[vlc-devel] [RFC 0/2] New executor API
remi at remlab.net
Fri Aug 28 18:11:55 CEST 2020
Le perjantaina 28. elokuuta 2020, 18.31.02 EEST Romain Vimont a écrit :
> On Fri, Aug 28, 2020 at 04:51:35PM +0300, Rémi Denis-Courmont wrote:
> > Le perjantaina 28. elokuuta 2020, 11.25.16 EEST Alexandre Janniaux a écrit
> > > > > > Besides, timing out is an error that deserves logging. Interrupt
> > > > > > is
> > > > > > not.
> > > > > > So using the same callback for both purpose looks dubious to me.
> > > > >
> > > > > The goal is simplicity.
> > > >
> > > > By making things more complicated. Yeah right...
> > >
> > > I agree with Remi, if you want simplicity, the best thing
> > > would be to limit the asynchronous framework to the
> > > asynchronous execution and signalling like almost every other
> > > asynchronous framework.
> > >
> > > Especially since youǘe talked about some `future` object, and
> > > thus a pro-actor model which doesn't have ways to do
> > > signalling from the outside of the asynchronous framework to
> > > the task by itself in almost all implementation, and instead
> > > have each layer of promise being able to return either a result
> > > or an error that the future will catch, and an internal
> > > composition rule for each layer's result.
> > >
> > > In the case the vlc_executor is killed, the preparser client
> > > needs to be killed first since it is using the executor, and
> > > thus can cancel its tasks internally directly, which might be
> > > at the middle of the preprocessing, at the beginning or right
> > > before the end. It's much less convoluted than having the
> > > preparser client use the vlc_executor to cancel the taks, which
> > > will just really call the preparser specific cancellation code
> > > anyway.
> > Yes exactly. All the complexity comes from the very disagreeable decision
> > to have the runner rather than the owner keep track of the tasks. If the
> > owner keeps track of its tasks, it can interrupt them (due to stop or
> > time-out) directly, and the tasks can notify their complexition directly
> > as well.
> That's more or less what I quickly implemented on:
> (the on_finished() callback could also be removed)
> The problem is that clients have to do a lot of (duplicate) work on
> their own.
Code factorization is also the argument that the background worker had for
having all of its complexity. Like literally, see the archives (early 2017).
It seems rather self-contradictory to me that, on one hand, you blame
background_worker for complexity due to callbacks, and the other hand, you
propose inessential callbacks in the executor design.
> The initial purpose was to replace background worker. A
> minimal executor like this would only provide a small part of what
> preparser/thumbnailer need.
> So if we do this, either we also implement a higher-level tool which
> simplifies timeout and cancelation (vlc_higherlevel_executor_t ;))
I don't even know what you're talking about.
You can't simplify cancelation. One way or the other, the code in the executor
owner has to do something to cancel the task, and the code of the task has to
be ready to handle it.
Likewise, the task has to know how to notify the its owner of its results.
Wrapping those things within an extra layer of callbacks won't make them any
So really, this is *only* about the time-out, not about cancelation. And it's
far more efficient, and less race-prone, to handle the time-out in the task code
than in a separate callback and a separate thread in the generic runnable
> every client just reimplement the whole timeout and cancelation on their
> own. :/ (it's less helpful than background worker)
> > It's not the first time that somebody implements a background runner in
> > open- source C code, e.g. <linux/workqueue.h>. All you need is:
> > - allocate runner,
> > - queue runnable to the runner,
> > - dequeue (cancel) runnable,
> > - wait for quiescent state of runnable,
> > - wait for quiescent state of whole runner,
> > - destroy runner.
> > Only the first function can fail and needs error handling. A runnable is
> > just a single callback and either a pointer to itself or an opaque data
> > pointer.
> The executor must be able to queue runnables anyway (we want to be able
> to queue 100 preparsing requests even if there are 4 threads).
You can argue all you want. Event delivery mechanisms (in a broad sense)
cannot be allowed to fail. It always ends up being used in places where errors
are impossible or prohibitively intricate to handle.
The only underlying stuff that can fail is memory allocation and thread
creation. If you make sure that there's always at least one runner thread,
there are no fatal errors except at runner allocation.
> So if the
> caller just provides a runnable (a run callback) and a userdata pointer,
> then the executor must be able to allocate something on _Submit() (so it
> may fail) or limit the queue size (so it may also fail). Unless the
> client also provides a structure with some data private to the executor
> (e.g. a vlc_list node), but that looks ugly.
> Moreover, if we don't want to spawn all the max_threads threads on
> creation, we would like to spawn a thread as necessary on _Submit() (so
> that may fail). IMO, it's not a problem that _Submit() returns an error
Only one thread is needed to ensure that neither errors nor deadlocks ever
happen. If non-first threads fail to be created dynamically, you can always
fail safe to fewer threads than the maximum.
More information about the vlc-devel