264 lines
15 KiB
HTML
264 lines
15 KiB
HTML
|
<!doctype html>
|
||
|
|
<html lang="en">
|
||
|
|
<head>
|
||
|
|
<meta charset="utf-8">
|
||
|
|
<meta http-equiv="x-ua-compatible" content="ie=edge">
|
||
|
|
<meta name="viewport" content="width=device-width, initial-scale=1">
|
||
|
|
<title>
|
||
|
|
Robur's blog - Cooperation and Lwt.pause
|
||
|
|
</title>
|
||
|
|
<meta name="description" content="A disgression about Lwt and Miou">
|
||
|
|
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="/css/hl.css">
|
||
|
|
<link type="text/css" rel="stylesheet" href="/css/style.css">
|
||
|
|
<script src="/js/hl.js"></script>
|
||
|
|
<link rel="alternate" type="application/rss+xml" href="/feed.xml" title="blog.robur.coop">
|
||
|
|
</head>
|
||
|
|
<body>
|
||
|
|
<header>
|
||
|
|
<h1>blog.robur.coop</h1>
|
||
|
|
<blockquote>
|
||
|
|
The <strong>Robur</strong> cooperative blog.
|
||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
||
|
|
</header>
|
||
|
|
<main><a href="/index.html">Back to index</a>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
<article>
|
||
|
|
<h1>Cooperation and Lwt.pause</h1>
|
||
|
|
<ul class="tags-list"><li><a href="/tags.html#tag-OCaml">OCaml</a></li><li><a href="/tags.html#tag-Scheduler">Scheduler</a></li><li><a href="/tags.html#tag-Community">Community</a></li><li><a href="/tags.html#tag-Unikernel">Unikernel</a></li><li><a href="/tags.html#tag-Git">Git</a></li></ul><p>Here's a concrete example of the notion of availability and the scheduler used
|
||
|
|
(in this case Lwt). As you may know, at Robur we have developed a unikernel:
|
||
|
|
<a href="https://git.robur.coop/robur/opam-mirror">opam-mirror</a>. It launches an HTTP service that can be used as an
|
||
|
|
OPAM overlay available from a Git repository (with <code>opam repository add <name> <url></code>).</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>The purpose of such an unikernel was to respond to a failure of the official
|
||
|
|
repository which fortunately did not last long and to offer decentralisation
|
||
|
|
of such a service. You can use https://opam.robur.coop!</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>It was also useful at the Mirage retreat, where we don't usually have a
|
||
|
|
great internet connection. Caching packages for our OCaml users on the local
|
||
|
|
network has benefited us in terms of our Internet bill by allowing the OCaml
|
||
|
|
users to fetch opam packages over the local network instead of over the shared,
|
||
|
|
metered 4G Internet conncetion.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Finally, it's a unikernel that I also use on my server for my software
|
||
|
|
<a href="https://blog.osau.re/articles/reproducible.html">reproducibility service</a> in order to have an overlay for my
|
||
|
|
software like <a href="https://bob.osau.re/">Bob</a>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In short, I advise you to use it, you can see its installation
|
||
|
|
<a href="https://blog.osau.re/articles/reproducible.html">here</a> (I think that in the context of a company, internally, it
|
||
|
|
can be interesting to have such a unikernel available).</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>However, this unikernel had a long-standing problem. We were already talking
|
||
|
|
about it at the Mirleft retreat, when we tried to get the repository from Git,
|
||
|
|
we had a (fairly long) unavailability of our HTTP server. Basically, we had to
|
||
|
|
wait ~10 min before the service offered by the unikernel was available.</p>
|
||
|
|
<h2 id="availability"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#availability"></a>Availability</h2>
|
||
|
|
<p>If you follow my <a href="https://blog.osau.re/tags/scheduler.html">articles</a>, as far as Miou is concerned, from
|
||
|
|
the outset I talk of the notion of availability if we were to make yet another
|
||
|
|
new scheduler for OCaml 5. We emphasised this notion because we had quite a few
|
||
|
|
problems on this subject and Lwt.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In this case, the notion of availability requires the scheduler to be able to
|
||
|
|
observe system events as often as possible. The problem is that Lwt doesn't
|
||
|
|
really offer this approach.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Indeed, Lwt offers a way of observing system events (<code>Lwt.pause</code>) but does not
|
||
|
|
do so systematically. The only time you really give the scheduler the
|
||
|
|
opportunity to see whether you can read or write is when you want to...
|
||
|
|
read or write...</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>More generally, it is said that Lwt's <strong>bind</strong> does not <em>yield</em>. In other words,
|
||
|
|
you can chain any number of functions together (via the <code>>>=</code> operator), but
|
||
|
|
from Lwt's point of view, there is no opportunity to see if an event has
|
||
|
|
occurred. Lwt always tries to go as far down your chain as possible:</p>
|
||
|
|
<ul>
|
||
|
|
<li>and finish your promise</li>
|
||
|
|
<li>or come across an operation that requires a system event (read or write)</li>
|
||
|
|
<li>or come across an <code>Lwt.pause</code> (as a <em>yield</em> point)</li>
|
||
|
|
</ul>
|
||
|
|
<p>Lwt is rather sparse in adding cooperation points besides <code>Lwt.pause</code> and
|
||
|
|
read/write operations, in contrast with Async where the bind operator is a
|
||
|
|
cooperation point.</p>
|
||
|
|
<h3 id="if-there-is-no-io-do-not-wrap-in-lwt"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#if-there-is-no-io-do-not-wrap-in-lwt"></a>If there is no I/O, do not wrap in Lwt</h3>
|
||
|
|
<p>It was (bad<sup><a href="#fn1">1</a></sup>) advice I was given. If a function doesn't do
|
||
|
|
I/O, there's no point in putting it in Lwt. At first glance, however, the idea
|
||
|
|
may be a good one. If you have a function that doesn't do I/O, whether it's in
|
||
|
|
the Lwt monad or not won't make any difference to the way Lwt tries to execute
|
||
|
|
it. Once again, Lwt should go as far as possible. So Lwt tries to solve both
|
||
|
|
functions in the same way:</p>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-ocaml">val merge : int array -> int array -> int array
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
let rec sort0 arr =
|
||
|
|
if Array.length arr <= 1 then arr
|
||
|
|
else
|
||
|
|
let m = Array.length arr / 2 in
|
||
|
|
let arr0 = sort0 (Array.sub arr 0 m) in
|
||
|
|
let arr1 = sort0 (Array.sub arr m (Array.length arr - m)) in
|
||
|
|
merge arr0 arr1
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
let rec sort1 arr =
|
||
|
|
let open Lwt.Infix in
|
||
|
|
if Array.length arr <= 1 then Lwt.return arr
|
||
|
|
else
|
||
|
|
let m = Array.length arr / 2 in
|
||
|
|
Lwt.both
|
||
|
|
(sort1 (Array.sub arr m (Array.length arr - m)))
|
||
|
|
(sort1 (Array.sub arr 0 m))
|
||
|
|
>|= fun (arr0, arr1) ->
|
||
|
|
merge arr0 arr1
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<p>If we trace the execution of the two functions (for example, by displaying our
|
||
|
|
<code>arr</code> each time), we see the same behaviour whether Lwt is used or not. However,
|
||
|
|
what is interesting in the Lwt code is the use of <code>both</code>, which suggests that
|
||
|
|
the processes are running <em>at the same time</em>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>"At the same time" does not necessarily suggest the use of several cores or "in
|
||
|
|
parallel", but the possibility that the right-hand side may also have the
|
||
|
|
opportunity to be executed even if the left-hand side has not finished. In other
|
||
|
|
words, that the two processes can run <strong>concurrently</strong>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>But factually, this is not the case, because even if we had the possibility of
|
||
|
|
a point of cooperation (with the <code>>|=</code> operator), Lwt tries to go as far as
|
||
|
|
possible and decides to finish the left part before launching the right part:</p>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-shell">$ ./a.out
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|3; 4; 2; 1; 7; 5; 8; 9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|3; 4; 2; 1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|3; 4|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|2; 1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|5; 8; 9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|5; 8|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort0: [|0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|3; 4; 2; 1; 7; 5; 8; 9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|3; 4; 2; 1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|3; 4|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|2; 1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|1; 7|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|5; 8; 9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|5; 8|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|9; 0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
sort1: [|0; 6|]
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<hr>
|
||
|
|
<p><strong><tag id="fn1">1</tag></strong>: However, if you are not interested in availability
|
||
|
|
and would like the scheduler to try to resolve your promises as quickly as
|
||
|
|
possible, this advice is clearly valid.</p>
|
||
|
|
<h4 id="performances"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#performances"></a>Performances</h4>
|
||
|
|
<p>It should be noted, however, that Lwt has an impact. Even if the behaviour is
|
||
|
|
the same, the Lwt layer is not free. A quick benchmark shows that there is an
|
||
|
|
overhead:</p>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-ocaml">let _ =
|
||
|
|
let t0 = Unix.gettimeofday () in
|
||
|
|
for i = 0 to 1000 do let _ = sort0 arr in () done;
|
||
|
|
let t1 = Unix.gettimeofday () in
|
||
|
|
Fmt.pr "sort0 %fs\n%!" (t1 -. t0)
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
let _ =
|
||
|
|
let t0 = Unix.gettimeofday () in
|
||
|
|
Lwt_main.run @@ begin
|
||
|
|
let open Lwt.Infix in
|
||
|
|
let rec go idx = if idx = 1000 then Lwt.return_unit
|
||
|
|
else sort1 arr >>= fun _ -> go (succ idx) in
|
||
|
|
go 0 end;
|
||
|
|
let t1 = Unix.gettimeofday () in
|
||
|
|
Fmt.pr "sort1 %fs\n%!" (t1 -. t0)
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-sh">$ ./a.out
|
||
|
|
sort0 0.000264s
|
||
|
|
sort1 0.000676s
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<p>This is the fairly obvious argument for not using Lwt when there's no I/O. Then,
|
||
|
|
if the Lwt monad is really needed, a simple <code>Lwt.return</code> at the very last
|
||
|
|
instance is sufficient (or, better, the use of <code>Lwt.map</code> / <code>>|=</code>).</p>
|
||
|
|
<h4 id="cooperation-and-concrete-example"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#cooperation-and-concrete-example"></a>Cooperation and concrete example</h4>
|
||
|
|
<p>So <code>Lwt.both</code> is the one to use when we want to run two processes
|
||
|
|
"at the same time". For the example, <a href="https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-git">ocaml-git</a> attempts <em>both</em> to
|
||
|
|
retrieve a repository and also to analyse it. This can be seen in this snippet
|
||
|
|
of <a href="https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-git/blob/a36c90404b149ab85f429439af8785bb1dde1bee/src/not-so-smart/smart_git.ml#L476-L481">code</a>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In our example with ocaml-git, the problem "shouldn't" appear because, in this
|
||
|
|
case, both the left and right side do I/O (the left side binds into a socket
|
||
|
|
while the right side saves Git objects in your file system). So, in our tests
|
||
|
|
with <code>Git_unix</code>, we were able to see that the analysis (right-hand side) was
|
||
|
|
well executed and 'interleaved' with the reception of objects from the network.</p>
|
||
|
|
<h3 id="composability"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#composability"></a>Composability</h3>
|
||
|
|
<p>However, if we go back to our initial problem, we were talking about our
|
||
|
|
opam-mirror unikernel. As you might expect, there is no standalone MirageOS file
|
||
|
|
system (and many of our unikernels don't need one). So, in the case of
|
||
|
|
opam-mirror, we use the ocaml-git memory implementation: <code>Git_mem</code>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p><code>Git_mem</code> is different in that Git objects are simply stored in a <code>Hashtbl</code>.
|
||
|
|
There is no cooperation point when it comes to obtaining Git objects from this
|
||
|
|
<code>Hashtbl</code>. So let's return to our original advice:</p>
|
||
|
|
<blockquote>
|
||
|
|
<p>don't wrap code in Lwt if it doesn't do I/O.</p>
|
||
|
|
</blockquote>
|
||
|
|
<p>And, of course, <code>Git_mem</code> doesn't do I/O. It does, however, require the process
|
||
|
|
to be able to work with Lwt. In this case, <code>Git_mem</code> wraps the results in Lwt
|
||
|
|
<strong>as late as possible</strong> (as explained above, so as not to slow down our
|
||
|
|
processes unnecessarily). The choice inevitably means that the right-hand side
|
||
|
|
can no longer offer cooperation points. And this is where our problem begins:
|
||
|
|
composition.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In fact, we had something like:</p>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-ocaml">let clone socket git =
|
||
|
|
Lwt.both (receive_pack socket) (analyse_pack git) >>= fun ((), ()) ->
|
||
|
|
Lwt.return_unit
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<p>However, our <code>analyse_pack</code> function is an injection of a functor representing
|
||
|
|
the Git backend. In other words, <code>Git_unix</code> or <code>Git_mem</code>:</p>
|
||
|
|
<pre><code class="language-ocaml">module Make (Git : Git.S) = struct
|
||
|
|
let clone socket git =
|
||
|
|
Lwt.both (receive_pack socket) (Git.analyse_pack git) >>= fun ((), ()) ->
|
||
|
|
Lwt.return_unit
|
||
|
|
end
|
||
|
|
</code></pre>
|
||
|
|
<p>Composability poses a problem here because even if <code>Git_unix</code> and <code>Git_mem</code>
|
||
|
|
offer the same function (so both modules can be used), the fact remains that one
|
||
|
|
will always offer a certain availability to other services (such as an HTTP
|
||
|
|
service) while the other will offer a Lwt function which will try to go as far
|
||
|
|
as possible quite to make other services unavailable.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Composing with one or the other therefore does not produce the same behavior.</p>
|
||
|
|
<h4 id="where-to-put-lwtpause"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#where-to-put-lwtpause"></a>Where to put <code>Lwt.pause</code>?</h4>
|
||
|
|
<p>In this case, our <code>analyse_pack</code> does read/write on the Git store. As far as
|
||
|
|
<code>Git_mem</code> is concerned, we said that these read/write accesses were just
|
||
|
|
accesses to a <code>Hashtbl</code>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>Thanks to <a href="https://hannes.robur.coop/">Hannes</a>' help, it took us an afternoon to work out where we
|
||
|
|
needed to add cooperation points in <code>Git_mem</code> so that <code>analyse_pack</code> could give
|
||
|
|
another service such as HTTP the opportunity to work. Basically, this series of
|
||
|
|
<a href="https://github.com/mirage/ocaml-git/pull/631/files">commits</a> shows where we needed to add <code>Lwt.pause</code>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>However, this points to a number of problems:</p>
|
||
|
|
<ol>
|
||
|
|
<li>it is not necessarily true that on the basis of composability alone (by
|
||
|
|
<em>functor</em> or by value), Lwt reacts in the same way</li>
|
||
|
|
<li>Subtly, you have to dig into the code to find the right opportunities where
|
||
|
|
to put, by hand, <code>Lwt.pause</code>.</li>
|
||
|
|
<li>In the end, Lwt has no mechanisms for ensuring the availability of a service
|
||
|
|
(this is something that must be taken into account by the implementer).</li>
|
||
|
|
</ol>
|
||
|
|
<h3 id="in-depth-knowledge-of-lwt"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#in-depth-knowledge-of-lwt"></a>In-depth knowledge of Lwt</h3>
|
||
|
|
<p>I haven't mentioned another problem we encountered with <a href="https://cambium.inria.fr/~agueneau/">Armael</a> when
|
||
|
|
implementing <a href="https://discuss.ocaml.org/t/ann-release-of-multipart-form-0-2-0/7704#memory-bound-implementation">multipart_form</a> where the use of stream meant that
|
||
|
|
Lwt didn't interleave the two processes and the use of a <em>bounded stream</em> was
|
||
|
|
required. Again, even when it comes to I/O, Lwt always tries to go as far as
|
||
|
|
possible in one of two branches of a <code>Lwt.both</code>.</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>This allows us to conclude that beyond the monad, Lwt has subtleties in its
|
||
|
|
behaviour which may be different from another scheduler such as Async (hence the
|
||
|
|
incompatibility between the two, which is not just of the <code>'a t</code> type).</p>
|
||
|
|
<h3 id="digression-on-miou"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#digression-on-miou"></a>Digression on Miou</h3>
|
||
|
|
<p>That's why we put so much emphasis on the notion of availability when it comes
|
||
|
|
to Miou: to avoid repeating the mistakes of the past. The choices that can be
|
||
|
|
made with regard to this notion in particular have a major impact, and can be
|
||
|
|
unsatisfactory to the user in certain cases (for example, so-called pure
|
||
|
|
calculations could take longer with Miou than with another scheduler).</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>In this sense, we have tried to constrain ourselves in the development of Miou
|
||
|
|
through the use of <code>Effect.Shallow</code> which requires us to always re-attach our
|
||
|
|
handler (our scheduler) as soon as an effect is produced, unlike <code>Effect.Deep</code>
|
||
|
|
which can re-use the same handler for several effects. In other words, and as
|
||
|
|
we've described here, <strong>an effect yields</strong>!</p>
|
||
|
|
<h2 id="conclusion"><a class="anchor" aria-hidden="true" href="#conclusion"></a>Conclusion</h2>
|
||
|
|
<p>As far as opam-mirror is concerned, we now have an unikernel that is available
|
||
|
|
even if it attempts to clone a Git repository and save Git objects in memory. At
|
||
|
|
least, an HTTP service can co-exist with ocaml-git!</p>
|
||
|
|
<p>I hope we'll be able to use it at <a href="https://retreat.mirage.io/">the next retreat</a>, which I invite
|
||
|
|
you to attend to talk more about Lwt, scheduler, Git and unikernels!</p>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
</article>
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
</main>
|
||
|
|
<footer>
|
||
|
|
<a href="https://github.com/xhtmlboi/yocaml">Powered by <strong>YOCaml</strong></a>
|
||
|
|
<br />
|
||
|
|
</footer>
|
||
|
|
<script>hljs.highlightAll();</script>
|
||
|
|
</body>
|
||
|
|
</html>
|