptor, and so the original behaviour
is now restored in this respect (and for the largest part of the code base)
While at first sight just a superficial variation of the existing IterStateWrapper,
it became clear with the evolution of the IterExplorer framework that
this setup represents a distinct concept, and especially lends itself
for complex and cohesive collaboration in a layered pipeline. Which
may, or may not be a good idea, depending on the circumstances.
Now, for the implementation of the scheduler memory allocation scheme,
another twist is added to the picture: we can not effort the sanity checks
on each access, even more so when layering / adapting iterators, where
it is essential that the optimiser can remove all unnecessary warts.
..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)
Using a Storage* within a wrapper as "pos" will work,
but is borderline trickery, since it amounts to subverting
the idea behind IterAdapter (which is to encapsulate a target
pointer with some control-logic in the managing container).
Using the same storage size and implementation overhead,
it is much more straight-forward to package the complete
iteration logic into a »State Core«, which in this case
however maintains a back-link to the ExtentFamily.
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
..with the ability to grow on demand..
..possibly add the new extents in the middle, by first allocating at the end
and then using the std::rotate() algo to bring them to the point
in the middle where new extents are required
- 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
....still about to find out what kinds of Activities there are,
and what reasonably to implement on layer-2 vs. layer-1
It is clear that the worker will typically invoke a doWork()
operation on layer-2, which in turn will iterate layer-1.
Each worker pulls and performs internal managmenet tasks exclusively
until encountering the next real render task, at which point it will
drop an exclusion flag and then engage into performing the actual
extended work for rendering...
- define a simple record to represent the Activity
- define a handle with an ordering function
- low-level functions to...
+ accept such a handle
+ pick it from the entrace queue
+ pass it for priorisation into the PriQueue
+ dequeue the top priority element
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)
This very deep change (which requires almost complete rebuild)
was prompted by the need to process an object (JobPlanning),
which holds several references and is thus move-only, in the
middle of a complex processing pipeline with child expansion.
If this works out well, a long-standing and obnoxious problem
with transforming iterators would be solved, albeit by incurring
a (presumably small) performance overhead, since now the new
value is no longer *assigned*, but rather the existing payload
is destroyed and a new instance is copy/move constructed into
the inline buffer.
The primary purpose (and widely used in Lumieara) is to have a
Lambda create a new Object, which is then returned by value
and thus immediately moved into this inline buffer, where it
resides for further use (as long as the enclosing pipeline
stays alive). Unless such an object does very elaborate
allocations and registrations behind the scene, the
expense of assigning vs creating should be the same.
...in the hope that the Optimiser is able to elide those references entirely,
when (as is here the case) they point into another field of a larger object compound
