Discussion: New atomic IORef functions

[winter]

OK then, here's some subtle things i want to shout out if you're going to make the change ; )

1. The proposed naming is just not great, how about these:

atomicExchangeIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO (a, (a, b))
atomicExchangeIORef' :: IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO (a, (a, b))

atomicApplyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO (a, a)
atomicApplyIORef :: IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO (a, a)

It may not that great but it's more informative IMO.

3. atomicExchangeIORef should not force the tuple, e.g. don't pattern match on the tuple result, instead let users choose to force or not. (May worth adding some document, I'd be happy to help)

4. atomicExchangeIORef' will not only force the tuple, but also force both `a` and `b` part to match atomicModifyIORef' 's semantics.

5. atomicApplyIORef(and atomicApplyIORef') deserve its own primop, since we can skip building selector thunks all together.


On 2018年07月12日 02:31, David Feuer wrote:
> I'm not committed to changing atomicModifyIORef. I'm much more
> interested in adding atomicModifyIORef2, atomicModifyIORef'_, and
> atomicSwapIORef. I do think it would be helpful to get a pair-strict
> version of atomicModifyIORef (atomicModifyIORefP?), but I guess it's
> not horrible if users have to write their own with atomicModifyIORef2.
> The lazy atomicModifyIORef2Lazy and atomicModifyIORefLazy_ are pretty
> optional: I see their laziness as more an implementation detail than
> an essential feature.
>
> On Wed, Jul 11, 2018 at 2:22 PM, Dr.Koster <drkoster at qq.com> wrote:
>> But if you force the pair result, you have to evaluate modifying function
>> isn't it? That's sometime unwanted when you have an very expensive f here,
>> let's say a deep binary search which might not depend previous result.
>>
>> I think that is also why current atomicModifyIORef is designed this way, so
>> I'd rather keep it the old way.
>>
>> 发自我的iPhone
>>
>>
>> ------------------ Original ------------------
>> From: David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com>
>> Date: Thu,Jul 12,2018 0:51 AM
>> To: winter <drkoster at qq.com>
>> Cc: Haskell Libraries <libraries at haskell.org>
>> Subject: Re: Discussion: New atomic IORef functions
>>
>> All the fundamental functions I've defined can be usefully used in the base
>> library. I think that's one good reason to put them there. Another is that
>> while the basic array operations have traditionally been exposed through
>> array, vector, and primitive, and the basic TVar operations have been
>> exposed through stm, the basic IORef and MVar operations have been exposed
>> through base (except, for some reason, casMutVar#). I see no reason to
>> change that.
>>
>> I never proposed a function that forces the previous value unnecessarily, so
>> I don't know why you're complaining about that. The extra laziness I don't
>> like is in the pair result; none of the uses I've seen thus can far make
>> intentional use of that. That's why I tend to think atomicModifyIORef (as it
>> exists today) is almost never what people actually want.
>>
>> Squeezing into a second component leads to extra allocation in what may be a
>> performance-critical function; that said, I'm willing to hold off on higher
>> tuples for now.
>>
>> On Sun, Jul 8, 2018, 3:36 AM winter <drkoster at qq.com> wrote:
>>> I believe new variations should always be motivated by use-case if
>>> there're too many choices, the lazy behavior of old `atomicModifyIORef` is
>>> justified by some cases the modifying functions are lazy in its argument,
>>> thus a lazy version could win by not forcing previous thunks, we'd want to
>>> keep its behavior as how it's documented.
>>>
>>> As for tuples more than pairs, they're not really needed, user can always
>>> squeeze their product into `b` component.
>>>
>>> IMHO only the addition of `atomicModifyIORef_` is sensible in the context
>>> of base, other APIs may go to package like primitives. But if you have a
>>> motivated use case with `atomicModifyIORef2`, etc. Please tell me.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2018年07月08日 03:09, David Feuer wrote:
>>>
>>> Whoops! I left out the proposal link:
>>>
>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/pull/149
>>>
>>> Also, what I called atomicModifyIORef_ below should really be called
>>> something like atomicModifyIORef'_, since it forces a polymorphic value.
>>>
>>> Another thing to note: the underlying atomicModifyMutVar2# primop actually
>>> supports more than just pairs. It can handle triples, solos, and any other
>>> record types whose first components are lifted:
>>>
>>> atomicModifyIORefSoloLazy
>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> Solo a) -> IO (Solo a)
>>>
>>> atomicModifyIORefSolo
>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> Solo a) -> IO a
>>>
>>> atomicModifyIORef3, atomicModifyIORef3Lazy
>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> (a, b, c)) -> IO (a, b, c)
>>>
>>> etc.
>>>
>>> Should we add any such?
>>>
>>> On Sat, Jul 7, 2018, 2:35 PM David Feuer <david.feuer at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I have proposed[1] the replacement of the atomicModifyMutVar# primop, and
>>>> the addition of two cheaper but less capable ones. It seems likely that the
>>>> proposal will succeed, but that the GHC steering committee will leave the
>>>> question of user interface changes to the libraries list. I would like to
>>>> open the discussion here.
>>>>
>>>> The new primops lead naturally to several thin wrappers:
>>>>
>>>> -- Atomically replace the IORef contents
>>>> -- with the first component of the result of
>>>> -- applying the function to the old contents.
>>>> -- Return the old value and the result of
>>>> -- applying the function, without forcing the latter.
>>>> --
>>>> -- atomicModifyIORef ref f = do
>>>> --   (_old, ~(_new, res)) <- atomicModifyIORef2Lazy ref f
>>>> --   return res
>>>> atomicModifyIORef2Lazy
>>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO (a, (a, b))
>>>>
>>>> -- Atomically replace the IORef contents
>>>> -- with the result of applying the function
>>>> -- to the old contents. Return the old and
>>>> -- new contents without forcing the latter.
>>>> atomicModifyIORefLazy_
>>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO (a, a)
>>>>
>>>> -- Atomically replace the IORef contents
>>>> -- with the given value and return the old
>>>> -- contents.
>>>> --
>>>> -- atomicWriteIORef ref x = void (atomicSwapIORef ref x)
>>>> atomicSwapIORef
>>>>    :: IORef a -> a -> IO a
>>>>
>>>> Based on the code I've read that uses atomicModifyIORef, I believe that
>>>> the complete laziness of atomicModifyIORef2Lazy and atomicModifyIORefLazy_
>>>> is very rarely desirable. I therefore believe we should also (or perhaps
>>>> instead?) offer stricter versions:
>>>>
>>>> atomicModifyIORef2
>>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> (a, b)) -> IO (a, (a, b))
>>>> atomicModifyIORef2 ref f = do
>>>>    r@(_old, (_new, _res)) <- atomicModifyIORef2Lazy ref f
>>>>    return r
>>>>
>>>> atomicModifyIORef_
>>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> a) -> IO (a, a)
>>>> atomicModifyIORef_ ref f = do
>>>>    r@(_old, !_new) <- atomicModifyIORefLazy_ ref f
>>>>    return r
>>>>
>>>> The classic atomicModifyIORef also admits a less gratuitously lazy
>>>> version:
>>>>
>>>> atomicModifyIORefNGL
>>>>    :: IORef a -> (a -> (a,b)) -> IO b
>>>> atomicModifyIORefNGL ref f = do
>>>>    (_old, (_new, res)) <- atomicModifyIORef2 ref f
>>>>    return res
>>>>
>>>> Should we add that as well (with a better name)? Should we even consider
>>>> *replacing* the current atomicModifyIORef with that version? That could
>>>> theoretically break existing code, but I suspect it would do so very rarely.
>>>> If we don't change the existing atomicModifyIORef now, I think we should
>>>> consider deprecating it: it's very easy to accidentally use it too lazily.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Libraries mailing list
>>> Libraries at haskell.org
>>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/libraries