-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 52
Make Ctx be Send + Sync so Cranelift and Wasmtime can reuse it
#263
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Hmm, I have quite mixed feelings about this: if I'm reading it right, it's asserting statements that regalloc2 cannot guarantee ("a
Ctxis created, mutated, and dropped by a single thread at a time") and are properties ensured only by the user/embedder of the library, so would necessarily imply the main regalloc2 entry points that takeCtxbecomeunsafe. I don't like that both on principle and because it seems like a somewhat not-unlikely footgun: if we ever break up compilation into smaller units of work and use a thread pool, for example, we suddenly have hidden invariants about pieces of the Cranelift+regalloc2 context and thread-locality that are no longer enforced by the type system. I pretty strongly don't want the Cranelift-to-regalloc2 API to be fundamentally unsafe.Would it be possible to create a
Bumpvariant that internally uses anArcinstead?(Or am I misunderstanding how the invariants work here?)
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
OK, talked to Nick about this offline and realized that
Ctxitself is still safe at the regalloc2 API boundary; the unsafety is purely in the knowledge thatRcis morally "Sendif everything is ported over to another thread in one unit" (i.e., we don't have a trait to talk about move-the-whole-graph vs. move-this-one-object, soRcand similar types with thread-unsafe bookkeeping ban moving any piece at all). In effectCtxencapsulates the innerRcand everything that could share with it (other cloned copies of theBumpinside containers or whatever) so movingCtx's ownership across threads is safe.So, no objection and this seems reasonable!