Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
mmap for O'Caml
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: John Prevost <prevost@m...>
Subject: mmap for O'Caml
Summary: O'Caml is cool.  New primitives written in two hours for
         ocamlopt.  How does one submit potential features for
         inclusion in O'Caml?  Segfaults are bad, I need comments.


I recently started thinking about writing some database code
(implementation, not interface) in O'Caml, and that got me thinking
that mmap might be a nice thing to have.  I thought about it a little
while, then shelved it.

Then a few days ago, a friend of mine, out of the blue, said "It sure
would be nice if SML could do mmap" because of a project he's working
on.  Something like a database, as it turns out.

So I turned my mind to how to do this in O'Caml.

The first cut didn't satisfy my friend (and not me either, really.)
This was done traditionally with the O'Caml-C FFI mechanism.
Unfortunately, the whole reason for doing mmap is that you don't have
lots of overhead when accessing the bytes of a file.

I thought about somehow working with strings, but since string space
in managed by the GC, it's not safe (can't mmap into the space the
string takes up in memory.)

So, I thought, it seems that you can't really get good fast inline
access for this kind of thing unless the compiler knows how to produce
inline code.  I spent an hour or two playing with ocamlopt and looking
at disassemblies of its output on Intel Linux.  (Gods, Intel assembly
is nasty.)

Then I spent another two hours implementing five new primitives:

type region

external region_length : region -> int = "%region_length"
external region_get : region -> int -> char = "%region_safe_get"
external region_set : region -> int -> char -> unit = "%region_safe_set"
external region_unsafe_get : region -> int -> char = "%region_unsafe_get"
external region_unsafe_set : region -> int -> char -> unit =
        "%region_unsafe_set"


*TWO HOURS*.  I like this compiler.  :)

The internal structure of a region is a block with a finalizer, like so:

(finalizer, void pointer, int)

Where the finalizer could be used to munmap in the case of an mmap'd
region, when no one is referring to the region any more.  The void
pointer points at the data of the region, and the int gives the
region's length.  (This will probably have another field with access
control info in it for safety's sake when I'm done.)

My mmap routine is the same as it was with the normal extension
mechanism.  It just plugs things in.  The same external functions are
also used by the byte runtime.  (If you *need* the speed, you use
ocamlopt.)

In theory, the same region type could be used by anything that wants
to allow fast access to a block of memory outside the O'Caml heap.
Just plug in your favorite finalizer, void *, and size (up to 31 bits.
<sigh>)

I was very very very happily surprised at how easy it was to add new
primitive operations to both the byte compiler and the bare metal
compiler.


I'll post a pointer to my patches up soon if anybody is interested.  I
was wondering if this would be an interesting addition to the standard
distribution, since (especially in the absence of actual mmap) it
doesn't affect the other built-in types, but does need support in the
compiler and can't just be linked in a particular application.  How
does one go about submitting interesting potential code for inclusion
in O'Caml?  Would this be an appropriate time, with O'Caml 3 coming
up, for me to send this code to someone?  The mmap code isn't really
universal, but as I said, the arbitrary region code could be handy for
other things too.


Finally, the problem--something that I'd appreciate if anybody could
give me a suggestion on.  My mmap works just fine, both read and
write.  The only problem is that trying to write to a file opened with
O_RDONLY causes a segv.  (Normally, you'd get an error, but since the
kernel's doing the writing, well, you lose.)  Segfaulting is, of
course, not acceptable, even if the programmer asks for something bad.

As far as I can tell, there's no way to find out whether a given fd is
open read only or read-write or even write-only without actually
trying to read or write it.  This means I can't detect at mmap time
that something's wrong.  So my options are:

  1) My mmap takes a filename and does the open itself, guaranteeing
     that the way the file descriptor is opened and the way the memory
     is mapped are in sync.  Now I can remember the read-write status
     and raise an exception in the safe versions.

  2) Is there a way my reading and writing code can somehow manage to
     catch these segfaults and turn them into exceptions?  Or would
     this be bad?  It doesn't seem like it'd be particularly efficient
     to wrap every access with something that causes signals to be
     caught and then not caught, so I suppose not.

Fortunately, 1 is sufficient for the uses I and my friend (maybe
this'll convince him to use O'Caml more and SML/NJ less!) have for
mmap.  I just thought I'd see if anybody had other suggestions.


Anyway, when I get things polished up a bit more, I'll post the diff
(against the CVS O'Caml for now) on a website somewhere.

John.