Hi all, this is my first post here, just joined this group so let me do a quick introduction. I have 10+ years of experience doing full-time development with VisualWorks (creating trading platforms for the European energy exchanges). Also I have near-zero experience with using Squeak or how its development process works. I'll slowly cut my teeth, starting by interacting on this mailing list. Multi threading is something I have spent a lot of quality time with, so I want to share some thoughts on the following: |semaphores tr| semaphores := Array new: 10. tr := ThreadSafeTranscript new. tr open. 1 to: 10 do: [ :index | semaphores at: index put: Semaphore new ]. 1 to: 10 do: [:i | [ tr nextPutAll: i printString, ' fork '; cr. (semaphores at: i) signal. ] fork ]. semaphores do: [:each | each wait ]. tr show: 'all forks proccesed'; cr. I have seen this pattern often (allocating a semaphore for every forked process), I usually interpret this as a signal that such code is still in its first 'make it work/make it right' stages. What a lot of people don't realize is that at its heart a semapore is a thread-safe counter/register (and if you look at the hierarchy it is implemented on you wouldn't guess that either, since the hierarchy stresses the implementation part that manages waiting processes rather than the counter aspect). So trying to take the code snippet toward 'make it abstract' territory this could be refactored to lean more on the counter aspect of semaphores and use only a single semaphore: |count sem tr| tr := ThreadSafeTranscript new. tr open. count := 10. sem := Semaphore new. 1 to: count do: [:i | [ tr nextPutAll: (i printString, ' fork\') withCRs. sem signal. ] fork]. count timesRepeat: [sem wait]. tr show: 'all forks proccesed'; cr. Now the above is about as far as you can go with the current Squeak and VisualWorks implementations so you can take it as a simple refactoring advise. However I want to press on a bit more (and go a bit off-topic for this list ;-) because I feel it still has a big problem: we need to maintain a 'count' and pass that between the two loops in the above example. In the current example this is not much of a problem but in more complex applications where the forking is done by yet other forked processes we will need to make 'count' thread-safe as well -- I find this very ugly, because you will need an extra semaphore just to make the original semaphore work as required. Furthermore you cannot add new forked processes once the second loop has started running. So here is an experiment I did a couple of years ago with VisualWorks: I altered the VM (just one line of its source ;-) so it would react properly to semaphores that have negative values in the 'excessSignals' instance variable, and I added a method #unsignal to Semaphore that would decrease the value of that ivar. In my experiments that yielded many opportunities to simplify multiprocessing code (not only for thread synchronization but also for passing around counts in a thread-safe register!). In the above code that would allow us to 'pre-load' the semaphore at the place where the threads are created with as result that the 'count' variable can be removed and the bottom loop can be removed too: |count sem tr| tr := ThreadSafeTranscript new. tr open. sem := Semaphore forMutualExclusion. "We need one excessSignal to balance the #wait below" 1 to: 10 do: [:i | sem unsignal. "outside the forked code" [ tr nextPutAll: (i printString, ' fork\') withCRs. sem signal. "balance the unsignal" ] fork]. sem wait. "no loop, no need to know the count!" tr show: 'all forks proccesed'; cr. Above was just a simple refactoring, but look at how I needed it: |sem tr| tr := ThreadSafeTranscript new. tr open. sem := Semaphore new. "no excessSignal this time" "set up a monitoring system first(!)" [ sem wait. tr show: 'all forks proccesed'; cr ] fork. "then create jobs (in my case I had only a single first job that would recursively create more jobs, not shown here)" 1 to: 10 do: [:i | sem unsignal. [ tr nextPutAll: (i printString, ' fork\') withCRs. sem signal. ] fork]. "Now that we are sure at least one job is entered balance the #wait we started out with" sem signal. Since we elided 'count' I can move the code that relied on it up in front of the thread creation code, I very much like this flavor of decoupling. I guess this illustrates that Semaphore is stuck in the 'make it work/ make it right' phase for thirty years now, and that moving it into 'make it abstract' territory will make lots of hairy multi-threading code much simpler to express... (And for those thinking this through: yes I did implement a thread- safe #add: and #valueWithReset on semaphore too ;-) I hope I didn't bore y'all and stray to far off-topic, but I did want to share this bit of insight I gained by tinkering with the semaphore implementation: semaphores are thread-safe counters at their heart. Cheers, Reinout ------- PS: big congrats with the license cleaning milestone, this is what finally pulled me into this project :-) _______________________________________________ Pharo-project mailing list Pharo-project@lists.gforge.inria.fr http://lists.gforge.inria.fr/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/pharo-project