[Haskell-cafe] what is f=f (not) doing ?
ronguida at mindspring.com
Sun Sep 23 16:58:45 EDT 2007
Peter Verswyvelen wrote:
> I though it was impossible to detect a deadlock (and a black hole is
> something like a deadlock no?) *before* it occurred, but in this
> case, we're talking about detecting it *when* it occurs, no? And
> then raising an error instead of just blocking?
Generally, it's not possible to prevent a deadlock before it occurs;
it's actually equivalent to the halting problem.
When a deadlock is about to occur, it /is/ possible, is principle, to
detect the condition and raise an error. What you would need to do is
keep track, for each thread, of everything that thread may depend on.
Whenever a thread tries to allocate a resource, you need to scan the
dependency graph and determine whether or not the new allocation is
safe. Sometimes you might raise a false alarm, though.
Once a deadlock has /already/ occurred, it becomes easier to detect,
but detection still depends on being able to determine everything a
thread might depend on.
Now in GHC, apparently, when a thread needs a value that hasn't been
calculated yet, the thread blocks, waiting for that value to be
calculated. If the Haskell code creates an infinite loop, then a
thread may block waiting for itself. The example given is f = f.
Well, before we ask for self-blocking detection, lets try a bigger
loop like (f = g ; g = f) and suppose that the computations of f and g
get assigned to different threads. Self-blocking detection won't help
you here. You need some kind of loop-blocking detection.
At this point, I would assume that as we take more things into
account, the problem of detecting deadlock becomes increasingly
complicated and the detection algorithms consume more and more
resources. That's why many major operating systems don't have
On the other hand, perhaps deadlock detection is the wrong way to look
at this. I think we are casting a net that's too big for the problem
that we're really trying to solve.
A deadlock happens whenever two (or more) threads are blocked on each
other. Deadlocks can be extremely hard to detect, especially if they
On the other hand, we as programmers can detect, at design-time, that
f = f is an algebraic loop. We know that some loops are just "tying
the knot" and they're perfectly fine, while other loops involve
self-dependency and evaluate to bottom.
fib = 1 : 1 : zipWith (+) fib (tail fib) -- tying the knot
foo = 1 : zipWith (+) foo (tail foo) -- algebraic loop
Looking closer at foo, if we let x = (foo !! 1), then we have the
equation x = 1 + x. The result is that x = bottom.
To detect an algebraic loop, we would need to express a computation as
a dependency graph and then look for any loops in the graph. As long
as we are looking at a /pure/ computation, my intuition tells me that
in many cases it should be possible, through static analysis, to build
the dependency graph and check for any loops.
Moreover, my intuition tells me that the static analysis involved in
building these dependency graphs might already be available as part of
an existing optimizer.
Even if we don't detect an algebraic loop at compile-time, I think we
could definitely detect it at run-time if we have enough computational
More information about the Haskell-Cafe