[Vm-dev] Unix heartbeat thread vs itimer

Petr Fischer petr.fischer at me.com
Tue Mar 14 13:38:58 UTC 2017

> Hi Fabio, Hi Guille,
> On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 9:44 AM, Fabio Niephaus <lists at fniephaus.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Jan 6, 2017 at 6:33 PM Eliot Miranda <eliot.miranda at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> Hi Guille,
> >>
> >> > On Jan 6, 2017, at 6:44 AM, Guillermo Polito <guillermopolito at gmail.com>
> >> wrote:
> >> >
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > I was checking the code in sqUnixHeartbeat.c to see how the heartbeat
> >> thread/itimer worked. It somehow bothers me that there are different
> >> compiled artifacts, one per option.
> >> >
> >> > What do you think about having a VM that manages that as an argument
> >> provided when we launch the VM? This would add some flexibility that we
> >> don't have right now because we make the decision at compile time.
> >>
> >> I think it's a fine idea but it isn't really the issue.  The issue is
> >> that the itimer mechanism is problematic, especially for foreign code, and
> >> is therefore a stop gap.  The itimer interrupts long-running system calls,
> >> which means that things like sound libraries break (at Qwaq I had to fix
> >> ALSA to get it to work with the itimer heartbeat).  Since Pharo is becoming
> >> more reliant on external code it may impact us more going forward.
> >>
> >> The real issue is that linux's requirement that thread priorities be set
> >> in per-application file in /etc/security/limits.d (IIRC) is a big.  Neither
> >> Windows nor Mac OS X requires such nonsense, and a threaded heartbeat is
> >> used on those systems without any issue at all.  Why linux erected this
> >> mess in the first place is something I don't understand.
> >>
> >> I had to implement the itimer heartbeat to get Qwaq forums running on
> >> Linux running pre 2.6 kernels, but had many other problems to solve as a
> >> result (ALSA, database connects).
> >>
> >> Were it that the vm merely had to detect whether it could use the
> >> threaded heartbeat then things would be easy.  Instead one can only use the
> >> thing if one has superuser permissions to install a file in /etc, just to
> >> use a thread of higher priority than the main one.
> >>
> >
> > Thanks for the explanation, Eliot. I had no idea how bad the issues are
> > with the itimer, but I'm glad you also see the user-facing issue with the
> > heartbeat.
> >
> >
> >> An alternative might be to lower the priority of the main thread.  Then
> >> the file installation would be unnecessary.
> >>
> >
> > Could you elaborate a little bit more on this idea? How could this impact
> > the vm? What could be the drawbacks here?
> >
> First of all, for the heartbeat thread to work reliably it must run at
> higher priority than the thread running Smalltalk code.  This is because
> its job is to cause Smalltalk code to break out at regular intervals to
> check for events.  If the Smalltalk code is compute-intensive then it will
> prevent the heartbeat thread from running unless the heartbeat thread is
> running at a higher priority, and so it will be impossible to receive input
> keys, etc. (Note that if event collection was in a separate thread it would
> suffer the same issue; compute intensive code would block the event
> collection thread unless it was running at higher priority).
> Right now, Linux restricts creating threads with priority higher than the
> default to those programs that have a /etc/security/limits.d/program.conf
> file that specifies the highest priority thread the program can create.
> And prior to the 2.6.12 kernel only superuser processes could create
> higher-priority threads.  I do know that prior to 2.6.12 one couldn't
> create threads of *lower* priority than the default either (I would have
> used this if I could).
> If 2.6.12 allows a program to create threads with lower priorities
> *without* needing a /etc/security/limits.d/program.conf, or more
> conveniently to allow a thread's priority to be lowered, then the idea is:
> 1. at start-up create a heartbeat thread at the normal priority
> 2. lower the priority of the main VM thread below the heartbeat thread.
> Alternatively, one could spawn a new lower-priority thread to run Smalltalk
> code, but this may be be much more work.
> The draw-back is that running Smalltalk in a thread whose priority is lower
> than the default *might* impact performance with lots of other processes
> running.  This depends on whether the scheduler conflates thread priorities
> with process priorities (which was the default with old linux threads,
> which were akin to processes).

If VM will have option for --heartbeat vs --itimer, can be this heartbeat thread priorities as option too?

There is not only problems with older Linux kernels, there is also problems with Docker (some complaints in this thread) and also FreeBSD - VM needs to be run as root (due to higher thread priorities), which is unusable in real world (security).

> Sop there are some tests to perform:
> a) see if one can lower the priority of a thread without having a
> /etc/security/limits.d/program.conf in place
> b) write a simple performance test (nfib?) in a program that can be run
> either with its thread having normal or lower priority, and run two
> instances of the program at the same time and see if they take
> significantly different times to compute their result
> If a) is possible and b) shows no significant difference in the wall-times
> of the two programs then we can modify the linux heartbeat code to *lower*
> the priority of the main Smalltalk thread if it finds it can't create a
> heartbeat thread with higher priority.
> I hope this answers your questions.
> As a footnote let me describe why we use a heartbeat at all.  When I
> started working on the VisualWorks VM (HPS) in the '90s it had no heartbeat
> (IIRC, it might have only been the Windows VM that worked like this).
> Instead there was a counter decremented in every frame-building send (i.e.
> in the jitted machine code that activated a Smalltalk send), and when this
> counter went to zero the VM broke out and checked for events.  This counter
> was initialized to 256 (IIRC).  Consequently there was an enormous
> frequency of event checks, until, that is, ione did something that reduced
> the frequency of frame-building sends.  One day I was doing something which
> invoked lots of long-running large integer primitives and I noticed that
> when I tried to interrupt the program it took many seconds before the
> system stopped.  What was happening was that the large integer primitives
> were taking so long that the counter took many seconds to count down to 0.
> The system didn't check for events very often.  So the problems with a
> counter are that
> a) a read-modify-write cycle for a counter is in itself very expensive in a
> high-frequency operation like building a frame
> b) in normal operation the counter causes far too many check-fore-event
> calls
> c) in abnormal operation the counter causes infrequent check-fore-event
> calls
> One solution on Unix is an interval timer (which my old BrouHaHa VMs used,
> but it did;t have much of an FFI so the problems it caused weren't
> pressing).
> The natural solution is a heartbeat thread, and this is used in a number of
> VMs.  One gets a regular event check frequency at very low cost.  In
> Smalltalk VMs which do context-to-stack mapping it is natural to organize
> the stack as a set of pages and hence to have frame building sends check a
> stack limit (guarding the end of the page).  The heartbeat simply sets the
> stack limit to the highest possible address to cause a stack limit check
> failure on the next send, and the stack check failure code checks if the
> stack limit has been set to the highest dress and calls the event check
> instead of handling the stack page overflow.  In the HotSpot Java VM, if
> the platform supports it, a frame building send writes a byte to a guard
> page.  Modern professors have write buffers so the write has very low cost
> (because it is never read) and is effectively free.  So the heartbeat
> changes the guard page's permissions to take away write permission and
> cause an exception.  The exception handler then checks and causes the VM to
> check for events.  For this to work, all of writes, removing and setting
> page write permissions and handling exceptions must be sufficiently cheap.
> Anyone looking for a low-level project for the Cog VM could take a look at
> this mechanism.  I've chosen to stick with the simple stack limit approach.
> Fabio
> >
> >
> >>
> >> To summarize, the itimer heartbeat is to be avoided as much as possible.
> >> It causes hard to debug issues with external code, has to be turned off and
> >> on around fork.  It's a stop gap.  Having to install a file in /etc just to
> >> be able to use a thread is insane (and AFAICT unique to linux).  Whatever
> >> you do in the short term to deal with these problems I'll support, but in
> >> the long term we simply want a threaded heartbeat without needing to
> >> install anything.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > The code in sqUnixHeartbeat.c is not a lot nor very complex, it should
> >> not be difficult to do...
> >> >
> >> > Also, what would be the drawbacks besides an increase on the vm size?
> >>
> >> I hope I've explained above that I expect the drawbacks will be
> >> intermittent failures of external code.
> >>
> >> >
> >> > Guille
> >
> >
> _,,,^..^,,,_
> best, Eliot

More information about the Vm-dev mailing list