Summary: Continuations are confusing. Here we solve a simple problem (that is at the heart of the Shake build system) using continuations.
Imagine we are given two IO a computations, and want to run them both to completion, returning the first a value as soon as it is produced (let's ignore exceptions). Writing that in Haskell isn't too hard:
parallel :: IO a -> IO a -> IO a
parallel t1 t2 = do
once <- newOnce
var <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO $ t1 >>= once . putMVar var
forkIO $ t2 >>= once . putMVar var
readMVar var
We create an empty variable var with newEmptyMVar, fire off two threads with forkIO to run the computations which write their results to var, and finish by reading as soon as a value is available with readMVar. We use a utility newOnce to ensure that only one of the threads calls putMVar, defined as:
newOnce :: IO (IO () -> IO ())
newOnce = do
run <- newMVar True
return $ \act -> do
b <- modifyMVar run $ \b -> return (False, b)
when b act
Calling newOnce produces a function that given an action will either run it (the first time) or ignore it (every time after). Using newOnce we only call putMVar for the first thread to complete.
This solution works, and Shake does something roughly equivalent (but much more complex) in it's main scheduler. However, this solution has a drawback - it uses two additional threads. Can we use only one additional thread?
For the problem above, running the computations to completion without retrying, you can't avoid two additional threads. To use only one additional thread and run in parallel you must run one of the operations on the calling thread - but if whatever you run on the additional thread finishes first, there's no way to move the other computation off the the calling thread and return immediately. However, we can define:
type C a = (a -> IO ()) -> IO ()
Comparing IO a to C a, instead of returning an a, we get given a function to pass the a to (known as a continuation). We still "give back" the a, but not as a return value, instead we pass it onwards to a function. We assume that the continuation is called exactly once. We can define parallel on C:
parallel :: C a -> C a -> C a
parallel t1 t2 k = do
once <- newOnce
forkIO $ t1 (once . k)
t2 (once . k)
This definition takes the two computations to run (t1 and t2), plus the continuation k. We fork a separate thread to run t1, but run t2 on the calling thread, using only one additional thread. While the parallel function won't return until after t2 completes, subsequent processing using the a value will continue as soon as either finishes.
Looking at the transformers package, we see Control.Monad.Trans.Cont contains ContT, which is defined as:
newtype ContT r m a = ContT {runContT :: (a -> m r) -> m r}
If we use r for () and IO for m then we get the same type as C. We can redefine C as:
type C a = ContT () IO a
The changes to parallel just involve wrapping with ContT and unwrapping with runContT:
parallel :: C a -> C a -> C a
parallel t1 t2 = ContT $ \k -> do
once <- newOnce
forkIO $ runContT t1 (once . k)
runContT t2 (once . k)
Now we've defined our parallel function in terms of C, it is useful to convert between C and IO:
toC :: IO a -> C a
toC = liftIO
fromC :: C a -> IO a
fromC c = do
var <- newEmptyMVar
forkIO $ runContT c $ putMVar var
readMVar var
The toC function is already defined by ContT as liftIO. The fromC function needs to change from calling a callback on any thread, to returning a value on this thread, which we can do with a forkIO and MVar. Given parallel on IO takes two additional threads, and parallel on C takes only one, it's not too surprising that converting IO to C requires an additional thread.
Aren't threads cheap?
Threads in Haskell are very cheap, and many people won't care about one additional thread. However, each thread comes with a stack, which takes memory. The stack starts off small (1Kb) and grows/shrinks in 32Kb chunks, but if it ever exceeds 1Kb, it never goes below 32Kb. For certain tasks (e.g. Shake build rules) often some operation will take a little over 1Kb in stack. Since each active rule (started but not finished) needs to maintain a stack, and for huge build systems there can be 30K active rules, you can get over 1Gb of stack memory. While stacks and threads are cheap, they aren't free.
The plan for Shake
Shake currently has one thread per active rule, and blocks that thread until all dependencies have rebuilt. The plan is to switch to continuations and only have one thread per rule executing in parallel. This change will not require any code changes to Shake-based build systems, hopefully just reduce memory usage. Until then, huge build systems may wish to pass +RTS -kc8K, which can save several 100Mb of memory.