[Haskell] Re: Safe forking question
haskell at list.mightyreason.com
Mon Dec 4 07:18:50 EST 2006
Thanks for the reply. I have my own proposal below:
Simon Marlow wrote:
> Chris Kuklewicz wrote:
>> In response to question by Cat Dancer <cat at catdancer.ws> I wrote a few
>> tests of
>> sending asynchronous signal to a thread using GHC 6.6
>> The goal was to run a child thread via forkIO and use handle or
>> finally to respond
>> to the thread's demise.
>> Unfortunately, it seems that there is an irreducible window where this
>> fails. The
>> forkIO returns but any exception handlers such as
>> block/handle/catch/finally are
>> not in place yet.
> We might consider it a bug that a new thread is started in "async
> exceptions unblocked" mode. It's true that this does mean there's no
> way to reliably start a thread and guarantee to know if it is killed.
> Starting threads in 'blocked' mode isn't the answer. That would force
> everyone to add an 'unblock' to their forkIO's after setting up an
> exception handler, and that's too easy to forget (and not backwards
Starting in 'blocked' mode is more primitive, since you can always safely
define the unblocked version from it but never the other way around.
> So instead we could introduce a new abstraction:
> forkCatchIO :: (Exception -> IO ()) -> IO () -> IO ThreadId
> which combines forkIO with catch in an atomic way, such that the handler
> is guaranteed to execute if the thread receives an exception.
If I run "forkCatchIO handler (block io)" then it looks like there is still a
vulnerable gap for throwTo to trigger the handler before the "block" goes
into effect. Is this correct? If so then I need an MVar again.
> You can
> implement this using an MVar and not returning the ThreadId until the
> child thread is inside the exception handler (as in your example):
I take great consolation in having found the right workaround. Note that my
solution has been changed to remove the "unblock" to create "forkBlocked":
> forkBlocked todo = block $ do
> doneVar <- atomically (newEmptyTMVar)
> let putStarted = atomically (putTMVar doneVar False)
> putStopped = atomically (tryTakeTMVar doneVar >> putTMVar doneVar True)
> tid <- forkIO $ block $ (finally (putStarted >> todo) putStopped)
> atomically $ do
> value <- takeTMVar doneVar
> when value (putTMVar doneVar True)
> return (doneVar,tid)
Now I have both an exception hander and a guarantee that "todo" is running inside
"block" and I could recover the previous function with "fork = forkBlocked . unblock".
> this is ok because the only way a thread can receive an exception is by
> knowing its ThreadId. However it's less than perfect in performance
> terms; if we had a primitive fork that created a thread in blocked mode
> we could do much better.
> If there's some agreement that this is the way to go, I'll file a task
> for GHC and try to get to it before 6.8.
Being able to open a new thread in blocked mode would also be useful, as it gives
control over what the "safepoints" for async interruption are. The forkCatchIO does
not ensure I can entered "block" mode without the kind of MVar trick I had to use
forkInheritIO :: IO () -> IO ThreadId -- inherits parent's block or unblock status
forkBlockedIO :: IO () -> IO ThreadId -- starts the action in "block" mode. Must manually "unblock"
where forkBlockedIO could be written as "block . forkInheritIO"
and forkIO is "unblock . forkInheritIO"
but there is no way to write forkInheritIO since I can't query
the current block|unblock status dynamically. I have no use for forkInheritIO but
perhaps some library code would want to play nice with the calling application.
If either of those two functions existed then one could write "forkCatchIO"
(which is unblocked) using it:
forkCatchBlockedIO hander io = forkBlockedIO (handle handler io)
forkCatchIO handler = (forkChatchBlockedIO handler) . unblock
I propose adding at least "forkInheritIO" or "forkBlockedIO" as a primitive
and perhaps "forkCatchIO" or "forkCatchBlockedIO" as a primitive if there is a performance gain.
More information about the Haskell