Askemos 2000 (Archive)
home · features · download · archive

RScheme

Rscheme ( http://www.rscheme.org ) was originally choosen because a code review showed quite clean coding. It had not best, but reasonable and sometime surprising (PerformanceConsiderations) performace, an usable foreign function interface to C code and most of all the texas persistent store.

Meanwhile the persistent store is still worth it's salt, but rscheme development is slow (aka stable). Askemos tries to get along with a minimum of rscheme specific features.

Problems with rscheme: the compiler is not especially smart, the executable is heavy and sometimes the signal handling get's mixed up. Otherwise it's great. TODO a long standing issue was the broken loop optimisation. This is fixed since build 14 (5th Nov. 2003), now we can roll back the rewritten match code and integrate it with the base system.

From Kakkad's work on the Texas persistant store it should be possible to interface to C++ code. "With a little help" of Manuel Seranno bigloo could be an alternative. But bigloo doesn't have threads yet...

http://www.rscheme.org/, RSS feed

   reachability based persistent memory (the best I know of)
   medium size code base
   usable fast
   maintained

 - own foreign function interface is sorta arkward
 - setup could be easier

>RScheme global and module environments are implemented with hash
> tables.  I don't now how local environments are compiled. 

The hash tables map names to binding objects, but at runtime a direct
pointer to the binding object is present in the "literal frame" (also
called the <template>), so lookups and side-effects are constant-time.

At compile time, local environments are essentially nested lists (list of
depths, and, per depth, a list of variable -> compile-time-binding
objects).  During compilation, references are transformed into "lexical
addresses" which are essentially a < frame # , slot # > tuple, so lookups
(and side-effects) are constant-time in the slot # and linear time in the
frame #.


> But this
> knowledge could effect performance.  Will differences as shown in the
> following examples effect performance or will the compiler do the
> right thing?
> 
> a) localizing global variable bindings
> 
> (define (foo) ...)
> (define (bar) ... (foo) ...) ; global reference
> vs.
> (define (foo) ...)
> (define bar (let ((foo foo))
>               (lambda () ...(foo)...))) ; local reference

The first is probably faster because the `foo' lookup is closer to the
executing code.

> 
> b) "lifting" constant definitions (forgot the right term)
> 
> (define (foo)
>  (define bar (cons 1 2)) ; simple implementation: one cons per call of foo
>  ... bar ...)
> 
> (define foo
>  (let ((bar (cons 1 2))) ; one cons in initialization
>   ... bar ...))

The semantics are different, but if you only want structural equivalence,
then certainly the latter should be faster because there is no run-time
cons.

If you want to see some details, try turning on AML (Abstract Machine
Language) printing and compiling some definitions:

top[1]=>,aml
top[2]=>(define (foo x) (cons x 1))
===== wrapping aml =====
        (check= 1)
        (set! (reg 0 #f) (<obj> ref (reg 0 #f)))
        (set! (reg 0 #f) (<obj> ref (reg 0 x)))
        (set! (reg 1 #f) (<fixnum> primop #[primop raw-int->fixnum]
(<raw-int> int 1)))
        (applyf 2 (<function> ref (tl-var/b 0 cons)))
value := foo
top[3]=>

You can see pretty much exactly what is going on here, when things get
register-allocated, when you have a top-level-var lookup, etc.

-----------------
I see...  I didn't realize you were using RScheme in this pthreads 
project...

In that case, the signalling into RScheme would be via 
rscheme_intr_call*() (there are three versions, corresponding to zero, 
one, or two arguments to a procedure):

  void rscheme_intr_call0( obj thunk );
  void rscheme_intr_call1( obj thunk, obj a );
  void rscheme_intr_call2( obj thunk, obj a, obj b );

As you mention, you have to make sure that the values that the pthread 
side is holding on to (e.g., the procedure or any non-immob values) will 
not get GC'd.

If the basic model is that the RScheme side "calls out" to get some work
done on the pthread side, and when it's done the answer comes back, then I
don't think you'd need a pthread-level sync structure.  The pthread side
would just use rscheme_intr_call*() to return the answer.

You said you have a pool of pthreads; they're sitting around waiting to
handle requests from the scheme side?  I guess you would need a
pthread-level sync structure to push stuff into the pthread side.  It's a
bit more complicated than one-thread-per-request, but more efficient if
you've got a bunch of them and they only do a little bit of work per
request...

What kind of data objects are flying between the scheme and pthread side?  
Note that that pthread side can't perform GC-sensitive operations like 
allocation on the GC'd heap or storing pointers, etc.


On Wed, 2 Jun 2004 Joerg.Wittenberger@Extern.Sparkassen-Informatik.de wrote:

> 
> I'm now sitting in front of two days work: a pool of pthreads basically
> patterned after rscheme thread pools ready to do some work.
> This could make an excellent start. The idea is to have one of them run the
> rscheme side of things. Just how would I signal into
> the rscheme mechanism?
.......
> Thanks for the rscheme_intr_call*, that's way easier than I expected.

No problem; note that I haven't tested it much, and certainly not in 
a true multithreaded environment (in fact, it is known that the osglue 
needs additional synchronization to support multithreaded interaction; 
currently, it just blocks signals which is insufficient)





border
last modification: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:53:58 +0200
authors: jfw,
document identifier: A849640f672ed0df0958abc0712110f3c
delivered to public at Tue, 12 Dec 2017 09:18:33 +0100
short comments


rss

pdf :: context view

search



www.jangoo.de
24 Apr 2004 DefineInsecureMode
12 Dez 2010 FreeBSD
07 Dez 2010 BALLFeatures
05 Dez 2010 ByzantineAgreement
04 Dez 2010 SQLITE
03 Dez 2010 SRS
12 Okt 2010 WebDAV
12 Sep 2010 SQL
16 Jun 2010 BALL
16 Jun 2010 CouchDB
16 Jun 2010 AskemosServer
07 Mai 2010 SystemRequirements
30 Mar 2010 ProjectsOnThePlate
30 Mar 2010 AskemosResources
30 Mar 2010 RSchemeInstall
30 Mar 2010 INSTALL
30 Mar 2010 ChickenScheme
debug-access.scm
27 Nov 2009 subscriber
development
12 Jul 2009 test
01 Jul 2009 TrustCenter
27 Dez 2008 JKomG
26 Dez 2008 FanOut
26 Dez 2008 MIME
NetBSD
NOTE
02 Mai 2006 AskemosTopMenu
18 Nov 2008 StorageAdaptor
18 Nov 2008 PStoreStorageAdapt
18 Nov 2008 OperationTips
15 Nov 2008 PCRE
04 Nov 2008 ProgrammingLanguag
09 Sep 2008 RelatedProjects
23 Jul 2008 ModuleStructure05
17 Jun 2008 NEWS
17 Jun 2008 HTML
17 Jun 2008 ACM
22 Mai 2008 HTTP
22 Mai 2008 BOSH
10 Mai 2008 AskemosBibliograph
10 Mai 2008 JerrysDreamAbstrac
20 Apr 2008 XSLT
11 Mar 2008 CodingStyle
10 Mar 2008
09 Mar 2008 MIMEConverter
BSD
07 Mar 2008 XML
06 Mar 2008 SRFI
01 Mar 2008 RFC4810






Add


home · features · download · archive