Re: [Pharo-dev] [Vm-dev] Where to get Monitor implementation based on primitives?
Hi Ben, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
and here's a version with a better class comment
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Denis, Hi Clément, Hi Frank,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
Eliot, please, you told me you had the code and Denis is interested.
It uses 3 primitives for performance.
Forgive the delay. I thought it proper to ask permission since the code was written while I was at Qwaq. I'm attaching the code in a fairly raw state, see the attached. The code is MIT, but copyright 3DICC.
It is a plugin replacement for Squeak's Mutex, and with a little ingenuity could be a replacement for Squeak's Monitor. It is quicker because it uses three new primitives to manage entering a critical section and setting the owner, exiting the critical section and releasing the owner, and testing if a critical section, entering if the section is unowned. The use of the primitives means fewer block activations and ensure: blocks in entering and exiting the critical section, and that's the actual cause of the speed-up.
You can benchmark the code as is. Here are some results on 32-bit Spur, on my 2.2GHz Core i7
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. cs class name, ' -> ', [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
#( 'Mutex -> 440,000 per second. 2.27 microseconds per run.' 'Monitor -> 688,000 per second. 1.45 microseconds per run.' 'CriticalSection -> 1,110,000 per second. 900 nanoseconds per run.')
This is great Eliot. Thank you and 3DICC. After loading the changeset into Pharo-50515 (32 bit Spur) I get the following results on my laptop i5-2520M @ 2.50GHz
#('Mutex -> 254,047 per second' 'Monitor -> 450,442 per second' 'CriticalSection -> 683,393 per second')
In a fresh Image "Mutex allInstances basicInspect" lists just two mutexes... 1. NetNameResolver-->ResolverMutex 2. ThreadSafeTranscript-->accessSemaphore
I hate myself for getting distracted but I'm finding this is un. One can migrate to the new representation using normal Monticello loads by In the first version redefine Mutex and Monitor to subclass LinkedList and have their owner/ownerProcess inst var first (actually third after firstLink & lastLink), and add the primitives. In the next version check that all Mutex and Monitor instanes are unowned and then redefine to discard excess inst vars Let me test this before committing, and see that all tests are ok.
cheers -ben
Replacement is probably trivial; rename Mutex to OldMutex, rename CriticalSection to Mutex, recompile. But there are lots of mutexes in the system and these are potentially owned. Transforming unowned ones is trivial, but transforming owned ones is, I think, impossible. But at least in my system there are no owned mutexes or monitors.
Frank (or anyone else), would you be interested in creating a replacement for Squeak's Monitor based on CriticalSection?
Here are the two business methods: CriticalSection methods for mutual exclusion critical: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock protected by the receiver." ^self primitiveEnterCriticalSection ifTrue: [aBlock value] ifFalse: [aBlock ensure: [self primitiveExitCriticalSection]]
critical: aBlock ifLocked: lockedBlock "Answer the evaluation of aBlock protected by the receiver. If it is already in a critical section on behalf of some other process answer the evaluation of lockedBlock." ^self primitiveTestAndSetOwnershipOfCriticalSection ifNil: [lockedBlock value] ifNotNil:[:alreadyOwner| alreadyOwner ifTrue: [aBlock value] ifFalse: [aBlock ensure: [self primitiveExitCriticalSection]]]
and the primitives: CriticalSection methods for private-primitives primitiveEnterCriticalSection "Primitive. The receiver must be unowned or owned by the current process to proceed. Answer if the process is owned by the current process." <primitive: 186> self primitiveFailed "In the spirit of the following" "[owner ifNil: [owner := Processor activeProcess. ^false]. owner = Processor activeProcess ifTrue: [^true]. self addLast: Processor activeProcess. Processor activeProcess suspend] valueUnpreemptively"
primitiveExitCriticalSection "Primitive. Set te receiver to unowned and if any processes are waiting on the receiver then proceed the first one, indicating that the receiver is unowned." <primitive: 185> self primitiveFailed "In the spirit of the following" "[owner := nil. self isEmpty ifFalse: [process := self removeFirst. process resume]] valueUnpreemptively"
primitiveTestAndSetOwnershipOfCriticalSection "Primitive. Attempt to set the ownership of the receiver. If the receiver is unowned set its owningProcess to the activeProcess and answer false. If the receiver is owned by the activeProcess answer true. If the receiver is owned by some other process answer nil." <primitive: 187> self primitiveFail "In the spirit of the following" "[owner ifNil: [owningProcess := Processor activeProcess. ^false]. owner = Processor activeProcess ifTrue: [^true]. ^nil] valueUnpreemptively"
2016-01-07 13:24 GMT+01:00 Denis Kudriashov <dionisiydk@gmail.com>:
Hello.
I hear about new Monitor implementation based on new primitives. Where to get it?
_,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
and here's a version with a better class comment
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Denis, Hi Clément, Hi Frank,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com> wrote:
Hello,
Eliot, please, you told me you had the code and Denis is interested.
It uses 3 primitives for performance.
Forgive the delay. I thought it proper to ask permission since the code was written while I was at Qwaq. I'm attaching the code in a fairly raw state, see the attached. The code is MIT, but copyright 3DICC.
It is a plugin replacement for Squeak's Mutex, and with a little ingenuity could be a replacement for Squeak's Monitor. It is quicker because it uses three new primitives to manage entering a critical section and setting the owner, exiting the critical section and releasing the owner, and testing if a critical section, entering if the section is unowned. The use of the primitives means fewer block activations and ensure: blocks in entering and exiting the critical section, and that's the actual cause of the speed-up.
You can benchmark the code as is. Here are some results on 32-bit Spur, on my 2.2GHz Core i7
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. cs class name, ' -> ', [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
#( 'Mutex -> 440,000 per second. 2.27 microseconds per run.' 'Monitor -> 688,000 per second. 1.45 microseconds per run.' 'CriticalSection -> 1,110,000 per second. 900 nanoseconds per run.')
This is great Eliot. Thank you and 3DICC. After loading the changeset into Pharo-50515 (32 bit Spur) I get the following results on my laptop i5-2520M @ 2.50GHz
#('Mutex -> 254,047 per second' 'Monitor -> 450,442 per second' 'CriticalSection -> 683,393 per second')
In a fresh Image "Mutex allInstances basicInspect" lists just two mutexes... 1. NetNameResolver-->ResolverMutex 2. ThreadSafeTranscript-->accessSemaphore
I hate myself for getting distracted but I'm finding this is un. One can migrate to the new representation using normal Monticello loads by
In the first version redefine Mutex and Monitor to subclass LinkedList and have their owner/ownerProcess inst var first (actually third after firstLink & lastLink), and add the primitives.
In the next version check that all Mutex and Monitor instanes are unowned and then redefine to discard excess inst vars
Let me test this before committing, and see that all tests are ok.
Should Mutex and Monitor both directly subclass LinkedList and duplicate the primitives in each? Or should they both subclass CriticalSection which subclasses LinkedList so the primitives are only defined once? What effect would using the primitives from the superclass have on performance? If any, I'd vote to optimise for duplication rather than "nice" design, but our comments should document this. cheers -ben
Hi Ben, On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
and here's a version with a better class comment
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <
eliot.miranda@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Denis, Hi Clément, Hi Frank,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Clément Bera <bera.clement@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
Eliot, please, you told me you had the code and Denis is interested.
It uses 3 primitives for performance.
Forgive the delay. I thought it proper to ask permission since the code was written while I was at Qwaq. I'm attaching the code in a fairly raw state, see the attached. The code is MIT, but copyright 3DICC.
It is a plugin replacement for Squeak's Mutex, and with a little ingenuity could be a replacement for Squeak's Monitor. It is quicker because it uses three new primitives to manage entering a critical section and setting the owner, exiting the critical section and releasing the owner, and testing if a critical section, entering if the section is unowned. The use of the primitives means fewer block activations and ensure: blocks in entering and exiting the critical section, and that's the actual cause of the speed-up.
You can benchmark the code as is. Here are some results on 32-bit Spur, on my 2.2GHz Core i7
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. cs class name, ' -> ', [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
#( 'Mutex -> 440,000 per second. 2.27 microseconds per run.' 'Monitor -> 688,000 per second. 1.45 microseconds per run.' 'CriticalSection -> 1,110,000 per second. 900 nanoseconds per run.')
This is great Eliot. Thank you and 3DICC. After loading the changeset into Pharo-50515 (32 bit Spur) I get the following results on my laptop i5-2520M @ 2.50GHz
#('Mutex -> 254,047 per second' 'Monitor -> 450,442 per second' 'CriticalSection -> 683,393 per second')
In a fresh Image "Mutex allInstances basicInspect" lists just two mutexes... 1. NetNameResolver-->ResolverMutex 2. ThreadSafeTranscript-->accessSemaphore
I hate myself for getting distracted but I'm finding this is un. One can migrate to the new representation using normal Monticello loads by
In the first version redefine Mutex and Monitor to subclass LinkedList and have their owner/ownerProcess inst var first (actually third after firstLink & lastLink), and add the primitives.
In the next version check that all Mutex and Monitor instanes are unowned and then redefine to discard excess inst vars
Let me test this before committing, and see that all tests are ok.
Should Mutex and Monitor both directly subclass LinkedList and duplicate the primitives in each?
Or should they both subclass CriticalSection which subclasses LinkedList so the primitives are only defined once?
That's a good idea. Feel free to change the code, but test that the Monticello load handles this case properly first :-). Actually, given that the default state of all the Mutex and Monitor instances in the image is unowned (owner process is nil) then it'll just work anyway. If we do that, we must make sure to include the ICC copyright in CriticalSection's class comment, and can eliminate it from the primitives. What effect would using the primitives from the superclass have on
performance? If any, I'd vote to optimise for duplication rather than "nice" design, but our comments should document this.
Likely in the noise. The inline cacheing machinery in the VM is far cheaper than the real overheads here which are in block creation, process switch, interpreter primitive invocation.
cheers -ben
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
Now I implement pragma approach to set up local variable during termination process. So I can write such methods: critical: aBlock "Evaluate aBlock protected by the receiver." | lockAcquired | <lockAt: #lock trackStateAt: 1> lockAcquired := false. ^[ lockAcquired := true. lockAcquired := lock wait. aBlock value ] ensure: [lockAcquired ifTrue: [lock signal]]. And Process>>terminate detects waiting on such methods and push false to variable lockAcquired (which is 1 temp here). This approach allow me to use multiple "locks" (semaphores or whatever) in single method which I need for ReadWriteLock. 2016-01-08 18:31 GMT+01:00 Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com>:
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 4:40 PM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 2:51 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com> wrote:
Hi Ben,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 10:39 AM, Ben Coman <btc@openinworld.com> wrote:
On Fri, Jan 8, 2016 at 1:20 AM, Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda@gmail.com
wrote:
and here's a version with a better class comment
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 9:12 AM, Eliot Miranda <
eliot.miranda@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hi Denis, Hi Clément, Hi Frank,
On Thu, Jan 7, 2016 at 5:34 AM, Clément Bera <
bera.clement@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hello,
Eliot, please, you told me you had the code and Denis is
interested.
It uses 3 primitives for performance.
Forgive the delay. I thought it proper to ask permission since the code was written while I was at Qwaq. I'm attaching the code in a fairly raw state, see the attached. The code is MIT, but copyright 3DICC.
It is a plugin replacement for Squeak's Mutex, and with a little ingenuity could be a replacement for Squeak's Monitor. It is quicker because it uses three new primitives to manage entering a critical section and setting the owner, exiting the critical section and releasing the owner, and testing if a critical section, entering if the section is unowned. The use of the primitives means fewer block activations and ensure: blocks in entering and exiting the critical section, and that's the actual cause of the speed-up.
You can benchmark the code as is. Here are some results on 32-bit Spur, on my 2.2GHz Core i7
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
{Mutex new. Monitor new. CriticalSection new} collect: [:cs| | n | n := 0. cs class name, ' -> ', [cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n + 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. cs critical: [n := n - 1]. n ] bench]
#( 'Mutex -> 440,000 per second. 2.27 microseconds per run.' 'Monitor -> 688,000 per second. 1.45 microseconds per run.' 'CriticalSection -> 1,110,000 per second. 900 nanoseconds per run.')
This is great Eliot. Thank you and 3DICC. After loading the changeset into Pharo-50515 (32 bit Spur) I get the following results on my laptop i5-2520M @ 2.50GHz
#('Mutex -> 254,047 per second' 'Monitor -> 450,442 per second' 'CriticalSection -> 683,393 per second')
In a fresh Image "Mutex allInstances basicInspect" lists just two mutexes... 1. NetNameResolver-->ResolverMutex 2. ThreadSafeTranscript-->accessSemaphore
I hate myself for getting distracted but I'm finding this is un. One can migrate to the new representation using normal Monticello loads by
In the first version redefine Mutex and Monitor to subclass LinkedList and have their owner/ownerProcess inst var first (actually third after firstLink & lastLink), and add the primitives.
In the next version check that all Mutex and Monitor instanes are unowned and then redefine to discard excess inst vars
Let me test this before committing, and see that all tests are ok.
Should Mutex and Monitor both directly subclass LinkedList and duplicate the primitives in each?
Or should they both subclass CriticalSection which subclasses LinkedList so the primitives are only defined once?
That's a good idea. Feel free to change the code, but test that the Monticello load handles this case properly first :-). Actually, given that the default state of all the Mutex and Monitor instances in the image is unowned (owner process is nil) then it'll just work anyway. If we do that, we must make sure to include the ICC copyright in CriticalSection's class comment, and can eliminate it from the primitives.
What effect would using the primitives from the superclass have on
performance? If any, I'd vote to optimise for duplication rather than "nice" design, but our comments should document this.
Likely in the noise. The inline cacheing machinery in the VM is far cheaper than the real overheads here which are in block creation, process switch, interpreter primitive invocation.
cheers -ben
-- _,,,^..^,,,_ best, Eliot
participants (3)
-
Ben Coman -
Denis Kudriashov -
Eliot Miranda