Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Expand the documentation for the std::sync module #54078

Merged
merged 6 commits into from
Oct 6, 2018
Merged
Changes from 5 commits
Commits
File filter

Filter by extension

Filter by extension

Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
128 changes: 124 additions & 4 deletions src/libstd/sync/mod.rs
Original file line number Diff line number Diff line change
Expand Up @@ -10,10 +10,130 @@

//! Useful synchronization primitives.
//!
//! This module contains useful safe and unsafe synchronization primitives.
//! Most of the primitives in this module do not provide any sort of locking
//! and/or blocking at all, but rather provide the necessary tools to build
//! other types of concurrent primitives.
//! ## The need for synchronization
//!
//! Conceptually, a Rust program is simply a series of operations which will
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Please remove the word "simply".

//! be executed on a computer. The timeline of events happening in the program
//! is consistent with the order of the operations in the code.
//!
//! Considering the following code, operating on some global static variables:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

"Consider the following code..." (please change tense of "Considering")

//!
//! ```rust
//! static mut A: u32 = 0;
//! static mut B: u32 = 0;
//! static mut C: u32 = 0;
//!
//! fn main() {
//! unsafe {
//! A = 3;
//! B = 4;
//! A = A + B;
//! C = B;
//! println!("{} {} {}", A, B, C);
//! C = A;
//! }
//! }
//! ```
//!
//! It appears _as if_ some variables stored in memory are changed, an addition
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This emphasis seems odd; i feel like it would flow better if the emphasis was moved to "appears" or removed entirely.

//! is performed, result is stored in `A` and the variable `C` is modified twice.
//! When only a single thread is involved, the results are as expected:
//! the line `7 4 4` gets printed.
//!
//! As for what happens behind the scenes, when optimizations are enabled the
//! final generated machine code might look very different from the code:
//!
//! - The first store to `C` might be moved before the store to `A` or `B`,
//! _as if_ we had written `C = 4; A = 3; B = 4`.
//!
//! - Assignment of `A + B` to `A` might be removed, since the sum can be stored
//! in a temporary location until it gets printed, with the global variable
//! never getting updated.
//!
//! - The final result could be determined just by looking at the code at compile time,
//! so [constant folding] might turn the whole block into a simple `println!("7 4 4")`.
//!
//! The compiler is allowed to perform any combination of these optimizations, as long
//! as the final optimized code, when executed, produces the same results as the one
//! without optimizations.
//!
//! Due to the [concurrency] involved in modern computers, assumptions about
//! the program's execution order are often wrong. Access to global variables
//! can lead to nondeterministic results, **even if** compiler optimizations
//! are disabled, and it is **still possible** to introduce synchronization bugs.
//!
//! Note that thanks to Rust's safety guarantees, accessing global (static)
//! variables requires `unsafe` code, assuming we don't use any of the
//! synchronization primitives in this module.
//!
//! [constant folding]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constant_folding
//! [concurrency]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concurrency_(computer_science)
//!
//! ## Out-of-order execution
//!
//! Instructions can execute in a different order from the one we define, due to
//! various reasons:
//!
//! - **Compiler** reordering instructions: if the compiler can issue an
//! instruction at an earlier point, it will try to do so. For example, it
GabrielMajeri marked this conversation as resolved.
Show resolved Hide resolved
//! might hoist memory loads at the top of a code block, so that the CPU can
//! start [prefetching] the values from memory.
//!
//! In single-threaded scenarios, this can cause issues when writing
//! signal handlers or certain kinds of low-level code.
//! Use [compiler fences] to prevent this reordering.
//!
//! - **Single processor** executing instructions [out-of-order]: modern CPUs are
//! capable of [superscalar] execution, i.e. multiple instructions might be
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

  • A single processor executing instructions out-of-order: ...

//! executing at the same time, even though the machine code describes a
//! sequential process.
//!
//! This kind of reordering is handled transparently by the CPU.
//!
//! - **Multiprocessor** system, where multiple hardware threads run at the same time.
//! In multi-threaded scenarios, you can use two kinds of primitives to deal
//! with synchronization:
Copy link
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

The flow between these bullet points seems odd; they're using different structures. Compare the first phrase of each item:

  • Compiler reordering instructions:
  • Single processor executing instructions out-of-order:
  • Multiprocessor system, where multiple hardware threads run at the same time.

The first two items use colons to separate a title from the rest of the segment, but the last one just treats the first sentence as the summary and doesn't have a succinct title like the others.

I feel like this item would work better like this:

  • A multiprocessor system executing multiple hardware threads at the same time: In multi-threaded scenarios...

//! - [memory fences] to ensure memory accesses are made visibile to other
//! CPUs in the right order.
//! - [atomic operations] to ensure simultaneous access to the same memory
//! location doesn't lead to undefined behavior.
//!
//! [prefetching]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cache_prefetching
//! [compiler fences]: crate::sync::atomic::compiler_fence
//! [out-of-order]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Out-of-order_execution
//! [superscalar]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superscalar_processor
//! [memory fences]: crate::sync::atomic::fence
//! [atomic operations]: crate::sync::atomic
//!
//! ## Higher-level synchronization objects
//!
//! Most of the low-level synchronization primitives are quite error-prone and
//! inconvenient to use, which is why the standard library also exposes some
//! higher-level synchronization objects.
//!
//! These abstractions can be built out of lower-level primitives. For efficiency,
//! the sync objects in the standard library are usually implemented with help
//! from the operating system's kernel, which is able to reschedule the threads
//! while they are blocked on acquiring a lock.
//!
//! ## Efficiency
//!
//! Higher-level synchronization mechanisms are usually heavy-weight.
//! While most atomic operations can execute instantaneously, acquiring a
//! [`Mutex`] can involve blocking until another thread releases it.
//! For [`RwLock`], while any number of readers may acquire it without
//! blocking, each writer will have exclusive access.
//!
//! On the other hand, communication over [channels] can provide a fairly
//! high-level interface without sacrificing performance, at the cost of
//! somewhat more memory.
//!
//! The more synchronization exists between CPUs, the smaller the performance
//! gains from multithreading will be.
//!
//! [`Mutex`]: crate::sync::Mutex
//! [`RwLock`]: crate::sync::RwLock
//! [channels]: crate::sync::mpsc

#![stable(feature = "rust1", since = "1.0.0")]

Expand Down