Haskell - Actor based mutability - multithreading

Question

I'm working on a haskell network application and I use the actor pattern to manage multithreading. One thing I came across is how to store for example a set of client sockets/handles. Which of course must be accessible for all threads and can change when clients log on/off.
Since I'm coming from the imperative world I thought about some kind of lock-mechanism but when I noticed how ugly this is I thought about "pure" mutability, well actually it's kind of pure:
import Control.Concurrent
import Control.Monad
import Network
import System.IO
import Data.List
import Data.Maybe
import System.Environment
import Control.Exception
newStorage :: (Eq a, Show a) => IO (Chan (String, Maybe (Chan [a]), Maybe a))
newStorage = do
q <- newChan
forkIO $ storage [] q
return q
newHandleStorage :: IO (Chan (String, Maybe (Chan [Handle]), Maybe Handle))
newHandleStorage = newStorage
storage :: (Eq a, Show a) => [a] -> Chan (String, Maybe (Chan [a]), Maybe a) -> IO ()
storage s q = do
let loop = (`storage` q)
(req, reply, d) <- readChan q
print ("processing " ++ show(d))
case req of
"add" -> loop ((fromJust d) : s)
"remove" -> loop (delete (fromJust d) s)
"get" -> do
writeChan (fromJust reply) s
loop s
store s d = writeChan s ("add", Nothing, Just d)
unstore s d = writeChan s ("remove", Nothing, Just d)
request s = do
chan <- newChan
writeChan s ("get", Just chan, Nothing)
readChan chan
The point is that a thread (actor) is managing a list of items and modifies the list according to incoming requests. Since thread are really cheap I thought this could be a really nice functional alternative.
Of course this is just a prototype (a quick dirty proof of concept).
So my question is:
Is this a "good" way of managing shared mutable variables (in the actor world) ?
Is there already a library for this pattern ? (I already searched but I found nothing)
Regards,
Chris

Answer 1

Here is a quick and dirty example using stm and pipes-network. This will set up a simple server that allows clients to connect and increment or decrement a counter. It will display a very simple status bar showing the current tallies of all connected clients and will remove client tallies from the bar when they disconnect.
First I will begin with the server, and I've generously commented the code to explain how it works:
import Control.Concurrent.STM (STM, atomically)
import Control.Concurrent.STM.TVar
import qualified Data.HashMap.Strict as H
import Data.Foldable (forM_)
import Control.Concurrent (forkIO, threadDelay)
import Control.Monad (unless)
import Control.Monad.Trans.State.Strict
import qualified Data.ByteString.Char8 as B
import Control.Proxy
import Control.Proxy.TCP
import System.IO
main = do
hSetBuffering stdout NoBuffering
{- These are the internal data structures. They should be an implementation
detail and you should never expose these references to the
"business logic" part of the application. -}
-- I use nRef to keep track of creating fresh Ints (which identify users)
nRef <- newTVarIO 0 :: IO (TVar Int)
{- hMap associates every user (i.e. Int) with a counter
Notice how I've "striped" the hash map by storing STM references to the
values instead of storing the values directly. This means that I only
actually write the hashmap when adding or removing users, which reduces
contention for the hash map.
Since each user gets their own unique STM reference for their counter,
modifying counters does not cause contention with other counters or
contention with the hash map. -}
hMap <- newTVarIO H.empty :: IO (TVar (H.HashMap Int (TVar Int)))
{- The following code makes heavy use of Haskell's pure closures. Each
'let' binding closes over its current environment, which is safe since
Haskell is pure. -}
let {- 'getCounters' is the only server-facing command in our STM API. The
only permitted operation is retrieving the current set of user
counters.
'getCounters' closes over the 'hMap' reference currently in scope so
that the server never needs to be aware about our internal
implementation. -}
getCounters :: STM [Int]
getCounters = do
refs <- fmap H.elems (readTVar hMap)
mapM readTVar refs
{- 'init' is the only client-facing command in our STM API. It
initializes the client's entry in the hash map and returns two
commands: the first command is what the client calls to 'increment'
their counter and the second command is what the client calls to log
off and delete
'delete' command.
Notice that those two returned commands each close over the client's
unique STM reference so the client never needs to be aware of how
exactly 'init' is implemented under the hood. -}
init :: STM (STM (), STM ())
init = do
n <- readTVar nRef
writeTVar nRef $! n + 1
ref <- newTVar 0
modifyTVar' hMap (H.insert n ref)
let incrementRef :: STM ()
incrementRef = do
mRef <- fmap (H.lookup n) (readTVar hMap)
forM_ mRef $ \ref -> modifyTVar' ref (+ 1)
deleteRef :: STM ()
deleteRef = modifyTVar' hMap (H.delete n)
return (incrementRef, deleteRef)
{- Now for the actual program logic. Everything past this point only uses
the approved STM API (i.e. 'getCounters' and 'init'). If I wanted I
could factor the above approved STM API into a separate module to enforce
the encapsulation boundary, but I am lazy. -}
{- Fork a thread which polls the current state of the counters and displays
it to the console. There is a way to implement this without polling but
this gets the job done for now.
Most of what it is doing is just some simple tricks to reuse the same
console line instead of outputting a stream of lines. Otherwise it
would be just:
forkIO $ forever $ do
ns <- atomically getCounters
print ns
-}
forkIO $ (`evalStateT` 0) $ forever $ do
del <- get
lift $ do
putStr (replicate del '\b')
putStr (replicate del ' ' )
putStr (replicate del '\b')
ns <- lift $ atomically getCounters
let str = show ns
lift $ putStr str
put $! length str
lift $ threadDelay 10000
{- Fork a thread for each incoming connection, which listens to the client's
commands and translates them into 'STM' actions -}
serve HostAny "8080" $ \(socket, _) -> do
(increment, delete) <- atomically init
{- Right now, just do the dumb thing and convert all keypresses into
increment commands, with the exception of the 'q' key, which will
quit -}
let handler :: (Proxy p) => () -> Consumer p Char IO ()
handler () = runIdentityP loop
where
loop = do
c <- request ()
unless (c == 'q') $ do
lift $ atomically increment
loop
{- This uses my 'pipes' library. It basically is a high-level way to
say:
* Read binary packets from the socket no bigger than 4096 bytes
* Get the first character from each packet and discard the rest
* Handle the character using the above 'handler' function -}
runProxy $ socketReadS 4096 socket >-> mapD B.head >-> handler
{- The above pipeline finishes either when the socket closes or
'handler' stops looping because it received a 'q'. Either case means
that the client is done so we log them out using 'delete'. -}
atomically delete
Next up is the client, which simply opens a connections and forwards all key presses as single packets:
import Control.Monad
import Control.Proxy
import Control.Proxy.Safe
import Control.Proxy.TCP.Safe
import Data.ByteString.Char8 (pack)
import System.IO
main = do
hSetBuffering stdin NoBuffering
hSetEcho stdin False
{- Again, this uses my 'pipes' library. It basically says:
* Read characters from the console using 'commands'
* Pack them into a binary format
* send them to a server running at 127.0.0.1:8080
This finishes looping when the user types a 'q' or the connection is
closed for whatever reason.
-}
runSafeIO $ runProxy $ runEitherK $
try . commands
>-> mapD (\c -> pack [c])
>-> connectWriteD Nothing "127.0.0.1" "8080"
commands :: (Proxy p) => () -> Producer p Char IO ()
commands () = runIdentityP loop
where
loop = do
c <- lift getChar
respond c
unless (c == 'q') loop
It's pretty simple: commands generates a stream of Chars, which then get converted to ByteStrings and then sent as packets to the server.
If you run the server and a few clients and have them each type in a few keys, your server display will output a list showing how many keys each client typed:
[1,6,4]
... and if some of the clients disconnect they will be removed from the list:
[1,4]
Note that the pipes component of these examples will simplify greatly in the upcoming pipes-4.0.0 release, but the current pipes ecosystem still gets the job done as is.

Answer 2

First, I'd definitely recommend using your own specific data type for representing commands. When using (String, Maybe (Chan [a]), Maybe a) a buggy client can crash your actor simply by sending an unknown command or by sending ("add", Nothing, Nothing), etc. I'd suggest something like
data Command a = Add a | Remove a | Get (Chan [a])
Then you can pattern match on commands in storage in a save way.
Actors have their advantages, but also I feel that they have some drawbacks. For example, getting an answer from an actor requires sending it a command and then waiting for a reply. And the client can't be completely sure that it gets a reply and that the reply will be of some specific type - you can't say I want only answers of this type (and how many of them) for this particular command.
So as an example I'll give a simple, STM solution. It'd be better to use a hash table or a (balanced tree) set, but since Handle implements neither Ord nor Hashable, we can't use these data structures, so I'll keep using lists.
module ThreadSet (
TSet, add, remove, get
) where
import Control.Monad
import Control.Monad.STM
import Control.Concurrent.STM.TVar
import Data.List (delete)
newtype TSet a = TSet (TVar [a])
add :: (Eq a) => a -> TSet a -> STM ()
add x (TSet v) = readTVar v >>= writeTVar v . (x :)
remove :: (Eq a) => a -> TSet a -> STM ()
remove x (TSet v) = readTVar v >>= writeTVar v . delete x
get :: (Eq a) => TSet a -> STM [a]
get (TSet v) = readTVar v
This module implements a STM based set of arbitrary elements. You can have multiple such sets and use them together in a single STM transaction that succeeds or fails at once. For example
-- | Ensures that there is exactly one element `x` in the set.
add1 :: (Eq a) => a -> TSet a -> STM ()
add1 x v = remove x v >> add x v
This would be difficult with actors, you'd have to add it as another command for the actor, you can't compose it of existing actions and still have atomicity.
Update: There is an interesting article explaining why Clojure designers chose not to use actors. For example, using actors, even if you have many reads and only very little writes to a mutable structure, they're all serialized, which can greatly impact performance.