You can see an interesting table at this link. http://norvig.com/21-days.html#answers
The table described,
Mutex lock/unlock 25 nanosec
fetch from main memory 100 nanosec
Nanosec?
I surprised because mutex lock is faster than fetch data from memory. If so, what mutex lock exactly do? And what does Mutex lock mean at the table?
Let's say that ten people had to share a pen (maybe they work at a really cash-strapped company). Since they have to write long documents with the pen, but most of the work in writing a document is just thinking of what to say, they agree that each person gets to use the pen to write one sentence of the document, and then has to make it available to the rest of the group.
Now we have a problem: what if two people are done thinking about the next sentence, and both want to use the pen at once? We could just say that both people can grab the pen, but this is a fragile old pen, so if two people grab it then it breaks. Instead, we draw a chalk line around the pen. First you put your hand across the chalk line, then you grab the pen. If one person's hand is inside the chalk line, then nobody else is allowed to put their hand inside the chalk line. If two people try to put their hand across the chalk line at the same time, under these rules only one of them will get inside the chalk line first, so the other has to pull back their hand and keep it just outside the chalk line until the pen is available again.
Let's relate this back to mutexes. A mutex is a way to protect a shared resource (the pen) for a short period of time called the critical section (the time to write one sentence of a document). Whenever you want to use the resource, you agree to call mutex_lock first (put your hand inside the chalk line). Whenever you're done with the resource, you agree to call mutex_unlock (take your hand out from the chalk line area).
Now to how mutexes are implemented. A mutex is usually implemented with shared memory. There is some shared opaque data object called a mutex, and the mutex_lock and mutex_unlock functions both take a pointer to one of these. The mutex_lock function checks and modifies data inside the mutex using an atomic test-and-set or load-linked/store-conditional instruction sequence (on x86, xhcg is often used), and either "acquires the mutex" - sets the contents of the mutex object to indicate to other threads that the critical section is locked - or has to wait. Eventually, the thread gets the mutex, does the work inside the critical section, and calls mutex_unlock. This function sets the data inside the mutex to mark it as available, and possibly wakes up sleeping threads that have been trying to acquire the mutex (this depends on the mutex implementation - some implementations of mutex_lock just spin in a tight look on xchg until the mutex is available, so there is no need for mutex_unlock to notify anybody).
Why would locking a mutex be faster than going out to memory? In short, caching. The CPU has a cache that can be accessed very quickly, so the xchg operation doesn't need to go all the way out to memory as long as the processor can ensure that there is no other processor accessing that data. But x86 has a notion of "owning" a cache line - if processor 0 owns a cache line, any other processor that wants to use data in that cache line has to go through processor 0. This way, there is no need for the xhcg operation to look at any data beyond the cache, and cache access tends to be very fast, so acquiring an uncontested mutex is faster than a memory access.
There is one caveat to that last paragraph, though: the speed benefit only holds for an uncontested mutex lock. If two threads try to lock the same mutex at the same time, the processors that are running those threads have to communicate and deal with ownership of the relevant cache line, which greatly slows down the mutex acquisition. Also, one of the two threads will have to wait for the other thread to execute the code in the critical section and then release the mutex, further slowing down the mutex acquisition for one of the threads.
The article you linked does not mentioned the architecture, but judging by mentions of L1 and L2 cache it's Intel. If this is so, then I think that by mutex they meant LOCK instruction. In this respect this post seems relevant: Intel 64 and IA-32 | Atomic operations including acquire / release semantic
Also Intel software developer's manual can help if you know, what you are looking for. I'd read anything relevant I could find about the LOCK instruction.
Related
I need to measure the time forklift spends in collision, however movement_log
for agent type that is a forklift managed by transporter, fleet is not available. I also can not use statecharts because it uses much performance.
Situation: I am simulating a warehouse with one-way aisles and the capacity of these one-way aisles is 2 vehicles. There are situations
where a forklift (the yellow one) needs to wait behind another one in one-way aisle, I currently have that modeled properly I just don't know how to detect this situation and log it.
Thank you
I would do it as following:
Create a new 2-dimensional variable called collisionLog.
Check the speed [getSpeed() function] and state [TransporterState getState() function] every 1 second.
Write these into the collisionLog.
Once the simulation is completed, remove the rows with idle status.
Then do the calculations based on the fact that when speed is zero and transporter is busy, then you have the waiting vehicle.
There is no accessible trigger point (typically an action of a block) to trap when transporters have collisions. Yes, that situation obviously has to be captured internally to enable the transporters to avoid collisions, but in this situation that is not exposed as a block action, or action anywhere else. (AnyLogic space markup elements never have actions, except for some of the newer Material Handling library ones like Station, because these effectively represent a process step.)
The Transporter Control block has all the settings for collision detection and avoidance, but no related actions.
So your alternatives are really
'Scan' for this situation occurring: Yashar's answer, inferring that zero speed when non-idle means 'waiting due to collision' (which may or may not be 100% robust) being one way.
Explicitly break down the movement (from the process perspective) to define the potential 'conflicts' and decision-making within the process flow (e.g., if you're trying to move to an aisle, move to an entrance node, reserve a space in the aisle using resource pools or similar, and only enter when free). Clearly that doesn't cover every possible case, but may be useful in some situations.
The actions that do exist in the Transporter Control block could help a bit here (for both alternatives) since at least you have action points on entering paths and nodes. (You could also raise an enhancement request with AnyLogic to add collision-related actions here....)
I have a huge model with large number of forklifts, checking any attribute every second would result in huge performance loss
I also can not use statecharts because it uses much performance
Have you actually tried it though? Some things do not result in as much of a performance hit as you might think, and performance should not be an a priori 'that will be too slow' thing; ideally you have requirements for acceptable performance and you work round that. (There are always trade-offs between performance, functionality and maintainability.)
[You also don't say how you think using statecharts could have helped. Did you mean doing the 'scanning' approach via a statechart, say with cyclic entry/exit from a Scan state?]
In MESI protocol when a CPU:
Performs a read operation
Finds out the cache line is in Invalid state
There is no other non-invalid copies in other caches
It will need to fetch the data from the memory. This will take a certain number of cycles to do this. So does the state of the cache line change from (I) to (E) instantly or only after data is fetched from memory?
I think a cache would normally wait for the data to arrive; when it's not there yet you can't actually get a hit in cache for other requests to the same line, only to other lines that actually are present (hit under miss). Therefore the state for that line is still Invalid; the data for that tag isn't valid, so you can't set it to a valid state yet.
You'd want another miss to same line (miss under miss) to notice there was already an outstanding request for that line and attach itself to that line-request buffer. (e.g. Intel x86 LFB = line fill buffer). Since finding Invalid triggers looking at fill buffers but Exclusive doesn't, you want Invalid based on this reasoning as well.
e.g. the Skylake perf-counter event mem_load_retired.fb_hit counts, from perf list output:
[Retired load instructions which data sources were load missed L1 but
hit FB due to preceding miss to the same cache line with data not
ready.
Supports address when precise (Precise event)]
In a cache in a very old / simple or toy CPU with no memory-level parallelism (whole pipeline or just memory access totally stalls execution until the data arrives), the distinction is meaningless; nothing else happens to cache while the requested data is in-flight.
In such a CPU it's just an implementation detail. (Except it should still process MESI requests from other cores while a load is in flight so again tags need to reflect the correct state, otherwise it's extra stuff to check when deciding how to reply.)
After data is fetched from memory.
In practice, MESI (or any other protocol) has many transition states in addition to the main states of M/E/S/I. In your example, the coherence protocol would transition to a "Wait for Data Fill" state and will transition to E only after data is fetched and valid bit is set.
Reference: Cache coherence protocols in gem5/ruby-- http://learning.gem5.org/book/part3/MSI/cache-transitions.html (search for "was invalid, going to shared") may be useful.
I am new to Scala.
I am trying to figure out how to ensure thread safety with functions in a Scala object (aka singleton)
From what I have read so far, it seems that I should keep visibility to function scope (or below) and use immutable variables wherever possible. However, I have not seen examples of where thread safety is violated, so I am not sure what other precautions should be taken.
Can someone point me to a good discussion of this issue, preferably with examples of where thread safety is violated?
Oh man. This is a huge topic. Here's a Scala-based intro to concurrency and Oracle's Java lessons actually have a pretty good intro as well. Here's a brief intro that motivates why concurrent reading and writing of shared state (of which Scala objects are particular specific case) is a problem and provides a quick overview of common solutions.
There's two (fundamentally related) classes of problems when it comes to thread safety and state mutation:
Clobbering (missing) writes
Inaccurate (changing out from under you) reads
Let's look at each of these in turn.
First clobbering writes:
object WritesExample {
var myList: List[Int] = List.empty
}
Imagine we had two threads concurrently accessing WritesExample, each of executes the following updateList
def updateList(x: WritesExample.type): Unit =
WritesExample.myList = 1 :: WritesExample.myList
You'd probably hope when both threads are done that WritesExample.myList has a length of 2. Unfortunately, that might not be the case if both threads read WritesExample.myList before the other thread has finished a write. If when both threads read WritesExample.myList it is empty, then both will write back a list of length 1, with one write overwriting the other, so that in the end WritesExample.myList only has a length of one. Hence we've effectively lost a write we were supposed to execute. Not good.
Now let's look at inaccurate reads.
object ReadsExample {
val myMutableList: collection.mutable.MutableList[Int]
}
Once again, let's say we had two threads concurrently accessing ReadsExample. This time each of them executes updateList2 repeatedly.
def updateList2(x: ReadsExample.type): Unit =
ReadsExample.myMutableList += ReadsExample.myMutableList.length
In a single-threaded context, you would expect updateList2, when repeatedly called, to simply generate an ordered list of incrementing numbers, e.g. 0, 1, 2, 3, 4,.... Unfortunately, when multiple threads are accessing ReadsExample.myMutableList with updateList2 at the same time, it's possible that between when ReadsExample.myMutableList.length is read and when the write is finally persisted, ReadsExample.myMutableList has already been modified by another thread. So in theory you could see something like 0, 0, 1, 1 or potentially if one thread takes longer to write than another 0, 1, 2, 1 (where the slower thread finally writes to the list after the other thread has already accessed and written to the list three times).
What happened is that the read was inaccurate/out-of-date; the actual data structure that was updated was different from the one that was read, i.e. was changed out from under you in the middle of things. This is also a huge source of bugs because many invariants you might expect to hold (e.g. every number in the list corresponds exactly to its index or every number appears only once) hold in a single-threaded context, but fail in a concurrent context.
Now that we've motivated some of the problems, let's dive into some of the solutions. You mentioned immutability so let's talk about that first. You might notice that in my example of clobbering writes I use an immutable data structure whereas in my inconsistent reads example I use a mutable data structure. That is intentional. They are in a sense dual to one another.
With immutable data structures you cannot have an "inaccurate" read in the sense I laid out above because you never mutate data structures, but rather place a new copy of a data structure in the same location. The data structure cannot change out from under you because it cannot change! However you can lose a write in the process by placing a version of a data structure back to its original location that does not incorporate a change made previously by another process.
With mutable data structures on the other hand, you cannot lose a write because all writes are in-place mutations of the data structure, but you can end up executing a write to a data structure whose state differs from when you analyzed it to formulate the write.
If it's a "pick your poison" kind of scenario, why do you often hear advice to go with immutable data structures to help with concurrency? Well immutable data structures make it easier to ensure invariants about the state being modified hold even if writes are lost. For example, if I rewrote the ReadsList example to use an immutable List (and a var instead), then I could confidently say that the integer elements of the list will always correspond to the indices of the list. This means that your program is much less likely to enter an inconsistent state (e.g. it's not hard to imagine that a naive mutable set implementation could end up with non-unique elements when mutated concurrently). And it turns out that modern techniques for dealing with concurrency usually are pretty good at dealing with missing writes.
Let's look at some of those approaches that deal with shared state concurrency. At their hearts they can all be summed up as various ways of serializing read/write pairs.
Locks (a.k.a. directly try to serialize read/write pairs): This is usually the one you'll hear first as a fundamental way of dealing with concurrency. Every process that wants to access state first places a lock on it. Any other process is now excluded from accessing that state. The process then writes to that state and on completion releases the lock. Other processes are now free to repeat the process. In our WritesExample, updateList would first acquire the lock before executing and releasing the lock; this would prevent other processes from reading WritesExample.myList until the write was completed, thereby preventing them from seeing old versions of myList that would lead to clobbering writes (note that are more sophisticated locking procedures that allow for simultaneous reads, but let's stick with the basics for now).
Locks often do not scale well to multiple pieces of state. With multiple locks, often you need to acquire and release locks in a certain order otherwise you can end up deadlocking or livelocking.
The Oracle and Twitter docs linked a the beginning have good overviews of this approach.
Describe Your Action, Don't Execute It (a.k.a. build up a serial representation of your actions and have someone else process it): Instead of accessing and modifying state directly, you describe an action of how to do this and then give it to someone else to actually execute the action. For example, you might pass messages to an object (e.g. actors in Scala) that queues up these requests and then executes them one-by-one on some internal state that it never directly exposes to anyone else. In the particular case of actors, this improves the situation over locks by removing the need to explicitly acquire and release locks. As long as you encapsulate all the state you need to access at once in a single object, message passing works great. Actors break down when you distribute state across multiple objects (and as such this is heavily discouraged in this paradigm).
Akka actors are one good example of this in Scala.
Transactions (a.k.a. temporarily isolate some reads and writes from others and let the isolation system serialize things for you): Wrap all your read/writes in transactions that ensure during the course of your reads and writes your view of the world is isolated from any other changes. There's usually two ways of achieving this. Either you go for an approach similar to locks where you prevent other people from accessing the data while a transaction is running or you restart a transaction from the very beginning whenever you detect that a change has occurred to the shared state and throw away any progress you've made (usually the latter for performance reasons). On the one hand, transactions, unlike locks and actors, scale to disparate pieces of state very well. Just wrap all your accesses in transactions and you're good to go. On the other hand, your reads and writes have to be side-effect-free because they might be thrown away and retried many times and you can't really undo most side effects.
And if you're really unlucky, although you usually can't truly deadlock with a good implementation of transactions, a long-lived transaction can constantly be interrupted by other short-lived transactions such that it keeps getting thrown away and retried and never actually succeeds (which amounts to something like livelocking). In effect you're giving up direct control of serialization order and hoping your transaction system orders things sensibly.
Scala's STM library is a good example of this approach.
Remove Shared State: The final "solution" is to rethink the problem altogether and try to think about whether you truly need global, shared state that is writable. If you don't need writable shared state, then concurrency problems go away altogether!
Everything in life is about trade-offs and concurrency is no exception. When thinking about concurrency first understand what state you have and what invariants you want to preserve about that state. Then use that to guide your decision as to what kind of tools you want to use to tackle the problem.
The Thread Safety Problem section within this Scala concurrency article might be of interest to you. In essence, it illustrates the thread safety problem using a simple example and outlines 3 different approaches to tackle the problem, namely synchronization, volatile and AtomicReference:
When you enter synchronized points, access volatile references, or
deference AtomicReferences, Java forces the processor to flush their
cache lines and provide a consistent view of data.
There is also a brief overview comparing the cost of the 3 approaches:
AtomicReference is the most costly of these two choices since you
have to go through method dispatch to access values. volatile and
synchronized are built on top of Java’s built-in monitors. Monitors
cost very little if there’s no contention. Since synchronized allows
you more fine-grained control over when you synchronize, there will be
less contention so synchronized tends to be the cheapest option.
This is not specific to Scala, if your object contains a state that can be modified concurrently thread safety can be violated depending on the implementation. For example:
object BankAccount {
private var balance: Long = 0L
def deposit(amount: Long): Unit = balance += amount
}
In this case the the object is not thread safe, there are a lot of approachs to make it thread safe, for example using Akka, or synchronized blocks. For simplicity I will write it using synchronized blocks
object BankAccount {
private var balance: Long = 0L
def deposit(amount: Long): Unit =
this.synchronized {
balance += amount
}
}
From the «Learning concurrent programming in Scala» book:
In current versions of Scala (2.11.1), however, certain collections that are
deemed immutable, such as List and Vector, cannot be shared without
synchronization. Although their external API does not allow you to
modify them, they contain non-final fields.
Could anyone demonstrate this with a small example? And does this still apply to 2.11.7?
The behavior of changes made in one thread when viewed from another is governed by the Java Memory Model. In particular, these rules are extremely weak when it comes to something like building a collection and then passing the built-and-now-immutable collection to another thread. The JMM does not guarantee that the other thread won't see an earlier view where the collection was not fully built!
Since synchronized blocks enforce an ordering, they can be used to get a consistent view if they're used on every single operation.
In practice, though, this is rarely actually necessary. On the CPU side, there is typically a memory barrier operation that can be used to enforce memory consistency (i.e. if you write the tail of your list and then pass a memory barrier, no other thread can see the tail un-set). And in practice, JVMs usually have to implement synchronized by using memory barriers. So one could hope that you could just pass the created list within a synchronzied block, trusting that a memory barrier would be issued, and everything thereafter would be fine.
Unfortunately, the JMM doesn't require that it be implemented in this way (and you can't assume that the memory-barrier-like behavior of object creation will actually be a full memory barrier that applies to everything in that thread as opposed to simply the final fields of that object), which is both why the recommendation is what it is, and why it's not fixed (yet, anyway) in the library.
For what it's worth, on x86 architectures, I've never observed a problem if you hand off the immutable object within a synchronized block. I have observed problems if you try to do it with CAS (e.g. by using the java.util.concurrent.atomic classes).
As an addition to the excellent answer from Rex Kerr:
it should be noted that most common use cases of immutable collections in a multithreading context are not affected by this problem. The only situation where this might affect you is when you do something that you probably should not do in the first place.
E.g. you have a variable var x: Vector[Int], which you write from one thread A and read from another thread B.
If you mark x with #volatile, there will be no problem, since the volatile write introduces a memory barrier. So you will never be able to observe the Vector in an inconsistent state. The same is true when using a synchronized { } block when writing and reading, or when using java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicReference.
If you don't mark x with #volatile, you might observe the vector in an inconsistent state (not just wrong elements, but internally inconsistent!). But in that case your code is arguably broken to begin with. It is completely undefined when you will see the changes from A in B.
You might see them
immediately
after there is a memory barrier somewhere else in your program
not at all
depending on the architecture you`re running on, the phase of the moon, whatever. So as Viktor Klang put it: "Unsafe publication is unsafe..."
Note that if you use a higher level concurrency framework such as akka actors, it is also guaranteed that receivers of messages can not see immutable collections in an inconsistent state.
I read Deprecating the Observer Pattern with Scala.React and found reactive programming very interesting.
But there is a point I can't figure out: the author described the signals as the nodes in a DAG(Directed acyclic graph). Then what if you have two signals(or event sources, or models, w/e) depending on each other? i.e. the 'two-way binding', like a model and a view in web front-end programming.
Sometimes it's just inevitable because the user can change view, and the back-end(asynchronous request, for example) can change model, and you hope the other side to reflect the change immediately.
The loop dependencies in a reactive programming language can be handled with a variety of semantics. The one that appears to have been chosen in scala.React is that of synchronous reactive languages and specifically that of Esterel. You can have a good explanation of this semantics and its alternatives in the paper "The synchronous languages 12 years later" by Benveniste, A. ; Caspi, P. ; Edwards, S.A. ; Halbwachs, N. ; Le Guernic, P. ; de Simone, R. and available at http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/articleDetails.jsp?arnumber=1173191&tag=1 or http://virtualhost.cs.columbia.edu/~sedwards/papers/benveniste2003synchronous.pdf.
Replying #Matt Carkci here, because a comment wouldn't suffice
In the paper section 7.1 Change Propagation you have
Our change propagation implementation uses a push-based approach based on a topologically ordered dependency graph. When a propagation turn starts, the propagator puts all nodes that have been invalidated since the last turn into a priority queue which is sorted according to the topological order, briefly level, of the nodes. The propagator dequeues the node on the lowest level and validates it, potentially changing its state and putting its dependent nodes, which are on greater levels, on the queue. The propagator repeats this step until the queue is empty, always keeping track of the current level, which becomes important for level mismatches below. For correctly ordered graphs, this process monotonically proceeds to greater levels, thus ensuring data consistency, i.e., the absence of glitches.
and later at section 7.6 Level Mismatch
We therefore need to prepare for an opaque node n to access another node that is on a higher topological level. Every node that is read from during n’s evaluation, first checks whether the current propagation level which is maintained by the propagator is greater than the node’s level. If it is, it proceed as usual, otherwise it throws a level mismatch exception containing a reference to itself, which is caught only in the main propagation loop. The propagator then hoists n by first changing its level to a level above the node which threw the exception, reinserting n into the propagation queue (since it’s level has changed) for later evaluation in the same turn and then transitively hoisting all of n’s dependents.
While there's no mention about any topological constraint (cyclic vs acyclic), something is not clear. (at least to me)
First arises the question of how is the topological order defined.
And then the implementation suggests that mutually dependent nodes would loop forever in the evaluation through the exception mechanism explained above.
What do you think?
After scanning the paper, I can't find where they mention that it must be acyclic. There's nothing stopping you from creating cyclic graphs in dataflow/reactive programming. Acyclic graphs only allow you to create Pipeline Dataflow (e.g. Unix command line pipes).
Feedback and cycles are a very powerful mechanism in dataflow. Without them you are restricted to the types of programs you can create. Take a look at Flow-Based Programming - Loop-Type Networks.
Edit after second post by pagoda_5b
One statement in the paper made me take notice...
For correctly ordered graphs, this process
monotonically proceeds to greater levels, thus ensuring data
consistency, i.e., the absence of glitches.
To me that says that loops are not allowed within the Scala.React framework. A cycle between two nodes would seem to cause the system to continually try to raise the level of both nodes forever.
But that doesn't mean that you have to encode the loops within their framework. It could be possible to have have one path from the item you want to observe and then another, separate, path back to the GUI.
To me, it always seems that too much emphasis is placed on a programming system completing and giving one answer. Loops make it difficult to determine when to terminate. Libraries that use the term "reactive" tend to subscribe to this thought process. But that is just a result of the Von Neumann architecture of computers... a focus of solving an equation and returning the answer. Libraries that shy away from loops seem to be worried about program termination.
Dataflow doesn't require a program to have one right answer or ever terminate. The answer is the answer at this moment of time due to the inputs at this moment. Feedback and loops are expected if not required. A dataflow system is basically just a big loop that constantly passes data between nodes. To terminate it, you just stop it.
Dataflow doesn't have to be so complicated. It is just a very different way to think about programming. I suggest you look at J. Paul Morison's book "Flow Based Programming" for a field tested version of dataflow or my book (once it's done).
Check your MVC knowledge. The view doesn't update the model, so it won't send signals to it. The controller updates the model. For a C/F converter, you would have two controllers (one for the F control, on for the C control). Both controllers would send signals to a single model (which stores the only real temperature, Kelvin, in a lossless format). The model sends signals to two separate views (one for C view, one for F view). No cycles.
Based on the answer from #pagoda_5b, I'd say that you are likely allowed to have cycles (7.6 should handle it, at the cost of performance) but you must guarantee that there is no infinite regress. For example, you could have the controllers also receive signals from the model, as long as you guaranteed that receipt of said signal never caused a signal to be sent back to the model.
I think the above is a good description, but it uses the word "signal" in a non-FRP style. "Signals" in the above are really messages. If the description in 7.1 is correct and complete, loops in the signal graph would always cause infinite regress as processing the dependents of a node would cause the node to be processed and vice-versa, ad inf.
As #Matt Carkci said, there are FRP frameworks that allow loops, at least to a limited extent. They will either not be push-based, use non-strictness in interesting ways, enforce monotonicity, or introduce "artificial" delays so that when the signal graph is expanded on the temporal dimension (turning it into a value graph) the cycles disappear.