Safe Haskell | None |
---|
Pipes.Concurrent.Tutorial
Contents
Description
This module provides a tutorial for the pipes-concurrency
library.
This tutorial assumes that you have read the pipes
tutorial in
Pipes.Tutorial
.
I've condensed all the code examples into self-contained code listings in the Appendix section that you can use to follow along.
Introduction
The pipes-concurrency
library provides a simple interface for
communicating between concurrent pipelines. Use this library if you want
to:
- merge multiple streams into a single stream,
- stream data from a callback / continuation,
- broadcast data,
- build a work-stealing setup, or
- implement basic functional reactive programming (FRP).
For example, let's say that we want to design a simple game with two
concurrent sources of game Event
s.
One source translates user input to game events:
-- The game events data Event = Harm Integer | Heal Integer | Quit deriving (Show) user :: IO Event user = do command <- getLine case command of "potion" -> return (Heal 10) "quit" -> return Quit _ -> do putStrLn "Invalid command" user -- Try again
... while the other creates inclement weather:
import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Monad (forever) import Pipes acidRain :: Producer Event IO r acidRain = forever $ do lift $ threadDelay 2000000 -- Wait 2 seconds yield (Harm 1)
We can asynchronously merge these two separate sources of Event
s into a
single stream by spawn
ing a first-in-first-out (FIFO) mailbox:
spawn
::Buffer
a ->IO
(Output
a,Input
a)
spawn
takes a Buffer
as an argument which specifies how many messages to
store. In this case we want our mailbox to store an Unbounded
number of
messages:
import Pipes.Concurrent main = do (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded ...
spawn
creates this mailbox in the background and then returns two values:
- an
(Output a)
that we use to add messages of typea
to the mailbox - an
(Input a)
that we use to consume messages of typea
from the mailbox
We will be streaming Event
s through our mailbox, so our output
has type
(Output Event)
and our input
has type (Input Event)
.
To stream Event
s into the mailbox , we use toOutput
, which writes values
to the mailbox's Output
end:
toOutput
:: (MonadIO
m) =>Output
a ->Consumer
a m ()
We can concurrently forward multiple streams to the same Output
, which
asynchronously merges their messages into the same mailbox:
... forkIO $ do runEffect $ lift user >~ toOutput output performGC -- I'll explain 'performGC' below forkIO $ do runEffect $ acidRain >-> toOutput output performGC ...
To stream Event
s out of the mailbox, we use fromInput
, which streams
values from the mailbox's Input
end using a Producer
:
fromInput
:: (MonadIO
m) =>Input
a ->Producer
a m ()
For this example we'll build a Consumer
to handle this stream of Event
s,
that either harms or heals our intrepid adventurer depending on which
Event
we receive:
handler :: Consumer Event IO () handler = loop 100 where loop health = do lift $ putStrLn $ "Health = " ++ show health event <- await case event of Harm n -> loop (health - n) Heal n -> loop (health + n) Quit -> return ()
Now we can just connect our Event
Producer
to our Event
Consumer
using (>->
):
... runEffect $ fromInput input >-> handler
Our final main
looks like this:
main = do (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded forkIO $ do runEffect $ lift user >~ toOutput output performGC forkIO $ do runEffect $ acidRain >-> toOutput output performGC runEffect $ fromInput input >-> handler
... and when we run it we get the desired concurrent behavior:
$ ./game Health = 100 Health = 99 Health = 98 potion<Enter> Health = 108 Health = 107 Health = 106 potion<Enter> Health = 116 Health = 115 quit<Enter> $
Work Stealing
You can also have multiple pipes reading from the same mailbox. Messages get split between listening pipes on a first-come first-serve basis.
For example, we'll define a "worker" that takes a one-second break each time it receives a new job:
import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Monad import Pipes worker :: (Show a) => Int -> Consumer a IO r worker i = forever $ do a <- await lift $ threadDelay 1000000 -- 1 second lift $ putStrLn $ "Worker #" ++ show i ++ ": Processed " ++ show a
Fortunately, these workers are cheap, so we can assign several of them to the same job:
import Control.Concurrent.Async import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P import Pipes.Concurrent main = do (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded as <- forM [1..3] $ \i -> async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> worker i performGC a <- async $ do runEffect $ each [1..10] >-> toOutput output performGC mapM_ wait (a:as)
The above example uses Control.Concurrent.Async
from the async
package
to fork each thread and wait for all of them to terminate:
$ ./work Worker #2: Processed 3 Worker #1: Processed 2 Worker #3: Processed 1 Worker #3: Processed 6 Worker #1: Processed 5 Worker #2: Processed 4 Worker #2: Processed 9 Worker #1: Processed 8 Worker #3: Processed 7 Worker #2: Processed 10 $
What if we replace each
with a different source that reads lines from user
input until the user types "quit":
user :: Producer String IO () user = P.stdinLn >-> P.takeWhile (/= "quit") main = do (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded as <- forM [1..3] $ \i -> async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> worker i performGC a <- async $ do runEffect $ user >-> toOutput output performGC mapM_ wait (a:as)
This still produces the correct behavior:
$ ./work Test<Enter> Worker #1: Processed "Test" Apple<Enter> Worker #2: Processed "Apple" 42<Enter> Worker #3: Processed "42" A<Enter> B<Enter> C<Enter> Worker #1: Processed "A" Worker #2: Processed "B" Worker #3: Processed "C" quit<Enter> $
Termination
Wait... How do the workers know when to stop listening for data? After
all, anything that has a reference to Output
could potentially add more
data to the mailbox.
It turns out that spawn
is smart and instruments the Input
to
terminate when the Output
is garbage collected. fromInput
builds on top
of the more primitive recv
command, which returns a Nothing
when the
Input
terminates:
recv
::Input
a ->STM
(Maybe
a)
Otherwise, recv
will block if the mailbox is empty since if the Output
has not been garbage collected then somebody might still produce more data.
Does it work the other way around? What happens if the workers go on strike before processing the entire data set?
... as <- forM [1..3] $ \i -> -- Each worker refuses to process more than two values async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 2 >-> worker i performGC ...
Let's find out:
$ ./work How<Enter> Worker #1: Processed "How" many<Enter> roads<Enter> Worker #2: Processed "many" Worker #3: Processed "roads" must<Enter> a<Enter> man<Enter> Worker #1: Processed "must" Worker #2: Processed "a" Worker #3: Processed "man" walk<Enter> $
spawn
tells the Output
to similarly terminate when the Input
is
garbage collected, preventing the user from submitting new values.
toOutput
builds on top of the more primitive send
command, which returns
a False
when the Output
terminates:
send
::Output
a -> a ->STM
Bool
Otherwise, send
will blocks if the mailbox is full, since if the Input
has not been garbage collected then somebody could still consume a value
from the mailbox, making room for a new value.
This is why we have to insert performGC
calls whenever we release a
reference to either the Output
or Input
. Without these calls we cannot
guarantee that the garbage collector will trigger and notify the opposing
end if the last reference was released.
There are two ways to avoid using performGC
. First, you can omit the
performGC
call, which is safe and preferable for long-running programs.
This simply delays garbage collecting mailboxes until the next garbage
collection cycle.
Second, you can use the spawn'
command, which returns a third seal
action:
(output, input, seal) <- spawn' buffer ...
Use this to seal
the mailbox so that it cannot receive new messages. This
allows both readers and writers to shut down early without relying on
garbage collection:
- writers will shut down immediately because they can no longer write to the mailbox
- readers will shut down when the mailbox goes empty because they know that no new data will arrive
For simplicity, this tutorial will continue to use performGC
since all
the examples are short-lived programs that do not build up a large heap.
However, when the heap grows large you want to avoid performGC
and
consider using one of the above two alternatives instead.
Note only Input
s and Output
s specifically built using spawn
or
spawn'
make use of the garbage collector. If you build your own custom
Input
s and Output
s then you do not need to use performGC
at all.
Mailbox Sizes
So far we haven't observed send
blocking because we only spawn
ed
Unbounded
mailboxes. However, we can control the size of the mailbox to
tune the coupling between the Output
and the Input
ends.
If we set the mailbox Buffer
to Single
, then the mailbox holds exactly
one message, forcing synchronization between send
s and recv
s. Let's
observe this by sending an infinite stream of values, logging all values to
the console:
main = do (output, input) <- spawn Single as <- forM [1..3] $ \i -> async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 2 >-> worker i performGC a <- async $ do runEffect $ each [1..] >-> P.chain print >-> toOutput output performGC mapM_ wait (a:as)
The 7th value gets stuck in the mailbox, and the 8th value blocks because the mailbox never clears the 7th value:
$ ./work 1 2 3 4 5 Worker #3: Processed 3 Worker #2: Processed 2 Worker #1: Processed 1 6 7 8 Worker #1: Processed 6 Worker #2: Processed 5 Worker #3: Processed 4 $
Contrast this with an Unbounded
mailbox for the same program, which keeps
accepting values until downstream finishes processing the first six values:
$ ./work 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... 487887 487888 Worker #3: Processed 3 Worker #2: Processed 2 Worker #1: Processed 1 487889 487890 ... 969188 969189 Worker #1: Processed 6 Worker #2: Processed 5 Worker #3: Processed 4 969190 969191 $
You can also choose something in between by using a Bounded
mailbox which
caps the mailbox size to a fixed value. Use Bounded
when you want mostly
loose coupling but still want to guarantee bounded memory usage:
main = do (output, input) <- spawn (Bounded 100) ...
$ ./work ... 103 104 Worker #3: Processed 3 Worker #2: Processed 2 Worker #1: Processed 1 105 106 107 Worker #1: Processed 6 Worker #2: Processed 5 Worker #3: Processed 4 $
Broadcasts
You can also broadcast data to multiple listeners instead of dividing up the
data. Just use the Monoid
instance for Output
to combine multiple
Output
ends together into a single broadcast Output
:
-- broadcast.hs import Control.Monad import Control.Concurrent.Async import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P import Data.Monoid main = do (output1, input1) <- spawn Unbounded (output2, input2) <- spawn Unbounded a1 <- async $ do runEffect $ P.stdinLn >-> toOutput (output1 <> output2) performGC as <- forM [input1, input2] $ \input -> async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 2 >-> P.stdoutLn performGC mapM_ wait (a1:as)
In the above example, stdinLn
will broadcast user input to both
mailboxes, and each mailbox forwards its values to stdoutLn
, echoing the
message to standard output:
$ ./broadcast ABC<Enter> ABC ABC DEF<Enter> DEF DEF GHI<Enter> $
The combined Output
stays alive as long as any of the original Output
s
remains alive. In the above example, toOutput
terminates on the third
send
attempt because it detects that both listeners died after receiving
two messages.
Use mconcat
to broadcast to a list of Output
s, but keep in mind that you
will incur a performance price if you combine thousands of Output
s or more
because they will create a very large STM
transaction. You can improve
performance for very large broadcasts if you sacrifice atomicity and
manually combine multiple send
actions in IO
instead of STM
.
Updates
Sometimes you don't want to handle every single event. For example, you might have an input and output device (like a mouse and a monitor) where the input device updates at a different pace than the output device
import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Monad import Pipes import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P -- Fast input updates inputDevice :: (Monad m) => Producer Integer m () inputDevice = each [1..] -- Slow output updates outputDevice :: Consumer Integer IO r outputDevice = forever $ do n <- await lift $ do print n threadDelay 1000000
In this scenario you don't want to enforce a one-to-one correspondence
between input device updates and output device updates because you don't
want either end to block waiting for the other end. Instead, you just need
the output device to consult the Latest
value received from the Input
:
import Control.Concurrent.Async import Pipes.Concurrent main = do (output, input) <- spawn (Latest 0) a1 <- async $ do runEffect $ inputDevice >-> toOutput output performGC a2 <- async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 5 >-> outputDevice performGC mapM_ wait [a1, a2]
Latest
selects a mailbox that always stores exactly one value. The
Latest
constructor takes a single argument (0
, in the above example)
specifying the starting value to store in the mailbox. send
overrides the
currently stored value and recv
peeks at the latest stored value without
consuming it. In the above example the outputDevice
periodically peeks at the latest value stashed inside the mailbox:
$ ./peek 7 2626943 5303844 7983519 10604940 $
A Latest
mailbox is never empty because it begins with a default value and
recv
never removes the value from the mailbox. A Latest
mailbox is also
never full because send
always succeeds, overwriting the previously stored
value.
Callbacks
pipes-concurrency
also solves the common problem of getting data out of a
callback-based framework into pipes
.
For example, suppose that we have the following callback-based function:
import Control.Monad onLines :: (String -> IO a) -> IO b onLines callback = forever $ do str <- getLine callback str
We can use send
to free the data from the callback and then we can
retrieve the data on the outside using fromInput
:
import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P onLines' :: Producer String IO () onLines' = do (output, input) <- lift $ spawn Single lift $ forkIO $ onLines (\str -> atomically $ send output str) fromInput input main = runEffect $ onLines' >-> P.takeWhile (/= "quit") >-> P.stdoutLn
Now we can stream from the callback as if it were an ordinary Producer
:
$ ./callback Test<Enter> Test Apple<Enter> Apple quit<Enter> $
Safety
pipes-concurrency
avoids deadlocks because send
and recv
always
cleanly return before triggering a deadlock. This behavior works even in
complicated scenarios like:
- cyclic graphs of connected mailboxes,
- multiple readers and multiple writers to the same mailbox, and
- dynamically adding or garbage collecting mailboxes.
The following example shows how pipes-concurrency
will do the right thing
even in the case of cycles:
-- cycle.hs import Control.Concurrent.Async import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P main = do (out1, in1) <- spawn Unbounded (out2, in2) <- spawn Unbounded a1 <- async $ do runEffect $ (each [1,2] >> fromInput in1) >-> toOutput out2 performGC a2 <- async $ do runEffect $ fromInput in2 >-> P.chain print >-> P.take 6 >-> toOutput out1 performGC mapM_ wait [a1, a2]
The above program jump-starts a cyclic chain with two input values and
terminates one branch of the cycle after six values flow through. Both
branches correctly terminate and get garbage collected without triggering
deadlocks when takeB_
finishes:
$ ./cycle 1 2 1 2 1 2 $
Conclusion
pipes-concurrency
adds an asynchronous dimension to pipes
. This
promotes a natural division of labor for concurrent programs:
- Fork one pipeline per deterministic behavior
- Communicate between concurrent pipelines using
pipes-concurrency
This promotes an actor-style approach to concurrent programming where pipelines behave like processes and mailboxes behave like ... mailboxes.
You can ask questions about pipes-concurrency
and other pipes
libraries
on the official pipes
mailing list at
mailto:haskell-pipes@googlegroups.com.
Appendix
I've provided the full code for the above examples here so you can easily try them out:
-- game.hs import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Monad (forever) import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent data Event = Harm Integer | Heal Integer | Quit deriving (Show) user :: IO Event user = do command <- getLine case command of "potion" -> return (Heal 10) "quit" -> return Quit _ -> do putStrLn "Invalid command" user acidRain :: Producer Event IO r acidRain = forever $ do lift $ threadDelay 2000000 -- Wait 2 seconds yield (Harm 1) handler :: Consumer Event IO () handler = loop 100 where loop health = do lift $ putStrLn $ "Health = " ++ show health event <- await case event of Harm n -> loop (health - n) Heal n -> loop (health + n) Quit -> return () main = do (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded forkIO $ do runEffect $ lift user >~ toOutput output performGC forkIO $ do runEffect $ acidRain >-> toOutput output performGC runEffect $ fromInput input >-> handler
-- work.hs import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Concurrent.Async import Control.Monad import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P worker :: (Show a) => Int -> Consumer a IO r worker i = forever $ do a <- await lift $ threadDelay 1000000 -- 1 second lift $ putStrLn $ "Worker #" ++ show i ++ ": Processed " ++ show a user :: Producer String IO () user = P.stdinLn >-> P.takeWhile (/= "quit") main = do -- (output, input) <- spawn Unbounded -- (output, input) <- spawn Single (output, input) <- spawn (Bounded 100) as <- forM [1..3] $ \i -> -- async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> worker i async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 2 >-> worker i performGC -- a <- async $ do runEffect $ each [1..10] >-> toOutput output -- a <- async $ do runEffect $ user >-> toOutput output a <- async $ do runEffect $ each [1..] >-> P.chain print >-> toOutput output performGC mapM_ wait (a:as)
-- peek.hs import Control.Concurrent (threadDelay) import Control.Concurrent.Async import Control.Monad import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P inputDevice :: (Monad m) => Producer Integer m () inputDevice = each [1..] outputDevice :: Consumer Integer IO r outputDevice = forever $ do n <- await lift $ do print n threadDelay 1000000 main = do (output, input) <- spawn (Latest 0) a1 <- async $ do runEffect $ inputDevice >-> toOutput output performGC a2 <- async $ do runEffect $ fromInput input >-> P.take 5 >-> outputDevice performGC mapM_ wait [a1, a2]
-- callback.hs import Control.Monad import Pipes import Pipes.Concurrent import qualified Pipes.Prelude as P onLines :: (String -> IO a) -> IO b onLines callback = forever $ do str <- getLine callback str onLines' :: Producer String IO () onLines' = do (output, input) <- lift $ spawn Single lift $ forkIO $ onLines (\str -> atomically $ send output str) fromInput input main = runEffect $ onLines' >-> P.takeWhile (/= "quit") >-> P.stdoutLn