Welcome to the main channel on the development of MoarVM, a virtual machine for NQP and Rakudo (moarvm.org). This channel is being logged for historical purposes.
Set by lizmat on 24 May 2021.
00:08 reportable6 left, reportable6 joined 00:26 kaipei joined 00:29 kaiepi left 01:37 frost joined 02:37 evalable6 left, linkable6 left 02:39 evalable6 joined, linkable6 joined 04:27 kaipei left 04:28 Kaiepi joined 05:28 linkable6 left, quotable6 left, nativecallable6 left, reportable6 left, sourceable6 left, bloatable6 left, coverable6 left, tellable6 left, unicodable6 left, releasable6 left, committable6 left, benchable6 left, bisectable6 left, shareable6 left, statisfiable6 left, evalable6 left, notable6 left, greppable6 left, nativecallable6 joined, unicodable6 joined, tellable6 joined 05:29 committable6 joined, greppable6 joined, bisectable6 joined, reportable6 joined, releasable6 joined 05:30 quotable6 joined, bloatable6 joined, sourceable6 joined, notable6 joined 05:31 linkable6 joined, evalable6 joined, statisfiable6 joined, benchable6 joined, shareable6 joined, coverable6 joined 06:07 reportable6 left 06:10 reportable6 joined 06:25 sena_kun joined 06:27 Altai-man left
Nicholas [* GOOD *] 06:47
nine Good Friday! 07:17
08:42 linkable6 left 08:44 linkable6 joined 09:41 Kaiepi left 10:06 Altai-man joined 10:20 Kaiepi joined
nine How on earth could github.com/rakudo/rakudo/commit/5e...42359b185f have broken a callsame test_ 10:29
?
jnthnwrthngtn I can't guess that one, sorry. 10:34
Short of "it never should have worked but this bug hid another bug"
nine I noticed that the same bug is in pop-scope as well
jnthnwrthngtn: pushed a few more commits. Only regression is that callsame test 10:46
Huh! This works as advertised: multi foo(Numeric $a) { say "Numeric" }; multi foo(Int $a) { say "Int"; callsame; }; foo(1) 10:51
This doesn't: { multi foo(Numeric $a) { say "Numeric" }; multi foo(Int $a) { say "Int"; callsame; }; foo(1) }
Ok, fixed that one :) 11:55
12:02 frost left 12:03 frost joined 12:06 reportable6 left 12:07 reportable6 joined 12:15 frost left 12:17 frost joined 12:35 Kaiepi left 12:40 linkable6 left 12:43 linkable6 joined 12:49 Kaiepi joined 13:13 frost left
nine jnthnwrthngtn: should .& get its own Call node type or treated as syntactic sugar for RakuAST::Call::Name? 13:35
jnthnwrthngtn I'd expect a different node type 13:42
And it'd inherit from RakuAST::Call::Methodish 13:44
See the three impls of it here for other kinds of method call: github.com/rakudo/rakudo/blob/f542...kumod#L217
nine Ok, so like the RakuAST::Call::Safe I've added 13:45
What's the name of the .& construct? I.e. what's the appropriate name for the AST node? 13:48
13:49 Kaiepi left
jnthnwrthngtn Hm, I suspect Safe should be a name with the word Method in it too (MaybeMethod perhaps) 13:54
VarMethod perhaps for the .& one
nine Docs call .? "Safe call operator". So maybe SafeMethod? 13:56
jnthnwrthngtn Yeah, I guess 13:59
I jsut like the "call me maybe" reference :P
nine Ah, in that case :D 14:01
[Coke] so, following our naming convention from years past, then. :) 14:05
nine nine@sphinx:~/rakudo (rakuast *=)> RAKUDO_RAKUAST=1 ./rakudo-m -e '1.&say;' 14:10
1
jnthnwrthngtn yay 14:11
nine Cool! Test.rakumod is not getting all the way to Stage qast. There it probably fails because of missing nqp ops support 14:21
japhb *is now? 14:22
jnthnwrthngtn Is not? Or is now?
I mean, I achieved it not getting there :D
nine ah, now of course :)
14:22 Kaiepi joined
nine Yep: compiling complex call names NYI nqp::setbuffersizefh 14:23
> RAKUDO_RAKUAST=1 ./rakudo-m -e 'use nqp; nqp::say("hello")' 14:53
hello
That was much easier than expected. Provided that we don't want special AST nodes for nqp ops
jnthnwrthngtn Probably not, otherwise we get into the "can construct an AST that dumps the same but behaves different" situation 15:49
Which I'm trying to avoid where we can
I suspect the next thing you'll run into if it gets past stage QAST is that I didn't pay any attention to if we're producing precomp or not, which entails producing slightly different QAST 15:50
16:44 Altai-man left 18:07 reportable6 left 18:10 reportable6 joined 18:17 Techcable left 18:42 Kaiepi left 18:44 Kaiepi joined, Techcable joined 19:29 discord-raku-bot left, discord-raku-bot joined 19:52 Kaiepi left, Kaiepi joined
vrurg jnthnwrthngtn: since Lock::Async is your creation, it's a question for you. :) How hard would it be to implement the same approach to recursion, as with Lock? 20:22
20:26 [Coke] left, [Coke] joined 21:34 [Coke] left, [Coke] joined 22:02 [Coke] left 22:08 [Coke] joined
jnthnwrthngtn vrurg: Lock relies upon the acquisition and release of a lock to be on the same thread; if you violate this rule, it's at best an exception and your program is in an undefined state - e.g. such a mistake may as well be fatal. 23:11
vrurg: await will fall back to blocking behavior if the current thread holds locks, rather than the non-blocking behavior 23:12
vrurg jnthnwrthngtn: this I'm working on right now.
Working on the per-thread thing. 23:13
jnthnwrthngtn By contrast, Lock::Async is explicitly designed for the lock to be acquired/released over different threads.
The recursion mechanism of Lock is dependent on the lock acquire/release being on one thread.
Working on...what?
Lock::Async does have some kind of recursion coping mechanism, btw; see some of the other methods in there. 23:14
vrurg Async interchange of phrases created confusion. :) Let me explain.
japhb
.oO( "No, there is too much. Let me sum up." )
23:15
vrurg I'm considering replacing Locks in CompUnit::* with Lock::Async. It is designed based on recursive nature of Lock. So, I'm considering a way to overcome it.
jnthnwrthngtn At the end of the day, lock recursion depends upon some idea of "identity" to know if it's recursion or not, and for Lock that's the thread ID.
For Lock::Async there's no obvious equivalent. 23:16
vrurg The reason for replacement is to reduce the risk of `require` invoked on many modules from many threads concurrently to block – something I experienced in my testing script. It just never precompiles. 23:17
I tried increasing number of threads in the pool but the results was quite discouraging: 12G of res mem, 150G+ of virtual and counting. I just never had enough guts to wait all the way to the end of any kind. 23:18
jnthnwrthngtn It deadlocks, or?
vrurg It's not deadlocking as such. Just all threads are blocked and none is willing to give up – Lock, you know.
So, 20 modules to `require` and precompile, 100 threads per each module – and voila! Lesser number of threads do basically the same. 23:19
jnthnwrthngtn Isn't that the definition of deadlock??
japhb It's also chewing RAM, so there's at least *something* going on ... 23:20
jnthnwrthngtn I guess.
vrurg Yes and now, to my view. Exhausted pool of threads is somewhat different from the classical deadlocking.
jnthnwrthngtn where does the "100 threads per each module" come from? 23:21
vrurg github.com/rakudo/rakudo/pull/4917 – the script here. I was trying to fix a VMNull popping up from `require` and ::($mod) racing each other. So, made it real stress-testing. 23:22
Since the original production code is requiring a few modules, so I tried to reproduce that too. 23:23
BTW, rewinding to the start and Lock depending on one thread – I'm considering adding some kind of ID, likely numeric, to continuations created by ThreadPoolScheduler. 23:25
jnthnwrthngtn Are, like of like a "logical" thread ID? 23:26
Something like that could work
vrurg Yep, exactly.
With that ID Lock::Async could just use the same holder queue, but identify nesting based on the ID. 23:27
jnthnwrthngtn That said, I don't think Lock::Async relies upon `await` being used, since it's interface is in terms of a Promise
vrurg And while not totally make CU free of chances to dead lock, but at least make them more predictable. 23:28
jnthnwrthngtn Maybe, but something still feels a bit off to me that it struggles at the moment.
vrurg Sorry, don't get the part about relying upon 'await' 23:29
23:29 Kaiepi left
jnthnwrthngtn $async-lock.lock() returns a `Promise`. One could choose to `await` it, which under contention will do the continuation dance when possible 23:29
vrurg Oh, BTW, the deadlock actually happens in `react` handling Proc::Async for the compiling rakudo child. The precompile happens, but the react never gets its result. 23:30
jnthnwrthngtn However, one can $async-lock.lock.then(...) also
Oh. So we're trying to precompile many things concurrently?
vrurg Yes, that's what happens with the script on its first run after wiping out .precomp 23:31
jnthnwrthngtn Would a simpler solution not be to permit only one `use`/`require`/`need` at a time, thus forcing their serialization?
I mean, I'd expect they have to be anyway to end up with a change of a consistent global state?
vrurg And slow down the precompile?
jnthnwrthngtn *chance
vrurg Say, the 20 modules are required – 20 processes are started. 23:32
I have serialized per-module precomp already.
jnthnwrthngtn The the majority of programs do `use`, and we have to process those sequentially.
Not to mention modules are pre-compiled upon installation
vrurg But they're re-compiled when rakudo is updated, for example. 23:33
'use' is a simple case.
But `require` is often used as a workaround for circular deps.
And the worst part it is used internally my many modules, without a user knowing about that. 23:34
jnthnwrthngtn
.oO( I hope I never have to work about a Raku codebase that is doing that... )
*work on
23:35 Kaiepi joined
vrurg I'm having the issue with LibXML, where cross-dependency is a natural thing. It has to use `require`. 23:35
jnthnwrthngtn Well, if we still want to parallelize `require`'s pre-comp to a degree, it'd probably be better to make the degree explicit and serialize it beyond that? 23:36
vrurg And whenever I parse many pages at once I might hit that case of many thread with many `require`
At the moment I don't see how to do it properly. 23:37
The serialization, I mean.
The whole moment when I realized I'd have to deep my toe into CU was a complete surprise. I never wanted this to happen. :) 23:38
And I barely understand all the details of it, so it would take too long to rework it properly. Not sure how much time do I have for this. 23:39
jnthnwrthngtn That's pretty much the same for Lock::Async and recursion; I went as far as "just document you can't" :)
vrurg It feels like an easier task to me. I see the light with the logical thread ID.
jnthnwrthngtn I think I'd prefer it to be a differnet type than added to Lock::Async, unless you can be sure the performance impact is nothing 23:40
Which I think you can't
Because anything that slows down Lock::Async slows down everything involving Supply 23:41
vrurg My only big worry is that Lock::Async is slow. Much slower than Lock. But considering the CU is largely built around slow IO it may be not that bad.
It must not slow it down. Similar to protect-or-queue-... this would either be a separate method, or a new candidate for `lock` like $async-lock.lock(:recursive). 23:42
jnthnwrthngtn Lock is much slower if you exhaust the thread pool and deadlock :) 23:43
vrurg An additional attribute to track the ID might add some little cost though.
jnthnwrthngtn Yeah, thus why I suggest a subclass or something
Is Lock::Async actaully a lot slower in the absence of contention, btw? 23:44
vrurg I was considering a new type, but didn't find a good name for it. Lock::Async is pretty much self-explaining. Besides, it already has the necessary infrastructure, which is mostly hidden in private methods.
jnthnwrthngtn In the case of non-contention it's meant to be a cas and returning a constant already kept Promise, iirc, which I'd hope is fairly cheap 23:45
vrurg Not sure about the contention. I did some benchmarks long ago, but don't remember the results.
But it is clearly loosing to Lock when competing for CPU.
jnthnwrthngtn Well, Lock::Async was pretty much designed for supporting the Supply concurrency model, and Supply is generally about IO-bound, so I can imagine it being less good for CPU-bound 23:46
vrurg I see your point... I think you're right and `use` must not be affected too much.
As well as the most often case of non-competing require. 23:47
Ok, I will try to contain it within Lock::Async and see how much of its infrastructure is going to be used. If not much then extracting into a separate type would make more sense. 23:48
And even if it wouldn't solve my issue the functionality itself would be good to have anyway. 23:49
Thanks! 23:50
jnthnwrthngtn Welcome, good luck :)
fwiw, logial "thread" IDs might well be a really nice thing for tooling too 23:51
vrurg Can you suggest a name for the dynamic variable? 23:53
I thought of $*CONTINUATION-ID 23:54