I have a program with 4 threads.
Within each thread, I do a luaL_newstate();
Each thread only has access to it's own lua instance.
Is there anything I need to worry about? [I.e. is there some hidden state that all lua instances share behind my back?]
Thanks!
No, that should work just fine. All interpreter state is self contained in each Lua instance. I would even say that is the preferred way to use Lua with multiple threads and/or processes.
If you find that you do need to communicate between Lua states eventually, then it is best to serialize the data and pass it using the C API. I recommend reading the "Exploring Lua for Concurrent Programming" whitepaper. It introduces a method of using multiple Lua processes with message passing for inter-process communication.
Creating a single lua_State per thread is a good solution to having multiple threads of Lua execution. However, those states are very separated. In particular, it is difficult to safely communicate between them since the Lua API is only thread-safe as long as each lua_State is accessed from a single thread at a time. (Well, unless lua_lock and lua_unlock are implemented as a suitable mutex, which they are not in the default builds of the lua core.)
If that level of isolation is not acceptable, then you need to investigate one of the several mechanisms for allowing Lua instances to play well with others in a threaded process.
My favorite choice is Lua Lanes which provides for multiple threads along with a mechanism for passing messages and sharing values between them in a thread-safe way. Values of most Lua types (including userdata with a little C side support from the library that uses it) can be safely and efficiently passed from one lane to another.
Other mechanisms exist, and a good starting point for most of them is at the Lua user's wiki page on MultiTaksing.
You're good as long as you don't try to pass values between Lua instances without converting them to C first. For example, it will be nearly impossible to share a mutable table among instances.
What you ask sounds easy to do but not necessarily any more useful than simply having multiple processes running, each with its own Lua and its own address space.
Related
This question already has answers here:
Why are most UI frameworks single threaded?
(6 answers)
Closed 7 years ago.
In every GUI library I've used (Swing, Android, Windows Forms, WPF) there's this golden rule saying that one cannot access or modify GUI elements from another thread (other than the GUI thread). I suppose this rule applies to any GUI library. Breaking this rule will most likely cause application to crash. However, I've been wondering recently, why is it so? I couldn't find any profound explanation. So what is the low-level explanation of this rule?
No piece of software is thread-safe unless it is explicitly designed and build to be so.
A GUI is a complex and stateful beast, making it thread-safe would be 'prohibitively expensive'.
There is a very simple reason for this. Usually UI functions are not thread-safe (as making them thread-safe would pessimize performance).
Of those you listed, some may be wrappers around existing mechanisms, so you have to answer the question indirectly via the underlying GUI framework. In case of multi-platform GUI frameworks like e.g. Qt, you will also have the lowest-common denominator that determines what is possible and what isn't.
Now, why is access to the GUI not thread-safe? In the cases where I'm most familiar with (win32 and X11), accesses are often performed indirectly by sending requests and sometimes waiting for the according answer. This usually works in an atomic way, even across process boundaries, so that is not directly cause of the problem. However, if you do so from multiple threads, the worst that can happen is that data is modified in an uncoordinated way. For example, if you read, modify and write the same widget from two threads, these operations might be interleaved, so that only one thread's modifications will actually be applied.
There are other reasons for not supporting cross-thread access:
In win32, the queue with the messages is thread-local, which means that only the thread that created a window will actually find and be able to handle messages for that window. I guess this a legacy from times where processes were single-threaded and the message queue was simply a global. Making it thread-local is the same approach as the one used for making errno thread-safe.
Another reason is that support objects are created inside a process that represent some GUI element. For example, the MFC (on top of win32) use a map from the OS' widget handle to a C++ object representing that object. That map is stored in thread-local storage (which follows the thread-local message queue) and the access to the C++ objects is not guarded by a mutex. Accessing these objects from different threads is bad, not because they represent GUI objects but because they are not synchronized, simple as that.
If you think about modifying the structure of a widget tree (like e.g. the DOM tree in a browser), you either have very detailed knowledge of what other parts of the application are doing or you need to lock access to the whole tree before every operation just to be safe. Needless to say, this effectively prevents any parallel operations, so you can also take the next step and require all operations to come from one thread and thus save the whole multithreading overhead.
That said, I believe that Qt and C# (and probably others) actually do support some cross-thread operations. They will work some (more or less obscure) magic that forwards the calls to the GUI thread and forwards the results back to the calling thread again. In other words, they try to make the necessary inter-thread communication more convenient for the programmer, while retaining the efficiency and simplicity of the single-threaded GUI. This is not restricted to GUI handling though but rather a general approach, only that it is especially important for the GUI.
As far as I know, that is simply not true: Every object in Java might be accesed concurrently, as far as thread-safe techniques are correctly applied. The fact is that Java Swing objects are mostly not prepared for multithreading, so you'll have to perform external synchronization.
There are several instances in which you need several threads to interoperate in a GUI: Games, visual effects, user events...
More information about the GUI and multithreading:
https://docs.oracle.com/javase/tutorial/uiswing/concurrency/dispatch.html
In Tclsh thread package, a created thread is not sharing variables and namespace with main thread, which is quite different from C implementation of threads. Why is this contradiction in tcl thread design. Or am i missing something in the code? Does all scripting language have similar threaded design with them?
Below is the quote from Tcl thread documentation PDF,
thread::create
. All other extensions must be loaded
explicitly into each thread
that needs to use them
It's not a contradiction. It's just a different model. It has its advantages and its disadvantages. The key disadvantage you already know: scripts and variables are not shared (unless you take special steps). The key advantage is that the Tcl implementation has no big global locks, and that makes it much easier to use multi-core hardware effectively and means that there are very few gotchas when doing so. Contrast this with the Python Global Interpreter Lock, which is necessary because Python uses the C-like global shared state model.
At the low level, Tcl's threading is strongly isolated with plenty of thread-shared variables behind the scenes so that locks can be avoided (including in the memory management a lot of time, which would otherwise be a key bottleneck). Inter-thread communications are based on top of Tcl's built-in event queueing system; when two threads communicate, one sends a message and (optionally) waits for the other to respond, with the receiver getting the message placed on its internal queue of events until it is in a state that is ready to handle it. This does slow down inter-thread communications, but is much faster when they're not communicating.
It is actually similar to one way you'd use threads in C: message passing. Of course, you can use threads in other ways as well in C. But message passing is one way to completely avoid deadlocks since the semaphores/mutexes can be completely managed around the message queues and you don't need them anywhere else in your code.
This is in fact what Tcl implements at the C level. And it is in fact why it was done this way: to avoid the need for semaphores (to prevent the user form deadlocking himself).
Most other scripting languages simply provide a thin wrapper around pthreads so you can deadlock yourself if you're not careful. I remember way back in the early 2000s the general advice for threaded programming in C and most other languages is to implement a message passing architecture to avoid deadlocks.
Since tcl generally takes the view that API exposed at the script level should be high level, the thread implementation was implemented with a message passing architecture built-in. Of course, there is also the convenient fact that it also avoids having to make the tcl interpreter thread-safe (thus introducing mutexes all over the interpreter source code).
Making interpreters thread-safe is non trivial. Some languages suffer mysterious crashes to this day when running threaded applications. Some languages took over a decade to iron out all threading bugs. Tcl just decided not to try. The tcl interpreter is small enough and spins up quite fast so the solution was to simply run one interpreter per thread.
I want to write a multithreading program in Racket that actually utilizes multiple processes with shared memory space like pthread in C. Racket provides "thread", but it only uses one process to execute multiple threads. It also provides "subprocess" for executing new programs via command line that runs on multiple processes, but those programs cannot share the same memory space.
Don't do that.
Racket does provide parallelism via futures and places, but they do not provide (unrestricted) shared memory spaces. If you want to send data from one thread to another, use a place channel.
As Greg Hendershott points out, you can send a shared vector via a place channel, which provides a shared space to use. (But that's not the same thing as sharing all the memory references, which is what someone familiar with, say, Java-style threading might expect. And the latter is what my "don't do that" refers to.)
If you really want to use pthread-like threading, Guile does provide them, but then you won't be using Racket any more. ;-)
I haven't been able to write a program in Lua that will load more than one CPU. Since Lua supports the concept via coroutines, I believe it's achievable.
Reason for me failing can be one of:
It's not possible in Lua
I'm not able to write it ☺ (and I hope it's the case )
Can someone more experienced (I discovered Lua two weeks ago) point me in right direction?
The point is to write a number-crunching script that does hi-load on ALL cores...
For demonstrative purposes of power of Lua.
Thanks...
Lua coroutines are not the same thing as threads in the operating system sense.
OS threads are preemptive. That means that they will run at arbitrary times, stealing timeslices as dictated by the OS. They will run on different processors if they are available. And they can run at the same time where possible.
Lua coroutines do not do this. Coroutines may have the type "thread", but there can only ever be a single coroutine active at once. A coroutine will run until the coroutine itself decides to stop running by issuing a coroutine.yield command. And once it yields, it will not run again until another routine issues a coroutine.resume command to that particular coroutine.
Lua coroutines provide cooperative multithreading, which is why they are called coroutines. They cooperate with each other. Only one thing runs at a time, and you only switch tasks when the tasks explicitly say to do so.
You might think that you could just create OS threads, create some coroutines in Lua, and then just resume each one in a different OS thread. This would work so long as each OS thread was executing code in a different Lua instance. The Lua API is reentrant; you are allowed to call into it from different OS threads, but only if are calling from different Lua instances. If you try to multithread through the same Lua instance, Lua will likely do unpleasant things.
All of the Lua threading modules that exist create alternate Lua instances for each thread. Lua-lltreads just makes an entirely new Lua instance for each thread; there is no API for thread-to-thread communication outside of copying parameters passed to the new thread. LuaLanes does provide some cross-connecting code.
It is not possible with the core Lua libraries (if you don't count creating multiple processes and communicating via input/output), but I think there are Lua bindings for different threading libraries out there.
The answer from jpjacobs to one of the related questions links to LuaLanes, which seems to be a multi-threading library. (I have no experience, though.)
If you embed Lua in an application, you will usually want to have the multithreading somehow linked to your applications multithreading.
In addition to LuaLanes, take a look at llthreads
In addition to already suggested LuaLanes, llthreads and other stuff mentioned here, there is a simpler way.
If you're on POSIX system, try doing it in old-fashioned way with posix.fork() (from luaposix). You know, split the task to batches, fork the same number of processes as the number of cores, crunch the numbers, collate results.
Also, make sure that you're using LuaJIT 2 to get the max speed.
It's very easy just create multiple Lua interpreters and run lua programs inside all of them.
Lua multithreading is a shared nothing model. If you need to exchange data you must serialize the data into strings and pass them from one interpreter to the other with either a c extension or sockets or any kind of IPC.
Serializing data via IPC-like transport mechanisms is not the only way to share data across threads.
If you're programming in an object-oriented language like C++ then it's quite possible for multiple threads to access shared objects across threads via object pointers, it's just not safe to do so, unless you provide some kind of guarantee that no two threads will attempt to simultaneously read and write to the same data.
There are many options for how you might do that, lock-free and wait-free mechanisms are becoming increasingly popular.
I have two processes which access to the same physical memory(GPIO data addr).
So how can I have synchronized between these apps?
I understand that we have some kind of locking mechanism such as mutex and semaphore, so which method is the fastest?
Thank for your help,
-nm
Mutexes and semaphores are generally considered to be concurrency solutions in the same address space -- meaning that different parts of the same program will lock their access to a resource using one of these contraptions.
When you're dealing with separate processes, the standard way to do this on Linux is to create something in /var/lock, like /var/lock/myapp.lock, and place your PID followed by a newline in it. Then other processes will check for its existence, and if you're crafty check the PID to make sure it's still alive, too.
If you need real-time access to the area, skip the filesystem and the processes will have to communicate via IPC (LET_ME_KNOW_WHEN_DONE, OKAY_IM_DONE, you get the idea), or -- better -- write a process whose sole purpose is to read and write to the GPIO memory, and your other programs communicate with it via IPC (probably the best approach).
mutex means mutual exclusion -- a semaphore is just a variable used to determine if the resource is in use. In windows, there is a Mutex object that can be created to protect a shared resource.
The issue is what language are you using? What OS (I am assuming linux). Most languages provide support for multi-threading and mutual exclusion, and you should use the built-in constructs.
For example, using C on Linux, you might want to
include semaphore.h
and look up the calls for sem_init, sem_wait etc.