[swift-dev] Questions about ARC
jray319 at gmail.com
Thu Dec 1 18:55:24 CST 2016
Thanks for the explanation.
One last question is why non-atomic ARC operations still use atomic load
and store. Wouldn't regular memory operations be enough?
On Thu, Dec 1, 2016 at 11:46 AM Roman Levenstein <rlevenstein at apple.com>
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 9:40 PM, Jiho Choi <jray319 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for providing the pointer.
> Do you have any preliminary result or goal (e.g. the replacement ratio) of
> the optimization?
> Is it going to replace all ARC operations with non-atomic ones for
> single-threaded applications?
> In the ideal world, it would be nice to replace all ARC operations with
> non-atomic ones for single-threaded applications.
> But in reality, it is way more difficult as it may seem at the first
> If this needs to happen without any hints from the developer, just by
> means of a static analysis of a program, then it is rather difficult. The
> main problem is that the compiler needs to reason whether a given reference
> may escape to another thread. For references created inside a function, we
> have rather good chances to figure out if a reference escapes the thread.
> But if the origin (i.e. how it was created or if it has escaped before) of
> a given reference is unknown, which is a typical case with function
> parameters or references inside class instances, then the compiler has to
> assume that any such reference has escaped its original thread and thus it
> needs to use atomic ARC-operations. Some sort of a global,
> whole-module/whole-program analysis may help here somewhat. But even if we
> would introduce such kind of analysis, it is likely to remain a problem for
> dynamic libraries and frameworks, because they don’t know and cannot reason
> which parameters required by their exposed APIs escaped in the user-code.
> Alternatively , a developer could provide a hint and assure that compiler
> that the app is single-threaded. One simple possibility could be to have a
> special -single-threaded compiler option, which would basically claim that
> the app being developed is single threaded and thus there is no need for
> performing the atomic ARC operations. In this case, all ARC operations
> would be marked non-atomic by default in the code emitted from the
> user-code. The problem with this option could be that if a user app starts
> multiple threads directly or indirectly (e.g. it calls a library API, which
> starts a new thread), even though the option claimed the app would not do
> it, and some references will be shared between threads, then the execution
> of such an app may become unpredictable and end up with hard to find
> crashes. Mixing object files and libraries where a subset is compiled with
> this option and another part without is another receipt for a disaster. So,
> one would need to be extremely cautious when using this option.
> There could be also something in between, where one would use special
> attributes indicating something related to thread-safety of a given
> reference/type/function/etc. These hints could help a compiler to reason
> about references and check if they may escape to a different thread.
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 8:50 PM Roman Levenstein <rlevenstein at apple.com>
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 6:25 PM, Jiho Choi via swift-dev <swift-dev at swift.org>
> Thanks for clarifications. I have a couple of follow-up questions.
> 1. Could you please provide more information (e.g. source code location)
> about the optimization applying non-atomic reference counting? What's the
> scope of the optimization? Is it method-based?
> The optimization itself is not merged yet. But all the required machinery,
> e.g. non-atomic versions of the ARC operations, special non-atomic flag on
> SIL instructions, etc is in place already.
> As for the prototype implementation, you can find it here, on my local
> 2. Looking at the source code, I assume Swift implements immediate
> reference counting (i.e. immediate reclamation of dead objects) without
> requiring explicit garbage collection phase for techniques, such as
> deferred reference counting or coalescing multiple updates. Is it right?
> If so, is there any plan to implement such techniques?
> Yes. It is a correct understanding.
> Different extensions like deferred reference counting were discussed, but
> there are no short-term plans to implement it anytime soon.
> On Wed, Nov 30, 2016 at 11:41 AM John McCall <rjmccall at apple.com> wrote:
> On Nov 30, 2016, at 8:33 AM, Jiho Choi via swift-dev <swift-dev at swift.org>
> I am new to Swift, and I have several questions about how ARC works in
> 1. I read from one of the previous discussions in the swift-evolution list
> that ARC operations are currently not atomic as Swift has no memory model
> and concurrency model. Does it mean that the compiler generates non-atomic
> instructions for updating reference counts (e.g. using incrementNonAtomic()
> instead of increment() in RefCount.h)?
> No. We have the ability to do non-atomic reference counting as an
> optimization, but we only trigger it when we can prove that an object
> hasn't escaped yet. Therefore, at the user level, retain counts are atomic.
> Swift ARC is non-atomic in the sense that a read/write or write/write race
> on an individual property/variable/whatever has undefined behavior and can
> lead to crashes or leaks. This differs from Objective-C ARC only in that a
> (synthesized) atomic strong or weak property in Objective-C does promise
> correctness even in the face of race conditions. But this guarantee is not
> worth much in practice because a failure to adequately synchronize accesses
> to a class's instance variables is likely to have all sorts of other
> unpleasant effects, and it is quite expensive, so we decided not to make it
> in Swift.
> 2. If not, when does it use non-atomic ARC operations? Is there an
> optimization pass to recognize local objects?
> 3. Without the concurrency model in the language, if not using GCD (e.g.
> all Swift benchmark applications), I assume Swift applications are
> single-threaded. Then, I think we can safely use non-atomic ARC
> operations. Am I right?
> When we say that we don't have a concurrency model, we mean that (1) we
> aren't providing a more complete language solution than the options
> available to C programmers and (2) like C pre-C11/C++11, we have not yet
> formalized a memory model for concurrency that provides formal guarantees
> about what accesses are guaranteed to not conflict if they do race. (For
> example, we are unlikely to guarantee that accesses to different properties
> of a struct can occur in parallel, but we may choose to make that guarantee
> for different properties of a class.)
> 4. Lastly, is there a way to measure the overhead of ARC (e.g. a compiler
> flag to disable ARC)?
> No, because ARC is generally necessary for correctness.
> swift-dev mailing list
> swift-dev at swift.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the swift-dev