DOCSLIB.ORG

A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C Delft University of Technology Software Engineering Research Group Technical Report Series A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C# Semih Okur, David L. Hartveld, Danny Dig and Arie van Deursen Report TUD-SERG-2013-016 SERG TUD-SERG-2013-016 Published, produced and distributed by: Software Engineering Research Group Department of Software Technology Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science Delft University of Technology Mekelweg 4 2628 CD Delft The Netherlands ISSN 1872-5392 Software Engineering Research Group Technical Reports: http://www.se.ewi.tudelft.nl/techreports/ For more information about the Software Engineering Research Group: http://www.se.ewi.tudelft.nl/ Note: This paper is currently under review. c copyright 2013, by the authors of this report. Software Engineering Research Group, Department of Software Technology, Faculty of Electrical Engineering, Mathematics and Computer Science, Delft Uni- versity of Technology. All rights reserved. No part of this series may be reproduced in any form or by any means without prior written permission of the authors. A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C# A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C# Semih Okur1, David L. Hartveld2, Danny Dig3, Arie van Deursen2 1University of Illinois 2Delft University of Technology 3Oregon State University [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] [email protected] ABSTRACT invert the control flow, are awkward, and obfuscate the in- Asynchronous programming is in demand today, because tent of the original synchronous code [38]. responsiveness is increasingly important on all modern de- Recently, major languages (F# [38], C# and Visual Ba- vices. Yet, we know little about how developers use asyn- sic [8] and Scala [7]) introduced async constructs that re- chronous programming in practice. Without such knowl- semble the straightforward coding style of traditional syn- edge, developers, researchers, language and library design- chronous code. Thus, they recognize asynchronous program- ers, and tool vendors can make wrong assumptions. ming as a first-class citizen. We present the first study that analyzes the usage of Yet, we know little about how developers use asynchronous asynchronous programming in a large experiment. We an- programming and specifically the new async constructs in alyzed 1378 open source Windows Phone (WP) apps, com- practice. Without such knowledge, other developers cannot prising 12M SLOC, produced by 3376 developers. Using this educate themselves about the state of the practice, language data, we answer 2 research questions about use and mis- and library designers are unaware of any misuse, researchers use of asynchronous constructs. Inspired by these findings, make wrong assumptions, and tool vendors do not provide we developed (i) Asyncifier, an automated refactoring tool the tools that developers really need. This knowledge is also that converts callback-based asynchronous code to the new important as a guide to designers of other major languages async/await; (ii) Corrector, a tool that finds and corrects (e.g., Java) planning to support similar constructs. Hence, common misuses of async/await. Our empirical evaluation asynchronous programming deserves first-class citizenship in shows that these tools are (i) applicable and (ii) efficient. empirical research and tool support, too. Developers accepted 313 patches generated by our tools. We present the first study that analyzes the usage of asyn- chronous libraries and new language constructs, async/await in a large experiment. We analyzed 1378 open source Win- dows Phone (WP) apps, comprising 12M SLOC, produced 1. INTRODUCTION by 3376 developers. While all our empirical analysis and User interfaces are usually designed around the use of a tools directly apply to any platform app written in C# (e.g., single user interface (UI) event thread [16, 17, 24, 25]: every desktop, console, web, tablet), in this paper we focus on the operation that modifies UI state is executed as an event on Windows Phone platform. that thread. The UI “freezes” when it cannot respond to in- We focus on WP apps because we expect to find many ex- put, or when it cannot be redrawn. It is recommended that emplars of asynchronous programming, given that respon- long-running CPU-bound or blocking I/O operations exe- siveness is critical. Mobile apps can easily be unresponsive cute asynchronously so that the application (app) continues because mobile devices have limited resources and have high to respond to UI events. latency (excessive network accesses). With the immediacy Asynchronous programming is in demand today because of touch-based UIs, even small hiccups in responsiveness are responsiveness is increasingly important on all modern de- more obvious and jarring than when using a mouse or key- vices: desktop, mobile, or web apps. Therefore, major pro- board. Some sluggishness might motivate the user to unin- gramming languages have APIs that support non-blocking, stall the app, and possibly submit negative comments in the asynchronous operations (e.g., to access the web, or for file app store [37]. Moreover, mobile apps are becoming increas- operations). While these APIs make asynchronous program- ingly more important. According to Gartner, by 2016 more ming possible, they do not make it easy. than 300 billion apps will be downloaded annually [18]. Asynchronous APIs rely on callbacks. However, callbacks The goal of this paper is twofold. First, we obtain a deep understanding of the problems around asynchronous pro- gramming. Second, we present a toolkit (2 tools) to address exactly these problems. To this end, we investigate 1378 WP Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for apps through tools and by hand, focussing on the following personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are research questions: not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. To copy otherwise, to RQ1: How do developers use asynchronous programming? republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. RQ2: To what extent do developers misuse async/await? ICSE ’14 Hyderabad, India Copyright 20XX ACM X-XXXXX-XX-X/XX/XX ...$15.00. We found that developersSE heavily useRG callback-based asyn- 1 TUD-SERG-2013-016 1 A Study and Toolkit for Asynchronous Programming in C# chronous idioms. However, Microsoft no longer officially rec- Code 1 Synchronous example ommends these asynchronous idioms [30] and has started to 1 void Button_Click(...) { replace them with new idioms in new libraries (e.g., WinRT). 2 string contents = GetFromUrl(url) Developers need to refactor callback-based idioms to new id- 3 textBox.Text = contents; ioms that can take advantage of the async/await language 4 } 5 string GetFromUrl(string url) { constructs. The changes that the refactoring requires are 6 WebRequest request = WebRequest.Create(url); non-trivial, though. For instance, developers have to inspect 7 WebResponse response = request.GetResponse(); deep call graphs. Furthermore, they need to be extra careful 8 Stream stream = response.GetResponseStream(); 9 return stream.ReadAsString(); to preserve the exception-handling. Thus, we implemented 10 } the refactoring as an automated tool, Asyncifier. We also found that nearly half of WP8 apps have started to use the 9-month-old async/await keywords. However, busy-wait for completion of the operations. That frees the developers misuse async/await in various ways. We de- UI event thread to respond to user input, or redraw the UI: fine misuse as anti-patterns, which hurt performance and the user will experience the UI to be responsive. might cause serious problems like deadlocks. For instance, CPU-bound operations can be executed asynchronously we found that 14% of methods that use (the expensive) by (i) explicitly creating threads, or (ii) by reusing a thread async/await do this unnecessarily, 19% of methods do not from the thread pool. follow an important good practice [22], 1 out of 5 apps miss I/O operations are more complicated to offload asyn- opportunities in async methods to increase asynchronicity, chronously. The naive approach would be to just start and developers (almost) always unnecessarily capture con- another thread to run the synchronous operation asyn- text, hurting performance. Thus, we implemented a trans- chronously, using the same mechanics as used for CPU- formation tool, Corrector, that finds and corrects the mis- bound code. However, that would still block the new thread, used async/await. which consumes significant resources, hurting scalability. This paper makes the following contributions: The solution is to use asynchronous APIs provided by the Empirical Study: To the best of our knowledge, this is the platform. The .NET framework mainly provides two models first large-scale empirical study to answer questions about for asynchronous programming: (1) the Asynchronous Pro- asynchronous programming and new language constructs, gramming Model (APM), that uses callbacks, and (2) the async/await, that will be available soon in other major pro- Task Asynchronous Pattern (TAP), that uses Tasks, which gramming languages. We present implications of our find- are similar to the concept of futures found in many other ings from the perspective of four main audiences: develop- languages such as Java, Scala or Python. ers, language and library designers, researchers, and tool vendors. 2.1 Asynchronous Programming Model Toolkit: We implemented the analysis and transformation APM, the Asynchronous Programming Model, was part algorithms to address the challenges (Asyncifier and Cor- of the first version of the .NET framework, and has been rector). in existence for 10 years. APM asynchronous operations Evaluation: We evaluated our tools by using the code cor- are started with a Begin method invocation. The result is pus and applied the tools hundreds of times. We show that obtained with an End method invocation. In Code listing 2, our tools are highly applicable and efficient.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Thread Management for High Performance Database Systems - Design and Implementation
    Nr.: FIN-003-2018 Thread Management for High Performance Database Systems - Design and Implementation Robert Jendersie, Johannes Wuensche, Johann Wagner, Marten Wallewein-Eising, Marcus Pinnecke, Gunter Saake Arbeitsgruppe Database and Software Engineering Fakultät für Informatik Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Nr.: FIN-003-2018 Thread Management for High Performance Database Systems - Design and Implementation Robert Jendersie, Johannes Wuensche, Johann Wagner, Marten Wallewein-Eising, Marcus Pinnecke, Gunter Saake Arbeitsgruppe Database and Software Engineering Technical report (Internet) Elektronische Zeitschriftenreihe der Fakultät für Informatik der Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg ISSN 1869-5078 Fakultät für Informatik Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Impressum (§ 5 TMG) Herausgeber: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Fakultät für Informatik Der Dekan Verantwortlich für diese Ausgabe: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Fakultät für Informatik Marcus Pinnecke Postfach 4120 39016 Magdeburg E-Mail: [email protected] http://www.cs.uni-magdeburg.de/Technical_reports.html Technical report (Internet) ISSN 1869-5078 Redaktionsschluss: 21.08.2018 Bezug: Otto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg Fakultät für Informatik Dekanat Thread Management for High Performance Database Systems - Design and Implementation Technical Report Robert Jendersie1, Johannes Wuensche2, Johann Wagner1, Marten Wallewein-Eising2, Marcus Pinnecke1, and Gunter Saake1 Database and Software Engineering Group, Otto-von-Guericke University
    [Show full text]
  • Concurrency & Parallel Programming Patterns
    Concurrency & Parallel programming patterns Evgeny Gavrin Outline 1. Concurrency vs Parallelism 2. Patterns by groups 3. Detailed overview of parallel patterns 4. Summary 5. Proposal for language Concurrency vs Parallelism ● Parallelism is the simultaneous execution of computations “doing lots of things at once” ● Concurrency is the composition of independently execution processes “dealing with lots of thing at once” Patterns by groups Architectural Patterns These patterns define the overall architecture for a program: ● Pipe-and-filter: view the program as filters (pipeline stages) connected by pipes (channels). Data flows through the filters to take input and transform into output. ● Agent and Repository: a collection of autonomous agents update state managed on their behalf in a central repository. ● Process control: the program is structured analogously to a process control pipeline with monitors and actuators moderating feedback loops and a pipeline of processing stages. ● Event based implicit invocation: The program is a collection of agents that post events they watch for and issue events for other agents. The architecture enforces a high level abstraction so invocation of an agent is implicit; i.e. not hardwired to a specific controlling agent. ● Model-view-controller: An architecture with a central model for the state of the program, a controller that manages the state and one or more agents that export views of the model appropriate to different uses of the model. ● Bulk Iterative (AKA bulk synchronous): A program that proceeds iteratively … update state, check against a termination condition, complete coordination, and proceed to the next iteration. ● Map reduce: the program is represented in terms of two classes of functions.
    [Show full text]
  • Model Checking Multithreaded Programs With
    View metadata, citation and similar papers at core.ac.uk brought to you by CORE provided by Illinois Digital Environment for Access to Learning and Scholarship Repository Model Checking Multithreaded Programs with Asynchronous Atomic Methods Koushik Sen and Mahesh Viswanathan Department of Computer Science, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. {ksen,vmahesh}@uiuc.edu Abstract. In order to make multithreaded programming manageable, program- mers often follow a design principle where they break the problem into tasks which are then solved asynchronously and concurrently on different threads. This paper investigates the problem of model checking programs that follow this id- iom. We present a programming language SPL that encapsulates this design pat- tern. SPL extends simplified form of sequential Java to which we add the ca- pability of making asynchronous method invocations in addition to the standard synchronous method calls and the ability to execute asynchronous methods in threads atomically and concurrently. Our main result shows that the control state reachability problem for finite SPL programs is decidable. Therefore, such mul- tithreaded programs can be model checked using the counter-example guided abstraction-refinement framework. 1 Introduction Multithreaded programming is often used in software as it leads to reduced latency, improved response times of interactive applications, and more optimal use of process- ing power. Multithreaded programming also allows an application to progress even if one thread is blocked for an I/O operation. However, writing correct programs that use multiple threads is notoriously difficult, especially in the presence of a shared muta- ble memory. Since threads can interleave, there can be unintended interference through concurrent access of shared data and result in software errors due to data race and atom- icity violations.
    [Show full text]
  • Lecture 26: Creational Patterns
    Creational Patterns CSCI 4448/5448: Object-Oriented Analysis & Design Lecture 26 — 11/29/2012 © Kenneth M. Anderson, 2012 1 Goals of the Lecture • Cover material from Chapters 20-22 of the Textbook • Lessons from Design Patterns: Factories • Singleton Pattern • Object Pool Pattern • Also discuss • Builder Pattern • Lazy Instantiation © Kenneth M. Anderson, 2012 2 Pattern Classification • The Gang of Four classified patterns in three ways • The behavioral patterns are used to manage variation in behaviors (think Strategy pattern) • The structural patterns are useful to integrate existing code into new object-oriented designs (think Bridge) • The creational patterns are used to create objects • Abstract Factory, Builder, Factory Method, Prototype & Singleton © Kenneth M. Anderson, 2012 3 Factories & Their Role in OO Design • It is important to manage the creation of objects • Code that mixes object creation with the use of objects can become quickly non-cohesive • A system may have to deal with a variety of different contexts • with each context requiring a different set of objects • In design patterns, the context determines which concrete implementations need to be present © Kenneth M. Anderson, 2012 4 Factories & Their Role in OO Design • The code to determine the current context, and thus which objects to instantiate, can become complex • with many different conditional statements • If you mix this type of code with the use of the instantiated objects, your code becomes cluttered • often the use scenarios can happen in a few lines of code • if combined with creational code, the operational code gets buried behind the creational code © Kenneth M. Anderson, 2012 5 Factories provide Cohesion • The use of factories can address these issues • The conditional code can be hidden within them • pass in the parameters associated with the current context • and get back the objects you need for the situation • Then use those objects to get your work done • Factories concern themselves just with creation, letting your code focus on other things © Kenneth M.
    [Show full text]
  • An Enhanced Thread Synchronization Mechanism for Java
    SOFTWARE—PRACTICE AND EXPERIENCE Softw. Pract. Exper. 2001; 31:667–695 (DOI: 10.1002/spe.383) An enhanced thread synchronization mechanism for Java Hsin-Ta Chiao and Shyan-Ming Yuan∗,† Department of Computer and Information Science, National Chiao Tung University, 1001 Ta Hsueh Road, Hsinchu 300, Taiwan SUMMARY The thread synchronization mechanism of Java is derived from Hoare’s monitor concept. In the authors’ view, however, it is over simplified and suffers the following four drawbacks. First, it belongs to a category of no-priority monitor, the design of which, as reported in the literature on concurrent programming, is not well rated. Second, it offers only one condition queue. Where more than one long-term synchronization event is required, this restriction both degrades performance and further complicates the ordering problems that a no-priority monitor presents. Third, it lacks the support for building more elaborate scheduling programs. Fourth, during nested monitor invocations, deadlock may occur. In this paper, we first analyze these drawbacks in depth before proceeding to present our own proposal, which is a new monitor-based thread synchronization mechanism that we term EMonitor. This mechanism is implemented solely by Java, thus avoiding the need for any modification to the underlying Java Virtual Machine. A preprocessor is employed to translate the EMonitor syntax into the pure Java codes that invoke the EMonitor class libraries. We conclude with a comparison of the performance of the two monitors and allow the experimental results to demonstrate that, in most cases, replacing the Java version with the EMonitor version for developing concurrent Java objects is perfectly feasible.
    [Show full text]
  • Designing for Performance: Concurrency and Parallelism COS 518: Computer Systems Fall 2015
    Designing for Performance: Concurrency and Parallelism COS 518: Computer Systems Fall 2015 Logan Stafman Adapted from slides by Mike Freedman 2 Definitions • Concurrency: – Execution of two or more tasks overlap in time. • Parallelism: – Execution of two or more tasks occurs simultaneous. Concurrency without 3 parallelism? • Parts of tasks interact with other subsystem – Network I/O, Disk I/O, GPU, ... • Other task can be scheduled while first waits on subsystem’s response Concurrency without parrallelism? Source: bjoor.me 5 Scheduling for fairness • On time-sharing system also want to schedule between tasks, even if one not blocking – Otherwise, certain tasks can keep processing – Leads to starvation of other tasks • Preemptive scheduling – Interrupt processing of tasks to process another task (why with tasks and not network packets?) • Many scheduling disciplines – FIFO, Shortest Remaining Time, Strict Priority, Round-Robin Preemptive Scheduling Source: embeddedlinux.org.cn Concurrency with 7 parallelism • Execute code concurrently across CPUs – Clusters – Cores • CPU parallelism different from distributed systems as ready availability to shared memory – Yet to avoid difference between parallelism b/w local and remote cores, many apps just use message passing between both (like HPC’s use of MPI) Symmetric Multiprocessors 8 (SMPs) Non-Uniform Memory Architectures 9 (NUMA) 10 Pros/Cons of NUMA • Pros Applications split between different processors can share memory close to hardware Reduced bus bandwidth usage • Cons Must ensure applications sharing memory are run on processors sharing memory 11 Forms of task parallelism • Processes – Isolated process address space – Higher overhead between switching processes • Threads – Concurrency within process – Shared address space – Three forms • Kernel threads (1:1) : Kernel support, can leverage hardware parallelism • User threads (N:1): Thread library in system runtime, fastest context switching, but cannot benefit from multi- threaded/proc hardware • Hybrid (M:N): Schedule M user threads on N kernel threads.
    [Show full text]
  • Assessment of Barrier Implementations for Fine-Grain Parallel Regions on Current Multi-Core Architectures
    Assessment of Barrier Implementations for Fine-Grain Parallel Regions on Current Multi-core Architectures Simon A. Berger and Alexandros Stamatakis The Exelixis Lab Department of Computer Science Technische Universitat¨ Munchen¨ Boltzmannstr. 3, D-85748 Garching b. Munchen,¨ Germany Email: [email protected], [email protected] WWW: http://wwwkramer.in.tum.de/exelixis/ time Abstract—Barrier performance for synchronizing threads master thread on current multi-core systems can be critical for scientific applications that traverse a large number of relatively small parallel regions, that is, that exhibit an unfavorable com- fork putation to synchronization ratio. By means of a synthetic and a real-world benchmark we assess 4 alternative barrier worker threads parallel region implementations on 7 current multi-core systems with 2 up to join 32 cores. We find that, barrier performance is application- and data-specific with respect to cache utilization, but that a rather fork na¨ıve lock-free barrier implementation yields good results across all applications and multi-core systems tested. We also worker threads parallel region assess distinct implementations of reduction operations that join are computed in conjunction with the barriers. The synthetic and real-world benchmarks are made available as open-source code for further testing. Keywords-barriers; multi-cores; threads; RAxML Figure 1. Classic fork-join paradigm. I. INTRODUCTION The performance of barriers for synchronizing threads on modern general-purpose multi-core systems is of vital In addition, we analyze the efficient implementation of importance for the efficiency of scientific codes. Barrier reduction operations (sums over the double values produced performance can become critical, if a scientific code exhibits by each for-loop iteration), that are frequently required a high number of relatively small (with respect to the in conjunction with barriers.
    [Show full text]
  • Migrating Thread-Based Intentional Concurrent Programming to a Task-Based Paradigm
    University of New Hampshire University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository Master's Theses and Capstones Student Scholarship Fall 2016 MIGRATING THREAD-BASED INTENTIONAL CONCURRENT PROGRAMMING TO A TASK-BASED PARADIGM Seth Adam Hager University of New Hampshire, Durham Follow this and additional works at: https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis Recommended Citation Hager, Seth Adam, "MIGRATING THREAD-BASED INTENTIONAL CONCURRENT PROGRAMMING TO A TASK-BASED PARADIGM" (2016). Master's Theses and Capstones. 885. https://scholars.unh.edu/thesis/885 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Student Scholarship at University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Master's Theses and Capstones by an authorized administrator of University of New Hampshire Scholars' Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. MIGRATING THREAD-BASED INTENTIONAL CONCURRENT PROGRAMMING TO A TASK-BASED PARADIGM BY Seth Hager B.M., University of Massachusetts Lowell, 2004 THESIS Submitted to the University of New Hampshire in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Science in Computer Science September 2016 This thesis has been examined and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science in Computer Science by: Thesis director, Philip J. Hatcher, Professor of Computer Science Michel H. Charpentier, Associate Professor of Computer Science R. Daniel Bergeron, Professor of Computer Science August 16th, 2016 Original approval signatures are on file with the University of New Hampshire Graduate School. DEDICATION For Lily and Jacob. iii ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I would like to thank the members of my committee for all of their time and effort.
    [Show full text]
  • Intrinsically-Typed Mechanized Semantics for Session Types
    Intrinsically-Typed Mechanized Semantics for Session Types Peter Thiemann University of Freiburg Germany [email protected] ABSTRACT There are synchronous and asynchronous variants [Gay and Vasconcelos Session types have emerged as a powerful paradigm for structur- 2010; Lindley and Morris 2015; Wadler 2012], or variants with addi- ing communication-based programs. They guarantee type sound- tional typing features (e.g., dependent types [Toninho and Yoshida ness and session fidelity for concurrent programs with sophisti- 2018], context-free [Padovani 2017; Thiemann and Vasconcelos 2016]), cated communication protocols. As type soundness proofs for lan- as well as extensions to deal with more than two participants in a guages with session types are tedious and technically involved, it protocol [Honda et al. 2008]. They also found their way into func- is rare to see mechanized soundness proofs for these systems. tional and object oriented languages [Dezani-Ciancaglini et al. 2009]. We present an executable intrinsically typed small-step seman- Generally, session types are inspired by linear type systems and tics for a realistic functional session type calculus. The calculus in- systems with typestate as channels change their type at each com- cludes linearity, recursion, and recursive sessions with subtyping. munication operation and must thus be handled linearly. Some Asynchronous communication is modeled with an encoding. variants are directly connected to linear logic via the Curry-Howard The semantics is implemented in Agda as an intrinsically typed, correspondence [Caires and Pfenning 2010; Toninho et al. 2013; Wadler interruptible CEK machine. This implementation proves type preser- 2012]. vation and a particular notion of progress by construction.
    [Show full text]
  • A Comparison of Parallel Design Patterns for Game Development
    Faculty of TeknikTechnol ochogy & samh Soci¨alleety ComDatavetenskapputer Science och medieteknik Graduate Thesis 15Examensarbete hp, elementary 15 h¨ogskolepo¨ang, grundniv˚a A Comparison of Parallel Design Patterns for GameExamensarbetets Development titel En Jämförelse av Parallella Designmönster för Spelutveckling Examensarbetets titel p˚aengelska (p˚asvenska om arbetet ¨ar skrivet p˚aengelska) Robin Andblom F¨orfattaresCarl Sjöberg namn var och en p˚aegen rad, i bokstavsordning efter efternamn Thesis: Bachelor 180 hp Main �ield: Computer Science Program: Game Development Supervisor: Carl Johan Gribel Date of �inal seminar: 2018-01-15 Examiner: Carl-Magnus Olsson Eventuell bild Examen: kandidatexamen 180 hp Handledare: XYZ Huvudomr˚ade: datavetenskap Examinator: ABC Program: (t.ex. systemutvecklare) Datum f¨or slutseminarium: (t.ex. 2018-05-30) AComparisonofParallelDesignPatternsforGame Development Robin Andblom, Carl Sj¨oberg Malm¨o, Sweden Abstract As processor performance capabilities can only be increased through the use of a multicore architecture, software needs to be developed to utilize the par- allelism o↵ered by the additional cores. Especially game developers need to seize this opportunity to save cycles and decrease the general rendering time. One of the existing advances towards this potential has been the creation of multithreaded game engines that take advantage of the additional processing units. In such engines, di↵erent branches of the game loop are parallelized. However, the specifics of the parallel design patterns used are not outlined. Neither are any ideas of how to combine these patterns proposed. These missing factors are addressed in this article, to provide a guideline for when to use which one of two parallel design patterns; fork-join and pipeline par- allelism.
    [Show full text]
  • ADPLUS, 307–308 Aggregate Method, 260 ASP.NET MVC Index View, 180 in .NET 4.0 APM, 183 Asynccontroller, 181 EAP, 181 Indexasyn
    Index A page lifecycle, 166 synchronous WebForms implementation, 167 ADPLUS, 307–308 Async and await keywords Aggregate method, 260 asynchronous web page word count, 137 ASP.NET MVC CalculateMeaningOfLifeAsync method, 135 Index View, 180 catch block, 136 in .NET 4.0 coercing result, 135 APM, 183 keyword performance, 136 AsyncController, 181 mechanics EAP, 181 awaiter implementation, 146 IndexAsync implementation, 182 GetAwaiter method, 146 IndexCompleted method INotifyCompletion interface, 146 implementation, 182 TickTockAsync method, 145, 147 Multiple Async I/O Operations, 183 reserved word language, 135 in .NET 4.5, 184 return type method, 135 Synchronous Controller, 179 SynchronizationContext, 137 ASP.NET Web API synchronous structure, 134 in .NET 4.0, 186 synchronous web page word count, 136 in .NET 4.5, 187 task delay Synchronous, 185 synchronous back off and retry, 140 ASP.NET WebForms thread efficient back off and retry, 140 AuthorRepository implementation, 167 task effects, 137 GetAuthors method, 167 Task.WhenAll in .NET 4.0 downloading documents one by one, 141 Begin method implementation, 171 download many documents Complex Async Page, 174 asynchronous, 141 End method implementation, 172 error handling, 142 error handling, 175 Task.WhenAny IAsyncResult, 172 task code, 143 lifecycle, 170 UI updation, 143 marking, 170 winning task, 143 registering, 171 UI event handler, 133 in .NET 4.5 UI responsive goal, 134 async and await, 178 UI thread RegisterAsyncTask method, 177 API ways, 139 Task.WhenAll, 178 asynchronously loading web
    [Show full text]
  • NUMA-Aware Thread Pool
    Threads Kept and Better Managed NUMA Aware Thread Pool Ricky, Deepayan, & Emmanuel Traditional Thread Pool ● Maintain a set of threads and a queue ● Threads pull tasks ( ) from the queue and execute them ( ) ● Tasks are usually queries to be executed and are added to the queue from the execution layer Brief Overview of Design, based on Hyper’s morsels ● Every thread has a state: ○ Busy: working on task ( ) ○ Switching: finding another task ( ) ○ Parked: sleeping, no tasks available ( ) Brief Overview of Design, based on Hyper’s morsels ● Every thread has a state: ○ Busy: working on task ( ) ○ Switching: finding another task ( ) ○ Parked: sleeping, no tasks available ( ) ● Maintain per-NUMA region queues Region 0 Region 1 ○ Threads pull from their region’s queue if able ○ Pull from another region’s queue if no tasks in region ● Tasks are tagged by region and added to appropriate queue Region 2 Region 3 How tasks yield ● Originally tasks were just std::functions ● But we wanted tasks to be able to pause and Function calls on coroutine stack resume their execution ○ Ex. task tries to get lock, disk I/O coroutine ● Tasks become coroutines 1: thread task start ○ Specifically stackful coroutines calls task in coroutine ○ We want tasks to be able to call functions that can 2: task ... 3: task is also be able to yield yields back resumed by to thread another thread ○ Every coroutine must allocate its own stack :( yield ○ Fix this by pooling stacks across the thread pool We still want the user of pool to be able to write ... ● 4: task returns back to thread std::functions task return ○ Coroutine calls function new task ○ Function takes in context argument that allows it start to yield coroutine ..
    [Show full text]