Version française
Home     About     Download     Resources     Contact us    
Browse thread
Lazy and Threads
[ Home ] [ Index: by date | by threads ]
[ Search: ]

[ Message by date: previous | next ] [ Message in thread: previous | next ] [ Thread: previous | next ]
Date: -- (:)
From: Yaron Minsky <yminsky@g...>
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Lazy and Threads
You're totally right. I withdraw my complaint.

y

Yaron Minsky

On Feb 20, 2009, at 1:36 PM, Xavier Leroy <Xavier.Leroy@inria.fr> wrote:

> Victor Nicollet wrote:
>>    I'm working with both lazy expressions and threads, and noticed  
>> that the
>>    evaluation of lazy expressions is not thread-safe:
>
> Yaron Minsky wrote:
>> At a minimum, this seems like a bug in the documentation. The
>> documentation states very clearly that Undefined is called when a  
>> value
>> is recursively forced.  Clearly, you get the same error when you  
>> force a
>> lazy value that is in the process of being forced for the first  
>> time....
>> It does seem like fixing the behavior to match the current  
>> documentation
>> would be superior to fixing the documentation to match the current  
>> behavior.
>
> It's not just the Lazy module: in general, the whole standard library
> is not thread-safe.  Probably that should be stated in the
> documentation for the threads library, but there isn't much point in
> documenting it per standard library module.
>
> As to making the standard library thread-safe by sprinkling it with
> mutexes, Java-style: no way.  There is one part of the stdlib that is
> made thread-safe this way: buffered I/O operations.  (The reason is
> that, owing to the C implementation of some of these operations, a
> race condition in buffered I/O could actually crash the whole program,
> rather than just result in unexpected results as in the case of pure
> Caml modules.)  You (Yaron) and others recently complained that such
> locking around buffered I/O made some operations too slow for your
> taste.  Wait until you wrap a mutex around all Lazy.force
> operations...
>
> More generally speaking, locking within a standard library is the
> wrong thing to do: that doesn't prevent race conditions at the
> application level, and for reasonable performance you need to lock at
> a much coarser grain, again at the application level.  (That's one of
> the things that make shared-memory programming with threads and locks
> so incredibly painful and non-modular.)
>
> Coming back to Victor's original question:
>
>>    Aside from handling a mutex myself (which I don't find very  
>> elegant for
>>    a read operation in a pure functional program) is there a  
>> solution I can
>>    use to manipulate lazy expressions in a pure functional multi- 
>> threaded
>>    program?
>
> You need to think more / tell us more about what you're trying to
> achieve with sharing lazy values between threads.
>
> If your program is really purely functional (i.e. no I/O of any kind),
> OCaml's multithreading is essentially useless, as you're not going to
> get any speedup from it and would be better off with sequential
> computations.  If your program does use threads to overlap computation
> and I/O, using threads might be warranted, but then what is the
> appropriate granularity of locking that you'd need?
>
> A somewhat related question is: what semantics do you expect from
> concurrent Lazy.force operations on a shared suspension?  One thread
> blocks while the other completes the computation?  Same but with busy
> waiting?  (if the computations are generally small).  Or do you want
> speculative execution?  (Both threads may evaluate the suspended
> computation.)
>
> There is no unique answer to these questions: it all depends on what
> you're trying to achieve...
>
> - Xavier Leroy