I have a script that uses quicklisp to load zs3 for accessing Amazon's S3.
When I run the script with clisp, when (zs3:bucket-exists-p "Test") is run, USOCKET:TIMEOUT-ERROR occurs.
However, when I run it with sbcl, it runs properly.
Do they access usocket differently?
What are the pros and cons of each?
usocket is a compatibility layer which hides the underlying socket API of each Lisp implementation. There is bound to be an impedance mismatch in some cases, but for the most part it should just work.
I suspect zs3 is not often used with CLISP (or perhaps not at all!), and you're seeing the result of that. On the other hand one can generally expect libraries to be well-tested under SBCL since that is the most popular implementation.
Note also that threads are still experimental in CLISP; they are not enabled by default. The fact that sockets are often mixed with threads only decreases the relative use of CLISP + usocket.
Related
I'm working on a very demanding project (actually an interpreter), exclusively written in D, and I'm wondering what type of optimizations would generally be recommended. The project makes heavy use of GC, classes, asssociative arrays, and pretty much anything.
Regarding compilation, I've already experimented both with DMD and LDC flags and LDC with -flto=full -O3 -Os -boundscheck=off seems to be making a difference.
However, as rudimentary as this may sound, I would like you to suggest anything that comes to your mind that could help speed up the performance, related or not to the D language. (I'm sure I'm missing several things).
Compiler flags: I would add -mcpu=native if the program will be running on your machine. Not sure what effect -Os has in addition to -O3.
Profiling has been mentioned in comments. Personally under Linux I have a script which dumps a process's stack trace and I do that a few times to get an idea of where it's getting hung up on.
Not sure what you mean by GS.
Since you mentioned classes: in D, methods are virtual by default; virtual methods add indirections and are not inlineable. Make sure only those methods that must be virtual are. See if you can rewrite your program using a form of polymorphism that doesn't involve indirections, such as using template metaprogramming.
Since you mentioned associative arrays: these make heavy use of the GC; to speed them up, switch to a third-party library that works on top of std.allocator, such as https://github.com/dlang-community/containers
If some parts of your code are parallelizable, std.parallelism is a good tool for this.
Since you mentioned that the project is an interpreter: there are many avenues for optimizing them, up to JIT/AOT compilation. Perhaps you could link to an existing library such as LLVM or libjit.
I am hacking OpenJDK7 to implement an algorithm. In the process of doing this, I need to output debug information to the stdout. As I can see in the code base, all printings are done by using outputStream*->print_cr(). I wonder why printf() was not used at all?
Part of the reasons why I'm asking this because I in fact used a lot of printf() calls. And I have been seeing weird bugs such as random memory corruption and random JVM crashing. Is there any chance that my printf() is the root cause? (Assume that the logic of my code is bug-free of course)
why printf() was not used at all?
Instead of using stdio directly, HotSpot utilizes its own printing and logging framework. This extra abstraction layer provides the following benefits:
Allows printing not only to stdout but to an arbitrary stream. Different JVM parts may log to separate streams (e.g. a dedicated stream for GC logs).
Has its own implementation of formatting and buffering that does not allocate memory or use global locks.
Gives control over all output emitted by JVM. For example, all output can be easily supplemented with timestamps.
Facilitates porting to different platforms and environments.
The framework is further improved in JDK 9 to support JEP 158: Unified JVM Logging.
Is there any chance that my printf() is the root cause?
No, unless printf is misused: e.g. arguments do not match format specifiers, or printf is called inside a signal handler. Otherwise it is safe to use printf for debugging. I did so many times when worked on HotSpot.
I am evaluating different multiprocessing libraries for a fault tolerant application. I basically need any process to be allowed to crash without stopping the whole application.
I can do it using the fork() system call. The limit here is that the process can be created on the same machine, only.
Can I do the same with MPI? If a process created with MPI crashes, can the parent process keep running and eventually create a new process?
Is there any alternative (possibly multiplatform and open source) library to get the same result?
As reported here, MPI 4.0 will have support for fault tolerance.
If you want collectives, you're going to have to wait for MPI-3.something (as High Performance Mark and Hristo Illev suggest)
If you can live with point-to-point, and you are a patient person willing to raise a bunch of bug reports against your MPI implementation, you can try the following:
disable the default MPI error handler
carefully check every single return code from your MPI programs
keep track in your application which ranks are up and which are down. Oh, and when they go down they can never get back. but you're unable to use collectives anyway (see my opening statement), so that's not a huge deal, right?
Here's an old paper (back when Bill still worked at Argonne. I think it's from 2003):
http://www.mcs.anl.gov/~lusk/papers/fault-tolerance.pdf . It lays out the kinds of fault tolerant things one can do in MPI. Perhaps such a "constrained MPI" might still work for your needs.
If you're willing to go for something research quality, there's two implementations of a potential fault tolerance chapter for a future version of MPI (MPI-4?). The proposal is called User Level Failure Mitigation. There's an experimental version in MPICH 3.2a2 and a branch of Open MPI that also provides the interfaces. Both are far from production quality, but you're welcome to try them out. Just know that since this isn't in the MPI Standard, the function prefixes are not MPI_*. For MPICH, they're MPIX_*, for the Open MPI branch, they're OMPI_* (though I believe they'll be changing theirs to be MPIX_* soon as well.
As Rob Latham mentioned, there will be lots of work you'll need to do within your app to handle failures, though you don't necessarily have to check all of your return codes. You can/should use MPI error handlers as a callback function to simplify things. There's information/examples in the spec available along with the Open MPI branch.
I read about Just-in-time compilation (JIT) and as I understood, there are two approaches for this – Interpreter and JIT, both of which interpreting the bytecode at runtime.
Why not just preparatively interprete all the bytecode to machine code, and only then start to run the process with no more need for interpreter?
Another reason for late JIT compiling has to do with optimization: At run-time the VM can detect more/other patterns it may optimize than the compiler could ever do at compile-time. JIT pre-compiling at startup will always have to be static, and the same could have been done by the compiler already, but through analysis of the actual run-time behaviour the VM may have more information on possible optimizations and may therefore produce better optimization results.
For example, the VM can detect that a single piece of code is actually run a million times at run-time and perform appropriate optimizations which the compiler may have no information about, not unlike the branch prediction that's done at runtime in modern CPUs.
More information can be found in the Wikipedia article on "Adaptive optimization".
Simple: Because it takes time to precompile everything to machine code. And users don't want to wait on the application to start. Remember, the precompilation would have to make a lot of optimizations which takes time.
The server version of JVM is more aggressive in precompiling and optimizing code upfront because code on the server side tends to be executed more often and for a longer period of time before the process is shutdown.
However, a solution (for .Net) is an application called NGen which make the precompilation upfront such that it isn't needed after that point. You only have to run that once.
Not all VM's include an interpreter. For instance Chrome and CLR (.Net) always compiles to machine code before running. However, they have multiple levels of optimizations to reduce the startup time.
I found link showing how runtime recompilation can optimize performance and save extra CPU cycles.
Inlining expansion: To decrease the cost of procedure calls.
Removing redundant loads: When 2 compiled code results in some duplicate code then it can be removed and further optimised by recompilation at run time.
Copy propagation
Eliminating dead code
Here is another link for the same explanation given above.
I'm working on a project which will entail multiple devices, each with an embedded (ARM) processor, communicating. One development approach which I have found useful in the past with projects that only entailed a single embedded processor was develop the code using Visual Studio, divided into three portions:
Main application code (in unmanaged C/C++ [see note])
I/O-simulating code (C/C++) that runs under Visual Studio
Embedded I/O code (C), which Visual Studio is instructed not to build, runs on the target system. Previously this code was for the PIC; for most future projects I'm migrating to the ARM.
Feeding the embedded compiler/linker the code from parts 1 and 3 yields a hex file that can run on the target system. Running parts 1 and 2 together yields code which can run on the PC, with the benefit of better debugging tools and more precise control over I/O behavior (e.g. I can make the simulation code introduce certain types of random hiccups more easily than I can induce controlled hiccups on real hardware).
Target code is written in C, but the simulation environment uses C++ so as to simulate I/O registers. For example, I have a PortArray data structure; the header file for the embedded compiler includes a line like unsigned char LATA # 0xF89; and my header file for simulation includes #define LATA _IOBIT(f89,1) which in turn invokes a macro that accesses a suitable property of an I/O object, so a statement like LATA |= 4; will read the simulated latch, "or" the read value with 4, and write the new value. To make this work, the target code has to compile under C++ as well as under C, but this mostly isn't a problem. The biggest annoyance is probably with enum types (which behave as integers in C, but have to be coaxed to do so in C++).
Previously, I've used two approaches to making the simulation interactive:
Compile and link a DLL with target-application and simulation code, and have VB code in the same project which interacts with it.
Compile the target-application code and some simulation code to an EXE with instance of Visual Studio, and use a second instance of Visual Studio for the simulation-UI. Have the two programs communicate via TCP, so nearly all "real" I/O logic is in the simulation program. For example, the aforementioned `LATA |= 4;` would send a "read port 0xF89" command to the TCP port, get the response, process the received value, and send a "write port 0xF89" command with the result.
I've found the latter approach to run a tiny bit slower than the former in some cases, but it seems much more convenient for debugging, since I can suspend execution of the unmanaged simulation code while the simulation UI remains responsive. Indeed, for simulating a single target device at a time, I think the latter approach works extremely well. My question is how I should best go about simulating a plurality of target devices (e.g. 16 of them).
The difficulty I have is figuring out how to make each simulated instance get its own set of global variables. If I were to compile to an EXE and run one instance of the EXE for each simulated target device, that would work, but I don't know any practical way to maintain debugger support while doing that. Another approach would be to arrange the target code so that everything would compile as one module joined together via #include. For simulation purposes, everything could then be wrapped into a single C++ class, with global variables turning into class-instance variables. That would be a bit more object-oriented, but I really don't like the idea of forcing all the application code to live in one compiled and linked module.
What would perhaps be ideal would be if the code could load multiple instances of the DLL, each with its own set of global variables. I have no idea how to do that, however, nor do I know how to make things interact with the debugger. I don't think it's really necessary that all simulated target devices actually execute code simultaneously; it would be perfectly acceptable for simulation instances to use cooperative multitasking. If there were some way of finding out what range of memory holds the global variables, it might be possible to have the 'task-switch' method swap out all of the global variables used by the previously-running instance and swap in the contents applicable to the instance being switched in. Although I'd know how to do that in an embedded context, though, I'd have no idea how to do that on the PC.
Edit
My questions would be:
Is there any nicer way to allow simulation logic to be paused and examined in VS2010 debugger, while keeping a responsive UI for the simulator front-end, than running the simulator front end and the simulator logic in separate instances of VS2010, if the simulation logic must be written in C and the simulation front end in managed code? For example, is there a way to tell the debugger that when a breakpoint is hit, some or all other threads should be allowed to keep running while the thread that had hit the breakpoint sits paused?
If the bulk of the simulation logic must be source-code compatible with an embedded system written in C (so that the same source files can be compiled and run for simulation purposes under VS2010, and then compiled by the embedded-systems compiler for use in real hardware), is there any way to have the VS2010 debugger interact with multiple simulated instances of the embedded device? Assume performance is not likely to be an issue, but the number of instances will be large enough that creating a separate project for each instance would be likely be annoying in the absence of any way to automate the process. I can think of three somewhat-workable approaches, but don't know how to make any of them work really nicely. There's also an approach which would be better if it's possible, but I don't know how to make it work.
Wrap all the simulation code within a single C++ class, such that what would be global variables in the target system become class members. I'm leaning toward this approach, but it would seem to require everything to be compiled as a single module, which would annoyingly affect the design of the target system code. Is there any nice way to have code access class instance members as though they were globals, without requiring all functions using such instances to be members of the same module?
Compile a separate DLL for each simulated instance (so that e.g. if I want to run up to 16 instances, I would include 16 DLL's in the project, all sharing the same source files). This could work, but every change to the project configuration would have to be repeated 16 times. Really ugly.
Compile the simulation logic to an EXE, and run an appropriate number of instances of that EXE. This could work, but I don't know of any convenient way to do things like set a breakpoint common to all instances. Is it possible to have multiple running instances of an EXE attached to a single debugger instance?
Load multiple instances of a DLL in such a way that each instance gets its own global variables, while still being accessible in the debugger. This would be nicest if it were possible, but I don't know any way to do so. Is it possible? How? I've never used AppDomains, but my intuition would suggest that might be useful here.
If I use one VS2010 instance for the front-end, and another for the simulation logic, is there any way to arrange things so that starting code in one will automatically launch the code in the other?
I'm not particularly committed to any single simulation approach; while it might be nice to know if there's some way of slightly improving the above, I'd also like to know of any other alternative approaches that could work even better.
I would think that you'd still have to run 16 copies of your main application code, but that your TCP-based I/O simulator could keep a different set of registers/state for each TCP connection that comes in.
Instead of a bunch of global variables, put them into a single structure that encompasses the I/O state of a single device. Either spawn off a new thread for each socket, or just keep a list of active sockets and dedicate a single instance of the state structure for each socket.
the simulators I have seen that handle multiple instances of the instruction set/processor are designed that way. There is a structure usually that contains a complete set of registers, and a new pointer or an array of these structures are used to multiply them into multiple instances of the processor.