[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: GC safety and return values

This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 50 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 50 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.

    > From: Jim Blandy <jimb@xxxxxxxxxx>

    > Yes, the EXTRACT issues aren't critical.  But the thread-related
    > problems with GCPRO that I don't see how to solve are those
    > created by the user's compiler rearranging code that operates
    > directly on heap references.  The compiler is free to make
    > copies of heap references in registers where a copying GC can't
    > find them to update them.

We agree about the problem caused by C semantics and in broad strokes
about the compiler-taming tricks needed to solve them -- my solution
differs from yours (and JNIs) in that it doesn't require reference
objects to be explicitly heap allocated and freed.  Loosely speaking,
they are instead stack allocated.  (Yes, I suspect you are thinking of
making a tiny stack on the heap to allocate the local mn_frefs of a
given call but keep reading.)

In the GCPRO system I'm proposing, all parameters are passed by
reference (by a `scheme_value *'); all return values returned by
output parameters (again a `scheme_value *'); and local assignment is
via a macro that can impose a write barrier rather than with C's
assignment operator.  In those regards, it very much resembles the
mn_refs idea.  (Though changing the value of an mn_ref seems something
one is less likely to do in your system.)

One difference in our proposals concerns the lifetimes of variables.
Local mn_refs seem to live until some outermost call returns unless
code explicitly creates then destroys a new mn_call.  My approach
controls variable lifetimes with GCPRO-style calls giving them
lifetimes that coincide with C stack frame lifetimes.

Note that I haven't made any proposal about what you call `global
mn_refs'.  I am planning on having an interface for allocating arrays
of GC roots to which C data structures can refer.

A simple example:

  /* scm_cons1 (result, arena, a)
   * Return a new pair of the form ( *a . () )
   * Equivalent to (lambda (a) (cons a '()))
  scm_cons1 (scheme_value * result, scheme_instance arena, scheme_value * a)
    struct cons1_locals
        scheme_value nil;
      } l;


    SCHEME_MAKE_NIL (&l.nil, arena);
    SCHEME_CONS (result, arena, a, &l.nil);


The parameter, `*a', is protected by the caller.  `l.nil' is protected
because SCM_PROTECT_FRAME has made it visible to GC and because it's
address, not its value, is passed to the primitives `scm_make_nil' and
`scm_cons'.  The value stored in `l.nil' is protected by `scm_cons1'
before `scm_make_nil' returns.  The value stored in `*result' is
protected by the caller of `scm_cons1' before `scm_cons' returns to
`scm_cons1'.   (If interprocedural optimization is allowed to screw
this I'd like to know exactly how and why....)

    > The general view is like this: the GCPRO'd variables are inescapably a
    > data structure that is shared between the mutator thread that owns the
    > stack frame and some other collecting thread out there.  But there's
    > no opportunity for the API implementation to do the needed
    > synchronization.

Yes there is.  The only way the GCPROtected variables are ever
modified is in the primitives provided by the FFI.  This includes
assignment between two locals:

	SCM_LSET (&l.a, arena, &l.b);    /* l.a = l.b */

and as tb pointed out, other C operators on scheme_values are also

	scm_is_nil (arena, &l.a)   /* rather than l.a == scm_nil */

A function using the FFI has no reason to ever land a raw `scm_value'
in a register or compiler-created temporary variable.

    > The only way I can see to save GCPRO is to forbid collection except
    > when every thread is at a "safe point".  In other words, you
    > reintroduce the restriction that "collection may only happen in calls
    > that do allocation", by saying that *every* thread must be in a
    > specially designated call.

Not at all.  For example, in `scm_cons1' above, GC can safely happen
at any point at all during its execution from prolog to postlog (even
if, for some strange reason, nil is newly heap allocated by

The biggest issue in choosing between the two approaches, as far as I
know, is the question of efficiency.   The approach above has a few 
advantages in that regard, I think:

  a) Assuming that you plan to build little stacks on the heap to
     allocate the local mn_refs for a given call, the allocation
     overheads are probably close to a wash.  

     I might get some advantage in allocation times by not having to
     do a separate overflow check and by getting the space for them
     when the C stack frame is allocated.  I get some advantage by
     allocating a bunch of variables at once with GCPRO.  I get some
     advantage by not having to separately stack allocate room for
     `mn_ref *' values.   I get some disadvantage (speed-wise, not
     precision-wise) from the greater number of GCUNPRO calls.

  b) In single-threaded environment, I can inline some primitives and
     (at least my hunch is) get much better code.   For example, 
     SCM_LSET can come out to just an ordinary C assignment (`=');
     SCHEME_IS_NIL can come out to an == check on a local variable
     that may very well be in a handy register.

  c) You may have a good answer for this but I don't see it in your
     post to the list.   Don't local mn_refs leak like a sieve?

     For example, `mn_cdr' returns a new `mn_ref *', right?
     It's not freed until some outermost call, associated with
     the `mn_call *' I got returns.

     So now what if I'm traversing a long list with K elements?
     Won't that allocate K local mn_refs which aren't freed until
     I return?   Won't they, until then, be protecting the values
     they refer to?