In addition to a pure 1:1 native threading implementation which eliminates much of the complexity in the current Jikes RVM system relating to blocking system calls, etc., for some Jilkes RVM researchers it might continue to be useful to multiplex M "lightweight" threads above N native threads so as to permit additional flexibility in thread implementations. Although, to some approximation, this represents the current state of affairs in Jikes RVM, the current implementation conflates design decisions that were made when the original M:N threading system was implemented.

While the new pure 1:1 mapping of Java threads will be the base implementation, and will dictate the fundamental design decisions of the new threading system (e.g., permitting Java threads to block on I/O), perhaps there is a way to support user-level scheduling for extremely lightweight threads. The idea would be to rebuild user-level scheduling on a foundation that makes OS-level scheduling of native threads the default. Thus, while we address RVM-91, we might also make steps towards RVM-64. Addressing these different goals might proceed as separate projects, with some reconciliation step to bring them together later on.

I would expect that this trend is going to increase as hardware previously associated with parallel programming (+ cooperative scheduling policies) becomes platforms of choice for normal servers (traditionally competitive scheduling policies). Just as a taste one of the Sun guys recently proposed that by 2018 that servers could have 128 cores with 1024 hardware threads per core (and many seemed to suggest that this was a very conservative estimate).

So while the RVM is not suited to this sort of research atm it would only take a relatively short amount of time (4-6 months?) to get it on the bandwagon and I would hate to see us add impediments to this (unless they were a high cost to other parts of the rvm).

[1] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=384197.384222
[2] http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/search/wrapper.jsp?arnumber=4146932
[3] http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=945445.945471

1. The comments I posted to the SoC page were done on behalf of the mentor, Tony Hosking (who didn't have edit privileges). Ian took the comments off the SoC page and pasted them here. As I understand it, the rationale behind Tony's comments was all about how to manage a SoC project, particularly in the context of multiple students wanting to work on it. In a nutshell, AFAIK, Tony was suggesting two complementary projects: a) get 1:1 threading engineered, tested and working, b) generalize threading, a continuation of last year's project. In the text above, he was suggesting that N:M be layered over a fast 1:1 implementation. As it happens there are two highly motivated students who align with a) and b) respectively. To me the idea of having someone working solely on the task of getting 1:1 threading working is very sensible, especially if they have the skills and motivation for that task. Likewise, if someone is particularly interested and motivated in the (non-trivial) abstraction tasks of a generalized threading component that is great. Of course once we had a working proof of concept 1:1 implementation, then the task would be to harmonize it with the abstractions, and I think the two projects would inform each other. Nonetheless, I think it is pragmatic and good development style to let the enthusiast rip ahead with a prototype of 1:1 threading, and having completed that to draw breath and see how it fits into the modular threading system.

So, I'm scratching my head a little in trying to understand the ensuing commentary. It seems a bit of a storm in a teacup. Tony's suggestion seemed straightforward and pragmatic and focused on the specifics of getting students productively involved in SoC.

2. Many of us don't need any motivation to understand the desire for various threading models. Most of us are well aware of the increasing pressures of parallelism. Some of us have worked directly on this (I implemented cactus stacks on Jikes RVM with people from MITRE some years ago; they successfully got their air traffic simulation system scaling on Jikes RVM far better than any production VM; we could handle millions of threads. I supervised the Moxie project which included a port to the L4 microkernel---the motivation there was entirely about avoiding duplication of services, most notably scheduling and memory management ).

So specifically, I don't understand what Peter was alluding to with his comment: "I would hate to see us add impediments to this". What impediments did you have in mind?

I know Tony is traveling to the UK right now, so it may be a day or so before he reads this discussion....

However I still see a lot of value in the green threads implementation - mostly because it allows you to play with different scheduling policies and makes a bunch of other things easier.

So I really think that the 1-to-1 and M-to-N should be peers. Currently there is a bunch of code in the RVM that could be stripped out if we only cared about 1-to-1 thread implementations and it would simplify a bunch of code. However I hope that does not occur.

The whole "we'll build a M-to-N on top of the 1-to-1" seems very unlikely to me but if someone wants to try it then more power to them

As to what I consider an impediment - that would be removing some of the functionality already present to support M-to-N. I also think trying to base a M-to-N off a 1-to-1 would have similar effect but willing to hold judgement

Anyhoo - I am no longer using any of that code so I can't really commit to helping so I should just STFU

Anyhoo to save myself from making entirely useless comments. In answer to Ians answer "Could we describe where/how the thread system is conflated?"

I would say the most obvious thing (that Steve has already pointed out) is "stack management". there is nothing stopping us having multiple different stack management policies in either native or green thread implementations.

• IIRC we currently just allocate one huge byte array. This is bad as it exhausts LOS with mostly unused chunks and ends up seriously hampering scalability. Last tme I checked we maxed at 130ish threads due to this.

• Another strategy (employed by most OSes) is to reserve one huge range of addresses and commit memory only when it is required. Still exhausts address space on 32-bit platforms but at least does not exhaust memory as badly. Default configurations on some OSes can limit the number of threads to around 500ish on some platforms.

• Another strategy is what Steve referred to as cactus stacks (though I have seen it referred to as linked stacks). This is essentially allocating a small block of memory when start the thread. Before invoking a method you check if there is enough space left and allocate a new block, adjust the sp and call new method. The size of the block can be as small as a single activation frame or much larger. (My feeling is that a block that == page is the sweet spot for web server and similar apps). Usually each block is linked to the the next and or previous block in the chain. There has been lots of interesting work on this. Adaptively tuning the block size, when to grow and shrink and when to elide size checks (ie statically proving that an invocation does not more than available)

• Other things to consider is how to manage calls into native stacks and out of stacks. Our current model does not differentiate as it does not need to but if we were to adopt cactus/linked stacks model then there is the possibility of separating the two (ie use reserve+commit for calls inside native code while cactus for java code)

Thats just one thing I would consider a "conflation" but I could also say similar things about the way we manage synchronisation primitives. I would have to look at the code again but I remember thinking that there is some TLC needed there.

I don't agree with the need for 2 projects. A native threading implementation by design just calls through to the OS to handle threading issues. It is considerably simpler than a green threading implementation that manages all its own data structures. A problem in our current model is that we have a VM_Processor and VM_Thread distinction that is possibly heavier than we'd want in a finely tuned native threading implementation. I'd suggest a first instance native implementation just lives with this and implements the native system calls and handles the problem that currently the number of VM_Processors is limited. We can then work on refining the abstraction to be as good as possible for all. I see the finding this best fit a significant challenge. A problem is also the current memory manager interface and OSR code directly manipulate bits of the green thread code, this should be abstracted into the threading interface. Btw: I hope its not been a secret that I want the native threading done this way, it is described in Rahul's dissertation [1] and the native stub that is present in the code base is supposed to allude to this. I've also discussed this with Tony by e-mail.

Steve, I've had a number of conversations with lots of different people about the desire to have a cactus stack implementation for the RVM. I imagine your code has bit-rotted. Is there any chance you can post this code onto the issue/patch tracker so that it may serve as an example for other people wishing to undertake cactus stack (and similar) work for the RVM?

One last point is on the use of the word conflated, what I hope is that when people see a problem they can describe it in such a way others can really appreciate it - give an example, rather than leave it to guess work. I think Peter has done a good job of interpreting what the word probably meant in the context of the thread system comments. If everything is out in the open then when a change is made everyones design goals can be taken into consideration. If they cannot be taken into consideration then the person making the change can say why on the tracker they did it differently. If it comes to it, JIRA has a voting mechanism where people can give their feedback on the different choices that can be made.

[1] ftp://ftp.cs.man.ac.uk/pub/apt/theses/RahulMehta_MSc.pdf

1. The design challenge of producing a modular threading system. Ian is particularly involved on this.
2. The engineering challenge of producing a proof-of-concept 1:1 threading implementation. Tony would like to see this.

IMHO these immediate objectives are absolutely not in conflict, and both are meaningful.

The first is a design and software engineering challenge. My experience of this is that it is generally iterative, and always informed by implementation experience. My experience has also been that these changes have typically been implementation-driven, by which I mean someone has built something which breaks abstractions and causes a major re-think (either the implementation is re-thought or the abstractions are rethought, or often, both).

The second is a straightforward engineering challenge. We don't have 1:1 working now. Many of us have ideas of what's in the way, but a lot of the issues are a matter of guesswork and conjecture until we have a bare-bones system up and running which we can measure. So does an extra indirection cost us lots? Build it and measure it. Are our data structures in appropriate? Probably, but experiment with some alternatives in a prototype before making big decisions. etc. etc.

So I would hope that we can all see sense in having both objectives carry on harmoniously, in parallel with each other, and that each might be informed of the other.

Remember again, that the context in which this current discussion started was the SoC projects, which are by necessity short-to-medium term objectives and therefore relatively modest in scope. So those projects are not talking about (much less, defining) the grand future of Jikes RVM's threading model, but they are (should be) projects some good students could productively engage in which can take us to where we want to be a little way down the track.

One tactically sensible model for getting to a solid 1:1 threading implementation is via a prototype within which discussions of performance and modularity can be concretely evaluated. Whether or not that code per se ever makes is way into the head is immaterial so long as it helps us move quickly and pragmatically toward a working implementation that is in the head. IMHO it is an important tactical/emotional leap to be able to develop code and not be precious about it, be prepared to see it ultimately as a platform upon something better emerges. I think this is the model Tony et al are proposing for the 1:1 SoC work---a solid working prototype.

What I want is to see the assertions that there will be some inherent advantages to the new API backed up by some real examples. Its easy to criticize what exists - the code is there as well as part of a write-up. Without any specific example of what will be achieved by reinventing the wheel I see little point in supporting a course of action to do it.

Yes, having an implementation agnostic interface is an excellent objective and no one is saying otherwise. The 1:1 threading work is independent and complementary to this objective. It is not intended to speed up this objective and indeed does not address that objective at all. These are essentially independent goals, which is the reason for suggesting two separate projects.

The 1:1 project is not an attack or critique of what you've done. It is not addressing the issue of API, it is a proof-of-concept prototype, pure and simple. Whether or not the current API is a good one is something we can all discuss separately, but that is an entirely different matter to the one at hand: identifying SoC projects.

To re iterate, I see two SoC projects right now, which are well matched to two enthusiastic and capable students:

1. Modular threading. This project is a design project and a software engineering project and follows on from Rahul's MSc work. Ian is the obvious mentor, and as I understand it there is a good student in the offing.

2. 1:1 threading. This project is an implementation project and will simply develop a rough-cut implementation of 1:1 threading, identifying the Jikes RVM specific problems that stand in the way, and allow some implementation alternatives to be empirically evaluated.

I really don't see any reason why you should have concerns, Ian. The 1:1 project is not an attack on your API---the API simply doesn't figure in the project at all. Nonetheless outcomes should help us all develop a great modular implementation (by providing a platform for empirical evaluation of alternatives and tradeoffs eg: "Does having an indirection here slow down green threads or 1:1?", or "What is the actual cost of this data structure, etc etc").

We have two motivated and experienced students. I hope we all feel happy to let the rip ahead and do some exciting work on these two non-conflicting but complimentary projects.

I think it's critical for us to understand how to make all of those subsystems work well in a 1-1 threading implementation so we can understand what new abstractions need to be added to the threading API so we can get modular threading that supports native threading and more esoteric models well.