3This is an implementation of Cloud Haskell, as described in
4/Towards Haskell in the Cloud/ by Jeff Epstein, Andrew Black, and Simon
6<http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/>),
7although some of the details are different. The precise message passing
8semantics are based on /A unified semantics for future Erlang/ by Hans
9Svensson, Lars-Åke Fredlund and Clara Benac Earle.
11For a detailed description of the package and other reference materials,
12please see the distributed-process wiki page on github:
13<https://github.com/haskell-distributed/distributed-process/wiki>.
16module Control.Distributed.Process
24 , liftIO -- Reexported for convenience
39 -- * Unsafe messaging variants
44 -- * Advanced messaging
68 -- * Process management
77 , ProcessTerminationException(..)
78 , ProcessRegistrationException(..)
84 -- * Monitoring and linking
96 , MonitorRef -- opaque
97 , ProcessLinkException(..)
98 , NodeLinkException(..)
99 , PortLinkException(..)
100 , ProcessMonitorNotification(..)
101 , NodeMonitorNotification(..)
102 , PortMonitorNotification(..)
119 , registerRemoteAsync
120 , reregisterRemoteAsync
121 , unregisterRemoteAsync
126 -- * Exception handling
143 -- * Local versions of 'spawn'
151#if ! MIN_VERSION_base(4,6,0)
152import Prelude hiding (catch)
155import Control.Monad.IO.Class (liftIO)
156import Control.Applicative ((<$>))
157import Control.Monad.Reader (ask)
158import Control.Concurrent.MVar (newEmptyMVar, takeMVar, putMVar)
159import Control.Distributed.Static
165import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Types
170 , ProcessMonitorNotification(..)
171 , NodeMonitorNotification(..)
172 , PortMonitorNotification(..)
173 , ProcessLinkException(..)
174 , NodeLinkException(..)
175 , PortLinkException(..)
176 , ProcessRegistrationException(..)
185 , LocalProcess(processNode)
188import Control.Distributed.Process.Serializable (Serializable)
189import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Primitives
202 -- Advanced messaging
226 -- Process management
228 , ProcessTerminationException(..)
238 -- Monitoring and linking
258 , registerRemoteAsync
259 , reregisterRemoteAsync
260 , unregisterRemoteAsync
266 -- Exception handling
284import Control.Distributed.Process.Node (forkProcess)
285import Control.Distributed.Process.Internal.Spawn
286 ( -- Spawning Processes/Channels
297-- 1. 'send' never fails. If you want to know that the remote process received
298-- your message, you will need to send an explicit acknowledgement. If you
299-- want to know when the remote process failed, you will need to monitor
300-- that remote process.
302-- 2. 'send' may block (when the system TCP buffers are full, while we are
303-- trying to establish a connection to the remote endpoint, etc.) but its
304-- return does not imply that the remote process received the message (much
305-- less processed it). When 'send' targets a local process, it is dispatched
306-- via the node controller however, in which cases it will /not/ block. This
307-- isn't part of the semantics, so it should be ok. The ordering is maintained
308-- because the ctrlChannel still has FIFO semantics with regards interactions
309-- between two disparate forkIO threads.
311-- 3. Message delivery is reliable and ordered. That means that if process A
312-- sends messages m1, m2, m3 to process B, B will either arrive all three
313-- messages in order (m1, m2, m3) or a prefix thereof; messages will not be
314-- 'missing' (m1, m3) or reordered (m1, m3, m2)
316-- In order to guarantee (3), we stipulate that
318-- 3a. We do not garbage collect connections because Network.Transport provides
319-- ordering guarantees only *per connection*.
321-- 3b. Once a connection breaks, we have no way of knowing which messages
322-- arrived and which did not; hence, once a connection fails, we assume the
323-- remote process to be forever unreachable. Otherwise we might sent m1 and
324-- m2, get notified of the broken connection, reconnect, send m3, but only
327-- 3c. As a consequence of (3b) we should not reuse PIDs. If a process dies,
328-- we consider it forever unreachable. Hence, new processes should get new
329-- IDs or they too would be considered unreachable.
331-- Main reference for Cloud Haskell is
333-- [1] "Towards Haskell in the Cloud", Jeff Epstein, Andrew Black and Simon
335-- http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/people/simonpj/papers/parallel/remote.pdf
337-- The precise semantics for message passing is based on
339-- [2] "A Unified Semantics for Future Erlang", Hans Svensson, Lars-Ake Fredlund
340-- and Clara Benac Earle (not freely available online, unfortunately)
342-- Some pointers to related documentation about Erlang, for comparison and
345-- [3] "Programming Distributed Erlang Applications: Pitfalls and Recipes",
346-- Hans Svensson and Lars-Ake Fredlund
347-- http://man.lupaworld.com/content/develop/p37-svensson.pdf
348-- [4] The Erlang manual, sections "Message Sending" and "Send"
349-- http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/processes.html#id82409
350-- http://www.erlang.org/doc/reference_manual/expressions.html#send
351-- [5] Questions "Is the order of message reception guaranteed?" and
352-- "If I send a message, is it guaranteed to reach the receiver?" of
354-- http://www.erlang.org/faq/academic.html
355-- [6] "Delivery of Messages", post on erlang-questions
356-- http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/2012-February/064767.html
358--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
359-- Local versions of spawn --
360--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
362-- | Spawn a process on the local node
363spawnLocal :: Process () -> Process ProcessId
365 node <- processNode <$> ask
366 liftIO $ forkProcess node proc
368-- | Create a new typed channel, spawn a process on the local node, passing it
369-- the receive port, and return the send port
370spawnChannelLocal :: Serializable a
371 => (ReceivePort a -> Process ())
372 -> Process (SendPort a)
373spawnChannelLocal proc = do
374 node <- processNode <$> ask
377 _ <- forkProcess node $ do
378 -- It is important that we allocate the new channel in the new process,
379 -- because otherwise it will be associated with the wrong process ID
380 (sport, rport) <- newChan
381 liftIO $ putMVar mvar sport
keysesc to close
- j k
- move down, up
- enter
- open
- esc
- back, or up a level
- 1 2 3 4
- readme, files, commits, refs
- /
- filter
- y
- copy the clone command
- c
- compare the chosen commit with another (or shift-click both)
- ?
- show or hide this list