On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 9:40 PM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> But that is not really true because there are no constraints on if the
> source channels are buffered - if they are then my code operates similarly.
>
I was very clear. I was asking if it is possible to implement a priority
select with the semantics "if the high priority case becomes ready before
the low priority case, it always takes the high priority case". Saying "but
what if we try to ensure that both of them are always ready" is not
answering the question.
Please stop insisting that the code you provide solves this. It simply
doesn't. Given that I phrased the question, I feel justified in claiming
the authority if it does or not.
> Even if using unbuffered channels there is buffering being done at a lower
> level (hardware buffers, network stack buffers, etc) - so not “unblocking a
> sender” is a dubious endeavor.
>
That is how select behaves, though. It chooses a communication to proceed
(currently, uniformly at random, under the premise of the question, the
highest priority one) and lets that proceed.
If you don't have an answer to the question I posed, it is okay to just not
answer it. If there is no answer, that's okay too. But arguing about code
which clearly does not answer it is frustrating.
>
>
> On May 6, 2021, at 1:30 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 8:22 PM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>
> wrote:
>
>> “If lo” means that if the lo channel was read.
>>
>
> Exactly. To fulfill the requirements and answering the question, it must
> not be read.
>
> This code will prevent a lo from being processed if a hi is available at
>> the happens before moment of a value being ready.
>>
>
> What the receiver does with the value is immaterial. Point is, that the
> receiver has already read the value, thus the communication has happened,
> thus the sender was unblocked. The question is about a select that wouldn't
> do that.
>
>
>> Btw using indents rather than brackets in the above - maybe that is
>> causing the confusion.
>>
>
> I'm not confused. Your code is simply not answering the question posed.
> Which is about a select which always lets the high priority communication
> happen, if it is ready before the low priority communication - and
> consequently *doesn't* let the low priority communication happen.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> On May 6, 2021, at 12:37 PM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
>> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>> No, it is not. Your "if lo" branch implies that the communication
>> happened - e.g. the sender was already unblocked. A `select` would not
>> unblock the other side unless that's the actual branch taken.
>>
>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 7:32 PM Robert Engels <reng...@ix.netcom.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I already showed you - just change it to
>>>
>>> Select hi
>>> Default:
>>> Select hi,lo
>>> If lo:
>>> Select hi
>>> Default :
>>> Pass
>>>
>>> And enqueue the lo if a hi and lo are read.
>>>
>>> That is all that is needed.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On May 6, 2021, at 10:28 AM, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
>>> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 4:43 PM roger peppe <rogpe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 6 May 2021 at 14:41, 'Axel Wagner' via golang-nuts <
>>>> golang-nuts@googlegroups.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> PS: And I'm not saying there is no argument. Maybe "select is not
>>>>> atomic" is such an argument. But if there is an argument and/or if this is
>>>>> that argument, I don't fully understand it myself.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> One reason is that the semantics can conflict. Consider this code, for
>>>> example (assuming a hypothetical "pri select" statement that chooses the
>>>> first ready arm of the select) - the priorities conflict. I suspect Occam
>>>> doesn't encounter that issue because it only allows (or at least, it did
>>>> back when I used Occam) select on input, not output. I believe that
>>>> restriction was due to the difficulty of implementing bidirectional select
>>>> between actual distributed hardware processors, but I'm sure Øyvind knows
>>>> better.
>>>>
>>>> func main() {
>>>> c1, c2, c3 := make(chan int), make(chan int), make(chan int)
>>>>
>>>> go func() {
>>>> pri select {
>>>> case c1 <- 1:
>>>> case v := <-c2:
>>>> c3 <- v
>>>> }
>>>> }()
>>>> go func() {
>>>> pri select {
>>>> case c2 <- 2:
>>>> case v := <-c1:
>>>> c3 <- v
>>>> }
>>>> }()
>>>> fmt.Println(<-c3)
>>>> }
>>>>
>>>
>>> Interesting case. I would argue, though, that there is no happens-before
>>> edge here to order the cases and I was only considering providing a
>>> guarantee if there is one.
>>>
>>>
>>>> That said, I suspect that the semantics could be ironed out, and the
>>>> real reason for Go's lack is that it's not actually that useful; that it
>>>> would be one more feature; and that in practice a random choice makes sense
>>>> almost all the time.
>>>>
>>>
>>> As I said, this would certainly satisfy me as an answer :)
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, May 6, 2021 at 3:40 PM Axel Wagner <
>>>>> axel.wagner...@googlemail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> FWIW after all this discussion I *am* curious about a more detailed
>>>>>> argument for why we can't have a priority select that guarantees that
>>>>>> *if* the high-priority case becomes ready before the low-priority
>>>>>> one (in the sense of "there exists a happens-before edge according to the
>>>>>> memory model"), the high-priority will always be chosen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That is, in the example I posted above
>>>>>> <https://play.golang.org/p/UUA7nRFdyJE>, we *do* know that `hi`
>>>>>> becoming readable happens-before `lo` becoming readable, so a true
>>>>>> prioritized select would always choose `hi` and never return. The
>>>>>> construct
>>>>>> we presented *does* return.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, I do 100% agree that it's not possible to have a select that
>>>>>> guarantees that `hi` will be read if both *become readable
>>>>>> concurrently*. But I don't see a *fundamental* issue with having a
>>>>>> select that always chooses `hi` if `*hi` becoming readable
>>>>>> happens-before `lo` becoming readable*.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And to be clear, I also kinda like that we don't have that - I think
>>>>>> the value provided by the pseudo-random choice in preventing starvation
>>>>>> is
>>>>>> worth not having an "ideal" priority select construct in the language.
>>>>>> But
>>>>>> I couldn't really make a good case why we *can't* have it.
>>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>>>> an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfEJNtu1i1RyZxW5FNYkD0TB73nq0WyVCCW_E9_JOAVJmw%40mail.gmail.com
>>>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfEJNtu1i1RyZxW5FNYkD0TB73nq0WyVCCW_E9_JOAVJmw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>>>> .
>>>>>
>>>> --
>>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
>>> Groups "golang-nuts" group.
>>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send
>>> an email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHEEDdL8adBDFoqwVHswK3kr_KawePGi%3DNtbaBVTP5KWw%40mail.gmail.com
>>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHEEDdL8adBDFoqwVHswK3kr_KawePGi%3DNtbaBVTP5KWw%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>>> .
>>>
>>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "golang-nuts" group.
>> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
>> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
>> To view this discussion on the web visit
>> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHv2cKR1OLS97YN7JYKZXHu_s0a-6c0-2tW%3DS0gUU8jUA%40mail.gmail.com
>> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHv2cKR1OLS97YN7JYKZXHu_s0a-6c0-2tW%3DS0gUU8jUA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
>> .
>>
>> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "golang-nuts" group.
> To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an
> email to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHQq2p60OenLMYUFz%3DK9HigpbAqj7m%3D%2BRp7BnCX%2Bp1QLA%40mail.gmail.com
> <https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfHQq2p60OenLMYUFz%3DK9HigpbAqj7m%3D%2BRp7BnCX%2Bp1QLA%40mail.gmail.com?utm_medium=email&utm_source=footer>
> .
>
>
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"golang-nuts" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email
to golang-nuts+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/golang-nuts/CAEkBMfEZm6AfVG8dzaVcN%3D_PV-0BGo9pnSoO0-MbOFtcMCmg8g%40mail.gmail.com.
