Parallel Conversations

I have been tinkering with words of late. I’ve added ‘waitFor’, ‘when’ and ‘whenever’ to the TINN lexicon, and my programming is becoming easier, more organized, and easier to describe.

Recently I added another set of words: ‘waitSignal’, ‘signalOne’, and ‘signalAll’. If you were using another system, you might call these ‘events’, but really they’re just signaling.

Here’s how I might use them:

local Application = require("Application")(true)

local function waiter(num)
  num = num or 0

  local function closure()
    print(string.format("WAITED: %d",num))

  return closure;

local function main()

  for i=1,4 do
    onSignal(waiter(i), "waiting")

  -- signal only one of them

  -- sleep a bit giving other tasks
  -- a chance to run

  -- signal the rest of them	
  print("SLEEP AFTER signalAll")


First, it spawns 4 tasks which will all be waiting on the ‘waiting’ signal. With ‘signalOne’, only 1 of the 4 waiting tasks will be awakened and continue execution. With the ‘signalAll’, the rest of the waiting tasks are all scheduled to run, and thus continue from where they left of.

The core primitive for signaling is the ‘waitSignal()’ function. This will essentially suspend the currently running task until the specified signal has been given. The ‘onSignal()’ function is a convenience which will spawn a separate task which will do the waiting and execute the specified function at the appropriate time.

If you were using another language, these might be ‘onEvent()’ and ’emit()’. Of course it’s really easy to code up that way, just create a name alias to whatever you like. You could even do:

local function on(eventName, func)
  return onSignal(func, eventName)

So, these are some more words that are in the parallel programming arsenal. In totality, the set is:

Time related

  • sleep
  • delay
  • periodic


  • waitFor
  • when
  • whenever


  • onSignal
  • signalOne
  • signalAll
  • waitSignal

Task and scheduler

  • run
  • stop
  • spawn
  • yield

With these words in hand, doing my multi-task programming is becoming easier by the moment. I don’t worry about the lower level multi-tasking primitive such as mutexes, locks, and the like. I’m not really that concerned with timers, thread pools, or any of the other machinery that makes this all happen. I just write my simple code.

One thing has struck me though. This is all great for a single threaded environment. Basically collaborative multi-tasking. In this age of super fast CPUs, it turns out that going single threaded is just fine. In many cases it’s actually better than going preemptive multi-threaded because you don’t necessarily incur as much OS thread level context switching.

I’d like to go one step further though. A long time ago we didn’t have L1/L2 caches on the CPUs, then they came along, got better, and now are fairly large. As a programmer, my concern for them is fairly minimal. I don’t do much to ensure that the caches are used properly. I just write my code, and either the compiler, or the CPU itself deals with all the mechanics. Same goes with prefetching instructions and the like. I don’t write my code to make that job any easier, it just happens automagically.

Here I am contemplating the same thing about threads. As my CPU has increasingly more cores, I am wondering if the CPU cycles should be viewed the same as we viewed levels of memory in the past. Is the a C1/C2 level of core execution. That is, most things should stay on the same thread because switching to a different core is costly. Something very low level should decide on when that switching occurs.

My application/runtime can know a lot about what I’m going to do because the thing is all laid out in script. After some analysis, perhaps I can decide “this thing is going to sleep for more than 500 ms, therefore I’m going to actually put it over here on this other thread which is actually sleeping.”. In that way, I can reduce my resource usage because I won’t be polling the timer every time through the scheduling loop, I can be smarter.

If I had such smartness, then when I have 16 – 100 cores, I’ll be able to easily take advantage of those multiple cores without having to truly understand and navigate that madness on my own. Let the machine figure it out, it’s much better at that than I am.

In the meanwhile, I’ve got these multi-tasking primitives which are making my life a lot easier when it comes to programming fairly complex systems.


One Comment on “Parallel Conversations”

  1. […] A ran quite a long series on the buildup of the TINN scheduler, including this gem on the primitives included in the application model: Parallel Conversations […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s