2016-05-03 21:17:06 +03:00
|
|
|
dejafu [![Build Status][build-status]][build-log]
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
======
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-03 21:17:06 +03:00
|
|
|
[build-status]: https://travis-ci.org/barrucadu/dejafu.svg?branch=master
|
|
|
|
[build-log]: https://travis-ci.org/barrucadu/dejafu
|
|
|
|
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
> [Déjà Fu is] A martial art in which the user's limbs move in time as
|
|
|
|
> well as space, […] It is best described as "the feeling that you
|
|
|
|
> have been kicked in the head this way before"
|
|
|
|
>
|
|
|
|
> -- Terry Pratchett, Thief of Time
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Have you ever written a concurrent Haskell program and then, Heaven
|
|
|
|
forbid, wanted to *test* it? Testing concurrency is normally a hard
|
|
|
|
problem, because of the nondeterminism of scheduling: you can run your
|
|
|
|
program ten times and get ten different results if you're unlucky.
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
There is a solution! Through these libraries, you can write concurrent
|
|
|
|
programs and test them *deterministically*. By abstracting out the
|
|
|
|
actual implementation of concurrency through a typeclass, an
|
|
|
|
alternative implementation can be used for testing, allowing the
|
|
|
|
*systematic* exploration of the possible results of your program.
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2014-12-20 20:32:35 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
Table of Contents
|
|
|
|
-----------------
|
2016-06-20 23:45:34 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Packages](#packages)
|
|
|
|
- [Concurrent Programming](#getting-started)
|
|
|
|
- [Asynchronous IO](#asynchronous-io)
|
|
|
|
- [Threads and MVars](#threads-and-mvars)
|
|
|
|
- [Software Transactional Memory](#software-transactional-memory)
|
|
|
|
- [Relaxed Memory and IORefs](#relaxed-memory-and-iorefs)
|
2017-03-04 02:25:06 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Program Testing](#program-testing)
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Porting](#porting)
|
|
|
|
- [Contributing](#contributing)
|
2017-04-07 20:16:08 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Release Notes / Change Logs](#release-notes--change-logs)
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Bibliography](#bibliography)
|
2015-08-27 15:33:48 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-03 16:26:31 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
Packages
|
|
|
|
--------
|
2014-12-20 20:32:35 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
| | Version | Intended Users | Summary |
|
|
|
|
| --- | ------- | -------------- | ------- |
|
2017-08-10 23:41:20 +03:00
|
|
|
| concurrency [[docs][d:conc]] [[hackage][h:conc]] | 1.1.2.1 | Authors | Typeclasses, functions, and data types for concurrency and STM. |
|
2017-08-10 23:51:11 +03:00
|
|
|
| dejafu [[docs][d:dejafu]] [[hackage][h:dejafu]] | 0.7.1.0 | Testers | Systematic testing for Haskell concurrency. |
|
|
|
|
| hunit-dejafu [[docs][d:hunit]] [[hackage][h:hunit]] | 0.7.0.0 | Testers | Deja Fu support for the HUnit test framework. |
|
|
|
|
| tasty-dejafu [[docs][d:tasty]] [[hackage][h:tasty]] | 0.7.0.0 | Testers | Deja Fu support for the Tasty test framework. |
|
2015-10-25 19:14:00 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-07 20:16:08 +03:00
|
|
|
Each package has its own README and CHANGELOG in its subdirectory.
|
2015-10-08 23:50:52 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 18:54:45 +03:00
|
|
|
There is also dejafu-tests, the test suite for dejafu. This is in a
|
|
|
|
separate package due to Cabal being bad with test suite transitive
|
|
|
|
dependencies.
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
[d:conc]: https://docs.barrucadu.co.uk/concurrency/
|
|
|
|
[d:dejafu]: https://docs.barrucadu.co.uk/dejafu/
|
|
|
|
[d:hunit]: https://docs.barrucadu.co.uk/hunit-dejafu/
|
|
|
|
[d:tasty]: https://docs.barrucadu.co.uk/tasty-dejafu/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[h:conc]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/concurrency
|
|
|
|
[h:dejafu]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/dejafu
|
|
|
|
[h:hunit]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/hunit-dejafu
|
|
|
|
[h:tasty]: https://hackage.haskell.org/package/tasty-dejafu
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Concurrent Programming
|
|
|
|
----------------------
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You should read [Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell][parconc],
|
2017-03-04 01:06:09 +03:00
|
|
|
by Simon Marlow. It's very good, and the API of the *concurrency*
|
|
|
|
package is intentionally kept very similar to the *async*, *base*, and
|
|
|
|
*stm* packages, so all the knowledge transfers.
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[parconc]: http://chimera.labs.oreilly.com/books/1230000000929/
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Asynchronous IO
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The wonderful *[async][]* package by Simon Marlow greatly eases the
|
|
|
|
difficulty of writing programs which merely need to perform some
|
2017-03-04 01:06:09 +03:00
|
|
|
asynchronous IO. The *concurrency* package includes an almost-total
|
|
|
|
reimplementation of *async*.
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, assuming a suitable `getURL` function, to fetch the
|
|
|
|
contents of two web pages at the same time:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
withAsync (getURL url1) $ \a1 -> do
|
|
|
|
withAsync (getURL url2) $ \a2 -> do
|
|
|
|
page1 <- wait a1
|
|
|
|
page2 <- wait a2
|
|
|
|
-- ...
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `withAsync` function starts an operation in a separate thread, and
|
|
|
|
kills it if the inner action finishes before it completes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Another example, this time waiting for any of a number of web pages to
|
|
|
|
download, and cancelling the others as soon as one completes:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
let download url = do
|
|
|
|
res <- getURL url
|
|
|
|
pure (url, res)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
downloads <- mapM (async . download) urls
|
|
|
|
(url, res) <- waitAnyCancel downloads
|
|
|
|
printf "%s was first (%d bytes)\n" url (B.length res)
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `async` function starts an operation in another thread but, unlike
|
|
|
|
`withAsync` takes no inner action to execute: the programmer needs to
|
|
|
|
make sure the computation is waited for or cancelled as appropriate.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[async]: http://hackage.haskell.org/package/async
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Threads and MVars
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fundamental unit of concurrency is the thread, and the most basic
|
|
|
|
communication mechanism is the `MVar`:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
main = do
|
|
|
|
var <- newEmptyMVar
|
|
|
|
fork $ putMVar var 'x'
|
|
|
|
fork $ putMVar var 'y'
|
|
|
|
r <- takeMVar m
|
|
|
|
print r
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The `fork` function starts executing a `MonadConc` action in a
|
|
|
|
separate thread, and `takeMVar`/`putMVar` are used to communicate
|
|
|
|
values (`newEmptyMVar` just makes an `MVar` with nothing in it). This
|
|
|
|
will either print `'x'` or `'y'`, depending on which of the two
|
|
|
|
threads "wins".
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On top of the simple `MVar`, we can build more complicated concurrent
|
|
|
|
data structures, like channels. A collection of these are provided in
|
|
|
|
the *concurrency* package.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If a thread attempts to read from an `MVar` which is never written to,
|
|
|
|
or write to an `MVar` which is never read from, it blocks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Software Transactional Memory
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Software transactional memory (STM) simplifies stateful concurrent
|
|
|
|
programming by allowing complex atomic state operations. Whereas only
|
|
|
|
one `MVar` can be modified atomically at a time, any number of `TVar`s
|
|
|
|
can be. STM is normally provided by the *stm* package, but the
|
|
|
|
*concurrency* package exposes it directly.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For example, we can swap the values of two variables, and read them in
|
|
|
|
another thread:
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
main = do
|
|
|
|
var1 <- newTVar 'x'
|
|
|
|
var2 <- newTVar 'y'
|
|
|
|
fork . atomically $ do
|
|
|
|
a <- readTVar var1
|
|
|
|
b <- readTVar var2
|
|
|
|
writeTVar var2 a
|
|
|
|
writeTVar var1 b
|
|
|
|
a <- atomically $ readTVar var1
|
|
|
|
b <- atomically $ readTVar var2
|
|
|
|
print (a, b)
|
|
|
|
```
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
Even though the reads and writes appear to be done in multiple steps
|
|
|
|
inside the forked thread, the entire transaction is executed in a
|
|
|
|
single step, by the `atomically` function. This means that the main
|
|
|
|
thread will observe the values `('x', 'y')` or `('y', 'x')`, it can
|
|
|
|
never get `('x', 'x')` as naive `MVar` implementation would.
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
### Relaxed Memory and CRefs
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
There is a third type of communication primitive, the `CRef` (known in
|
|
|
|
normal Haskell as the `IORef`). These do not impose synchronisation,
|
|
|
|
and so the behaviour of concurrent reads and writes depends on the
|
|
|
|
memory model of the underlying processor.
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
crefs = do
|
|
|
|
r1 <- newCRef False
|
|
|
|
r2 <- newCRef False
|
|
|
|
x <- spawn $ writeCRef r1 True >> readCRef r2
|
|
|
|
y <- spawn $ writeCRef r2 True >> readCRef r1
|
|
|
|
(,) <$> readMVar x <*> readMVar y
|
|
|
|
```
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
Here `spawn` forks a thread and gives an `MVar` which can be read from
|
|
|
|
to get the return value. Under a sequentially consistent memory model,
|
|
|
|
there are three possible results: `(True, True)`, `(True, False)`, and
|
|
|
|
`(False, True)`. Under the relaxed memory model of modern processors,
|
|
|
|
the result `(False, False)` is also possible. Relaxed memory models
|
|
|
|
allow for reads and writes to be re-ordered between threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For testing, three memory models are supported (with the default being
|
|
|
|
TSO):
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Sequential Consistency:** A program behaves as a simple
|
|
|
|
interleaving of the actions in different threads. When a `CRef` is
|
|
|
|
written to, that write is immediately visible to all threads.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Total Store Order (TSO):** Each thread has a write buffer. A
|
|
|
|
thread sees its writes immediately, but other threads will only
|
|
|
|
see writes when they are committed, which may happen later. Writes
|
|
|
|
are committed in the same order that they are created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- **Partial Store Order (PSO):** Each `CRef` has a write buffer. A
|
|
|
|
thread sees its writes immediately, but other threads will only
|
|
|
|
see writes when they are committed, which may happen later. Writes
|
|
|
|
to different `CRefs` are not necessarily committed in the same
|
|
|
|
order that they are created.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Program Testing
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
If you just write your concurrent program using the `MonadConc` and
|
|
|
|
`MonadSTM` typeclasses (maybe with `MonadIO` if you need `IO` as
|
|
|
|
well), then it is testable with dejafu!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Testing is similar to unit testing, the programmer produces a
|
|
|
|
self-contained monadic action to execute. It is run under many
|
|
|
|
schedules, and the results gathered into a list. This is a little
|
|
|
|
different from normal unit testing, where you just return "true" or
|
|
|
|
"false", here you have *many* results, and need to decide if the
|
|
|
|
collection is valid or not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
For the simple cases, where you just want to check something is
|
|
|
|
deterministic and doesn't deadlock, there is a handy `autocheck`
|
|
|
|
function. For example:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```haskell
|
|
|
|
example = do
|
|
|
|
a <- newEmptyMVar
|
|
|
|
b <- newEmptyMVar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
c <- newMVar 0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
let lock m = putMVar m ()
|
|
|
|
let unlock = takeMVar
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
j1 <- spawn $ lock a >> lock b >> modifyMVar_ c (return . succ) >> unlock b >> unlock a
|
|
|
|
j2 <- spawn $ lock b >> lock a >> modifyMVar_ c (return . pred) >> unlock a >> unlock b
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
takeMVar j1
|
|
|
|
takeMVar j2
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
takeMVar c
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The correct result is 0, as it starts out as 0 and is incremented and
|
|
|
|
decremented by threads 1 and 2, respectively. However, note the order
|
|
|
|
of acquisition of the locks in the two threads. If thread 2 pre-empts
|
|
|
|
thread 1 between the acquisition of the locks (or if thread 1
|
|
|
|
pre-empts thread 2), a deadlock situation will arise, as thread 1 will
|
|
|
|
have lock a and be waiting on b, and thread 2 will have b and be
|
|
|
|
waiting on a.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Here is what `autocheck` has to say about it:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
> autocheck example
|
|
|
|
[fail] Never Deadlocks (checked: 5)
|
|
|
|
[deadlock] S0------------S1-P2--S1-
|
|
|
|
[pass] No Exceptions (checked: 12)
|
|
|
|
[fail] Consistent Result (checked: 11)
|
|
|
|
0 S0------------S2-----------------S1-----------------S0----
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
[deadlock] S0------------S1-P2--S1-
|
|
|
|
False
|
|
|
|
```
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
It identifies the deadlock, and also the possible results the
|
|
|
|
computation can produce, and displays a simplified trace leading to
|
2016-08-29 20:34:27 +03:00
|
|
|
each failing outcome. The traces contain thread numbers, which the
|
|
|
|
programmer can give a thread a name when forking. It also returns
|
|
|
|
false as there are test failures.
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Note that if your test case does `IO`, the `IO` will be executed a lot
|
|
|
|
of times. It needs to be deterministic enough to not invalidate the
|
|
|
|
results of testing. That may seem a burden, but it's a requirement of
|
|
|
|
any form of testing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
### Porting
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As a general rule of thumb, to convert some existing code to work with
|
|
|
|
dejafu:
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
- Depend on "concurrency".
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
- Import `Control.Concurrent.Classy.*` instead of `Control.Concurrent.*`
|
|
|
|
- Change `IO a` to `MonadConc m => m a`
|
|
|
|
- Change `STM a` to `MonadSTM stm => stm a`
|
|
|
|
- Parameterise all the types by the monad: `MVar` -> `MVar m`, `TVar`
|
|
|
|
-> `TVar stm`, `IORef` -> `CRef m`, etc
|
|
|
|
- Fix the type errors.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Contributing
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-08 07:55:42 +03:00
|
|
|
See the CONTRIBUTING.markdown file.
|
2017-04-08 07:39:36 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2017-04-07 20:16:08 +03:00
|
|
|
Release Notes / Change Logs
|
|
|
|
---------------------------
|
|
|
|
|
2017-04-07 22:22:22 +03:00
|
|
|
See the CHANGELOG.markdown file.
|
2017-04-07 20:16:08 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 18:54:45 +03:00
|
|
|
Bibliography
|
|
|
|
------------
|
|
|
|
|
2016-08-25 19:24:00 +03:00
|
|
|
These libraries wouldn't be possible without prior research, which I
|
|
|
|
mention in the documentation. Haddock comments get the full citation,
|
|
|
|
whereas in-line comments just get the shortened name:
|
2016-04-01 18:54:45 +03:00
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 19:49:35 +03:00
|
|
|
- [BPOR] *Bounded partial-order reduction*, K. Coons, M. Musuvathi,
|
|
|
|
and K. McKinley (2013)
|
2016-04-01 18:54:45 +03:00
|
|
|
http://research.microsoft.com/pubs/202164/bpor-oopsla-2013.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 19:49:35 +03:00
|
|
|
- [RDPOR] *Dynamic Partial Order Reduction for Relaxed Memory Models*,
|
|
|
|
N. Zhang, M. Kusano, and C. Wang (2015)
|
|
|
|
http://www.faculty.ece.vt.edu/chaowang/pubDOC/ZhangKW15.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
2016-04-01 18:54:45 +03:00
|
|
|
- [Empirical] *Concurrency Testing Using Schedule Bounding: an
|
|
|
|
Empirical Study*, P. Thompson, A. Donaldson, and A. Betts (2014)
|
|
|
|
http://www.doc.ic.ac.uk/~afd/homepages/papers/pdfs/2014/PPoPP.pdf
|
2016-04-01 18:56:17 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- [RMMVerification] *On the Verification of Programs on Relaxed Memory
|
|
|
|
Models*, A. Linden (2014)
|
|
|
|
https://orbi.ulg.ac.be/bitstream/2268/158670/1/thesis.pdf
|
2016-05-03 02:05:29 +03:00
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
There are also a couple of papers on dejafu itself:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Déjà Fu: A Concurrency Testing Library for Haskell*, M. Walker and
|
|
|
|
C. Runciman (2015)
|
|
|
|
https://www.barrucadu.co.uk/publications/dejafu-hs15.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This details dejafu-0.1, and was presented at the 2015 Haskell
|
|
|
|
Symposium.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- *Déjà Fu: A Concurrency Testing Library for Haskell*, M. Walker and
|
|
|
|
C. Runciman (2016)
|
|
|
|
https://www.barrucadu.co.uk/publications/YCS-2016-503.pdf
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This is a more in-depth technical report, written between the
|
|
|
|
dejafu-0.2 and dejafu-0.3 releases.
|