| Commit message (Collapse) | Author | Age | Files | Lines |
|---|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
| |
-feager-blackholing (#5226). See comments for details.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This patch makes two changes to the way stacks are managed:
1. The stack is now stored in a separate object from the TSO.
This means that it is easier to replace the stack object for a thread
when the stack overflows or underflows; we don't have to leave behind
the old TSO as an indirection any more. Consequently, we can remove
ThreadRelocated and deRefTSO(), which were a pain.
This is obviously the right thing, but the last time I tried to do it
it made performance worse. This time I seem to have cracked it.
2. Stacks are now represented as a chain of chunks, rather than
a single monolithic object.
The big advantage here is that individual chunks are marked clean or
dirty according to whether they contain pointers to the young
generation, and the GC can avoid traversing clean stack chunks during
a young-generation collection. This means that programs with deep
stacks will see a big saving in GC overhead when using the default GC
settings.
A secondary advantage is that there is much less copying involved as
the stack grows. Programs that quickly grow a deep stack will see big
improvements.
In some ways the implementation is simpler, as nothing special needs
to be done to reclaim stack as the stack shrinks (the GC just recovers
the dead stack chunks). On the other hand, we have to manage stack
underflow between chunks, so there's a new stack frame
(UNDERFLOW_FRAME), and we now have separate TSO and STACK objects.
The total amount of code is probably about the same as before.
There are new RTS flags:
-ki<size> Sets the initial thread stack size (default 1k) Egs: -ki4k -ki2m
-kc<size> Sets the stack chunk size (default 32k)
-kb<size> Sets the stack chunk buffer size (default 1k)
-ki was previously called just -k, and the old name is still accepted
for backwards compatibility. These new options are documented.
|
| |
|
|
| |
Noticed by Henrique Ferreiro <hferreiro@udc.es>, thanks!
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
This replaces the global blackhole_queue with a clever scheme that
enables us to queue up blocked threads on the closure that they are
blocked on, while still avoiding atomic instructions in the common
case.
Advantages:
- gets rid of a locked global data structure and some tricky GC code
(replacing it with some per-thread data structures and different
tricky GC code :)
- wakeups are more prompt: parallel/concurrent performance should
benefit. I haven't seen anything dramatic in the parallel
benchmarks so far, but a couple of threading benchmarks do improve
a bit.
- waking up a thread blocked on a blackhole is now O(1) (e.g. if
it is the target of throwTo).
- less sharing and better separation of Capabilities: communication
is done with messages, the data structures are strictly owned by a
Capability and cannot be modified except by sending messages.
- this change will utlimately enable us to do more intelligent
scheduling when threads block on each other. This is what started
off the whole thing, but it isn't done yet (#3838).
I'll be documenting all this on the wiki in due course.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In #2797, a program that ran in constant stack space when compiled
needed linear stack space when interpreted. It turned out to be
nothing more than stack-squeezing not happening. We have a heuristic
to avoid stack-squeezing when it would be too expensive (shuffling a
large amount of memory to save a few words), but in some cases even
expensive stack-squeezing is necessary to avoid linear stack usage.
One day we should implement stack chunks, which would make this less
expensive.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
In a stack overflow situation, stack squeezing may reduce the stack
size, but we don't know whether it has been reduced enough for the
stack check to succeed if we try again. Fortunately stack squeezing
is idempotent, so all we need to do is record whether *any* squeezing
happened. If we are at the stack's absolute -K limit, and stack
squeezing happened, then we try running the thread again.
We also want to avoid enlarging the stack if squeezing has already
released some of it. However, we don't want to get into a
pathalogical situation where a thread has a nearly full stack (near
its current limit, but not near the absolute -K limit), keeps
allocating a little bit, squeezing removes a little bit, and then it
runs again. So to avoid this, if we squeezed *and* there is still
less than BLOCK_SIZE_W words free, then we enlarge the stack anyway.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
The first phase of this tidyup is focussed on the header files, and in
particular making sure we are exposinng publicly exactly what we need
to, and no more.
- Rts.h now includes everything that the RTS exposes publicly,
rather than a random subset of it.
- Most of the public header files have moved into subdirectories, and
many of them have been renamed. But clients should not need to
include any of the other headers directly, just #include the main
public headers: Rts.h, HsFFI.h, RtsAPI.h.
- All the headers needed for via-C compilation have moved into the
stg subdirectory, which is self-contained. Most of the headers for
the rest of the RTS APIs have moved into the rts subdirectory.
- I left MachDeps.h where it is, because it is so widely used in
Haskell code.
- I left a deprecated stub for RtsFlags.h in place. The flag
structures are now exposed by Rts.h.
- Various internal APIs are no longer exposed by public header files.
- Various bits of dead code and declarations have been removed
- More gcc warnings are turned on, and the RTS code is more
warning-clean.
- More source files #include "PosixSource.h", and hence only use
standard POSIX (1003.1c-1995) interfaces.
There is a lot more tidying up still to do, this is just the first
pass. I also intend to standardise the names for external RTS APIs
(e.g use the rts_ prefix consistently), and declare the internal APIs
as hidden for shared libraries.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
| |
I discovered a new invariant while experimenting (blackholing is not
optional when using parallel GC), so documented it.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
Eager blackholing can improve parallel performance by reducing the
chances that two threads perform the same computation. However, it
has a cost: one extra memory write per thunk entry.
To get the best results, any code which may be executed in parallel
should be compiled with eager blackholing turned on. But since
there's a cost for sequential code, we make it optional and turn it on
for the parallel package only. It might be a good idea to compile
applications (or modules) with parallel code in with
-feager-blackholing.
ToDo: document -feager-blackholing.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
At some point we regressed on detecting simple black-hole loops. This
happened due to the introduction of duplicate-work detection for
parallelism: a black-hole loop looks very much like duplicate work,
except it's duplicate work being performed by the very same thread.
So we have to detect and handle this case.
|
| | |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
1. We weren't squeezing two frames if one of them was a marked update
frame. This is easy to fix.
2. The heuristic to decide whether to squeeze was a little
conservative. It's worth copying 3 words to save an update frame.
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
I guess I forgot to do this the first time around; the upshot is that
there could be some uncaught duplication of work on a multiprocessor
(but unlikely).
|
| | |
|
|
|
In preparation for parallel GC, split up the monolithic GC.c file into
smaller parts. Also in this patch (and difficult to separate,
unfortunatley):
- Don't include Stable.h in Rts.h, instead just include it where
necessary.
- consistently use STATIC_INLINE in source files, and INLINE_HEADER
in header files. STATIC_INLINE is now turned off when DEBUG is on,
to make debugging easier.
- The GC no longer takes the get_roots function as an argument.
We weren't making use of this generalisation.
|
