From JVMLangSummit
Revision as of 13:45, 24 September 2009 by Jrose (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigationJump to search

We had a lively ad hoc workshop after Lukas Stadler's talk ended in a vigorous Q&A session.

Key design points for continuations:

  • full or scoped
  • restartability: one-shot or repeated restart
  • reflectability: opaque, read-only, serializable (forgeable!)
  • mobility: thread-bound, JVM-bound, mobile

These design choices are all more or less independent.

The Hottest Use Case
Generators and coroutines may be viewed as scoped, one-shot, opaque, and thread-bound.

Rose said: We're crazy (e.g, 2nd Life style continuations) but we're also willing to take short-term gains.

The Room said: We want coroutines & generators ASAP. That's your short-term goal, please.

Coroutines can be thread-bound, and swapped like Green Threads. But, in order to give them (and parallel generators!?) more room to grow into our multicore future, they must not be CPU-bound. This involves either (a) a non-thread-bound view of coroutines, or (b) a way to split threads into "fibers" (cf. Ruby).

How much "fiber" do we need to be healthy here? Would it be best to layer fibers (at the Java level) onto thread pools? Or is there a JVM or hardware abstraction that's better? Must specify interactions with thread locals, thread locks, backtraces, (implicitly) thread critical sections, etc. Fibers seem to want "miniature" versions of all these. Basic problem is that threads have grown to do too much; we need a strength-reduced thread.
Hard Problem
How does existing code (bytecodes!) interact with continuations? Throw-out is OK, but restart is seemingly intractable. The result is that continuation restarting only works for code within a "silo" (e.g, code compiled by my Scheme bytecode compiler). Good model: Scheme's DYNAMIC-WIND. Key idea is bracketing; for every finalization there is a paired initialization; re-entry of a continuation runs the initialization. Problem: It's impossible to extract these retroactively from Java (source or bytecode).

Some (Bloch, Gafter?) claimed that the compatibility problem makes restartable continuations an impractical goal in our ecosystem, since no solution interoperates with existing JDK code. John: Distinguish between three kinds of code: 1. older stack frames outside a continuation, 2. stack frames crossed (especially resumed) by continuations, 3. younger stack frames which enter and exit without touching continuatiosn. 1 and 3 have no compatibility problem, 2 are a minority in the JDK, since they correspond to higher-order functions of some sort.

Code in category 2 is of course the problem. Glimmer of partial solution: If a Java method has no exception handlers, it is almost certainly bracket-free (or else originally buggy!). Stadler's solution is to accept siloing and annotate the category 2 methods; a continuation which fails to "see" an annotation will refuse to restart an unknown method, throwing an error instead.

Design Problem
What is the status of JVM locals w.r.t. continuations? John: They are a stable property of the continuation. Neal: Unless the continuation respects the mutable nature of JVM locals (and allows changes to them to persist into restarts) the continuation mechanism is useless. John: Useless = overstatement. Compiler writers will do what they always have, statically evacuate mutable variables to the heap, so as not to be caught up directly in the continuation. Neal, Josh: That's siloing, so it's wrong. ...Back to the previous Hard Problem.