Sorry, unlifted, not unboxed... On Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 11:57 AM David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Putting unboxed things in TVar, MVar, etc., is part of Andrew Martin's > accepted BoxedRep proposal. > > On Thu, Oct 15, 2020, 11:44 AM Carter Schonwald < > carter.schonw...@gmail.com> wrote: > >> A related idea that came up recently and is perhaps simpler ties into >> this via the lens of having unboxed Mvars/tvars (even if it’s restricted to >> just things we can embed in a word64#) >> >> This came up in >> https://gitlab.haskell.org/ghc/ghc/-/issues/18798#note_307410, where >> viktor had millions of independent mvars holding what’s essentially a >> strict unit ()! >> >> The motivation in this later scenario is that in high concurrency >> settings, the less trivial stuff the gc needs to trace under updates, the >> better ghc scales. >> >> This may not be a use case david has in mind, but certainly seems >> related. >> >> Phrased more succinctly: gc perf dominates large heap / many core >> computation in Haskell via sensitivity to allocation volume / mutation >> volume (to ensure generational hypothesis stays valid), and providing tools >> to incrementally reduce the pressure with local changes would be good. >> >> So I’d propose / suggest that a baby step towards what david asks would >> be for us to work out some manner of unboxed tvar/mvar ref machinery that >> supports unboxed values. >> >> >> >> On Thu, Oct 15, 2020 at 5:32 AM Andreas Klebinger < >> klebinger.andr...@gmx.at> wrote: >> >>> From a implementors perspective my main questions would be: >>> >>> * How big is the benefit in practice? How many use cases are there? >>> * How bad are the costs? (Runtime overhead, rts complexity, ...) >>> >>> The details of how this would be exposed to a user would are important. >>> But if the costs are too high for the drawbacks then it becomes a moot >>> point. >>> >>> >>> David Feuer schrieb am 14.10.2020 um 22:21: >>> >>> Forwarded from Andrew Martin below. I think we want more than just Maybe >>> (more than one null), but the nesting I described is certainly more >>> convenience than necessity. >>> >>> ---------- Forwarded message --------- >>> From: Andrew Martin <andrew.thadd...@gmail.com> >>> Date: Wed, Oct 14, 2020, 4:14 PM >>> Subject: Re: Restricted sums in BoxedRep >>> To: David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> >>> >>> >>> You'll have to forward this to the ghc-devs list to share it with others >>> since I'm not currently subscribed to it, but I've had this same thought >>> before. It is discussed at >>> https://github.com/andrewthad/impure-containers/issues/12. Here's the >>> relevant excerpt: >>> >>>> Relatedly, I was thinking the other day that after finishing >>>> implementing >>>> https://github.com/ghc-proposals/ghc-proposals/blob/master/proposals/0203-pointer-rep.rst, >>>> I should really look at seeing if it's possible to add this >>>> maybe-of-a-lifted value trick straight to GHC. I think that with: >>>> >>>> data RuntimpRep >>>> = BoxedRep Levity >>>> | MaybeBoxedRep Levity >>>> | IntRep >>>> | ... >>>> >>>> data BuiltinMaybe :: forall (v :: Levity). TYPE v -> TYPE ('MaybeBoxedRep >>>> v) >>>> >>>> This doesn't have the nesting issues because the kind system prevents >>>> nesting. But anyway, back to the original question. I would recommend not >>>> using Maybe.Unsafe and using unpacked-maybe instead. The latter is >>>> definitely safe, and it only costs an extra machine word of space in each >>>> data constructor it gets used in, and it doesn't introduce more >>>> indirections. >>>> >>> >>> On Tue, Oct 13, 2020 at 5:47 PM David Feuer <david.fe...@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Null pointers are widely known to be a lousy language feature in >>>> general, but there are certain situations where they're *really* useful for >>>> compact representation. For example, we define >>>> >>>> newtype TMVar a = TMVar (TVar (Maybe a)) >>>> >>>> We don't, however, actually use the fact that (Maybe a) is lifted. So >>>> we could represent this much more efficiently using something like >>>> >>>> newtype TMVar a = TMVar (TVar a) >>>> >>>> where Nothing is represented by a distinguished "null" pointer. >>>> >>>> While it's possible to implement this sort of thing in user code (with >>>> lots of fuss and care), it's not very nice at all. What I'd really like to >>>> be able to do is represent certain kinds of sums like this natively. >>>> >>>> Now that we're getting BoxedRep, I think we can probably make it >>>> happen. The trick is to add a special Levity constructor representing sums >>>> of particular shapes. Specifically, we can represent a type like this if it >>>> is a possibly-nested sum which, when flattened into a single sum, consists >>>> of some number of nullary tuples and at most one Lifted or Unlifted type. >>>> Then we can have (inline) primops to convert between the BoxedRep and the >>>> sum-of-sums representations. >>>> >>>> Anyone have thoughts on details for what the Levity constructor >>>> arguments might look like? >>>> >>> >>> >>> -- >>> -Andrew Thaddeus Martin >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ghc-devs mailing >>> listghc-devs@haskell.orghttp://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>> >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> ghc-devs mailing list >>> ghc-devs@haskell.org >>> http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs >>> >>
_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://mail.haskell.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs