Native Threads in the RTS
26 Nov 2002 12:31:32 +0000
After writing a fairly long, detailed reply (attached at end), I
decided it would be simpler to write my take on what the design should
Since foreign libraries sometimes exploit thread local state, it is
necessary to provide some control over which thread is used to execute
foreign code. In particular, it is important that it should be
possible for Haskell code to arrange that a sequence of calls to a
given library are performed by the same native thread and that if an
external library calls into Haskell, then any outgoing calls from
Haskell are performed by the same native thread.
This specification is intended to be implementable both by
multithreaded Haskell implementations and by single-threaded
implementations and so it does not comment on which particular OS
thread is used to execute Haskell code.
Haskell threads may be associated at thread creation time with either
zero or one native threads. There are only two ways to create Haskell
threads so there are two cases to consider:
1) forkNativeThread :: IO () -> IO ()
The fresh Haskell thread is associated with a fresh native thread.
(ToDo: do we really need to use a fresh native thread or would a
pool of threads be ok? The issue could be avoided by separating
creation of the native thread from the 'associate' operation.)
2) Calls to a threadsafe foreign export allocate a fresh Haskell
thread which is then associated with the Haskell thread.
Calls to threadsafe foreign imports by threads which have an
associated native thread are performed by that native thread.
Calls to any other foreign imports (i.e., 'safe' or 'unsafe' calls)
may be made in other threads or, if it exists, in the associated
native thread at the implementation's discretion.
[ToDo: can Haskell threads with no associated thread make foreign
calls using a thread associated with some other thread?
If multiple Haskell threads are associated with a single native
thread, only one can make a foreign call at a time but what if the
thread calls back into Haskell? Obviously, this callback is allowed
to call out to C too.
There is a third way to spawn a thread in GHC: running a finalizer
attached to a weak pointer. There really ought to be a way to
associate a native thread with finalizers. I guess the same applies
to ForeignPtr finalizers which are (implicitly) foreign function
Alastair Reid email@example.com
Reid Consulting (UK) Limited http://www.reid-consulting-uk.ltd.uk/alastair/
> A foreign exported callback that is called from C
> code executing in an OS thread that is not associated with a
> "native" haskell thread is executed in a new green haskell thread.
Wouldn't it be better to always execute it in the native thread - and
give that trhead equal status with native threads forked by Haskell
As I understand the design at present, the only way to cause Haskell
code to get executed in a particular native thread is to have Haskell
fork the thread. This is fine for Haskell applications calling C
libraries but doesn't seem too useful for C applications calling
If the reason for wanting it to be executed in a green thread is
efficiency, it seems we could say that 'threadsafe' calls will use the
current calling thread and 'safe' and 'unsafe' calls may use a cheaper
> If a "native" haskell thread enters a foreign imported function that
> is marked as "safe" or "threadsafe", all other Haskell threads keep
> running. If the imported function is marked as "unsafe", no other
> threads are executed until the call finishes.
It seems like this is the wrong way around. 'unsafe' is meant to be
the one that maximizes performance so surely that's the one where
other threads are allowed to keep running if they want (and the
implementation supports it).
Also, the current ffi spec is written such that a compiler can choose
to treat all 'unsafe' calls as 'safe' calls if it wishes. Your
language seems to imply that programmers can rely on unsafe calls
_not_ behaving like safe calls.
What's the purpose of the restriction? Is it to make things cheaper
or is it to provide programmers with guarantees about preemption and
> If a "green" haskell thread enters a foreign imported function
> marked as "threadsafe", a new OS thread is spawned that keeps
> executing other green haskell threads while the foreign function
Do you intend that a fresh thread should be spawned each time or is it
ok to maintain a pool of previously used threads?
> Native haskell threads continue to run in their own OS
> threads. If a "green" haskell thread enters a foreign imported
> function marked as "safe", all other green threads are blocked.
Why are they blocked? Is it to provide some kind of guarantee about
preemption and reentrancy or is it to make the implementation simpler?
> Some people may want to run finalizers in specific OS threads (are
> finalizers predictable enough for this to be useful?).
As I remarked in my reply to Nicholas, this isn't too bad a
restriction because we can arrange for all calls to be made by a
worker thread which does all OpenGL interaction.
> Everyone would want SMP if it came for free (but SMP seems to be too
> hard to do at the moment...)
Of course, the semantics should be written so that SMP will just work.
For that matter, I'd like it to be possible to implement this spec in
Hugs. Hugs is internally single-threaded but this spec is concerned
with what happens when Haskell calls out to C and we could arrange to
switch into the appropriate native thread when Hugs calls out to C.
> Other things I'm not sure about: What should we do get if a foreign
> function spawns a new OS thread and executes a haskell callback in
> that OS thread? Should a new native haskell thread that executes in
> the OS thread be created? Should the new OS thread be blocked and
> the callback executed in a green thread? What does the current
> threaded RTS do? (I assume the non-threaded RTS will just crash?)
I think that if the thread makes [threadsafe?] foreign calls, they
should be executed in that same native thread. (What OS thread is
actually used to execute Haskell code is not observable so we needn't
talk about it.)
Think of it from the point of view of an external application calling
a library that just happens to be written in Haskell. If I call some
function in the library and it makes a call into some other library
(or back into the application), you expect the call to be in the same
thread unless there is explicit documentation to the contrary.
> Some (not very concrete) examples: 1.) Let's assume a piece of C
> code --- lets call it foo() --- was called by a green haskell
> thread. If foo() now invokes a haskell function, the haskell
> function might be executed in a different OS thread than foo().
> This means that if the haskell code calls another C function, bar(),
> then bar() doesn't have access to the same thread-local state as
> foo(). For example, if foo() sets up an OpenGL context, then bar()
> can't use it.
I think this is a mistake. There should be a way (e.g., marking both
the foreign import and the foreign export as 'threadsafe') to force
the use of the same native thread for the call-out as was used for the