[foreign-abi] RFR: JDK-8243669: Improve library loading for Panama libraries
samuel.audet at gmail.com
Sat May 2 09:34:23 UTC 2020
On 5/1/20 7:34 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
> On 01/05/2020 10:57, Samuel Audet wrote:
>> On 4/30/20 7:07 PM, Maurizio Cimadamore wrote:
>>>> Right, it's not perfect, but I think these kinds of issues are
>>>> solvable, if we're willing to spend time and work on them. For
>>>> example, if something like `PointerScope` could be integrated into
>>>> the Java language itself, we would be able to guarantee that what
>>>> you describe above never happens, making everything thread-safe. I
>>>> don't see any limitations in that regards, but I may be missing
>>>> something. Could you provide an example that fails? Or is there just
>>>> concern about the performance hit that could be incurred (in which
>>>> case I'd still say "let's work on it")?
>>> This is the very central issue we're trying to address with memory
>>> segments: how do you allow access to a segment from multiple threads
>>> * retaining access performances
>>> * retaining deterministic deallocation guarantees
>>> It's not a theoretical problem. If you want to make your JavaCPP code
>>> safe you need to add a mutex so that threads can either access memory
>>> OR deallocate. Then I'm sure you won't be happy with the numbers that
>>> will come out of your benchmarks.
>>> Other solutions "include" something like reference counting, but not
>>> the same reference counting you do in your API. That is, if a thread
>>> wants to use a "pointer" (in your API) you must create a new instance
>>> just for that thread, you can't just increment some shared counter on
>>> the original pointer. That is, the _new_ thread must _not_ have
>>> access to the original pointer. Otherwise it is possible for people
>>> to write code where they don't call "retain" and they happily access
>>> the pointer from multiple threads, but the pointer doesn't know about
>>> While something like that might be made to work (we had something
>>> similar with our MemorySegment::acquire), it is not very appealing
>>> from an API perspective, as it creates "trees" of associated
>>> segments/pointers where the parent cannot be deallocated until all
>>> children are.
>>> All this to say what I was trying to say before: wrapping up
>>> AtomicInteger inside some ARC abstraction is _not_ a solution to the
>>> problem. First, it doesn't really take that long to implement, but,
>>> most importantly, having a class which can do "retain"/"release"
>>> doesn't save you from uncooperative clients trying to use an instance
>>> from a different thread w/o calling "retain".
>>> So, I don't see a lot of value for providing such an abstraction in
>>> the JDK. The fact that there are libaries out there which might rely
>>> on reference counting to provide some sort of perceived safety
>>> doesn't automatically make this a candidate for providing something
>>> with the degree of safety that would (and should) be expected from a
>>> Java SE API.
>> Thank you for bearing with me, but I must seriously be missing
>> something. Please explain why the following doesn't work:
> Are you now proposing a _language_ feature - not just an API?
Yes, that's what I said above. Do you agree this could work?
I'm not saying that it's going to be easy, but if the Java community
doesn't get onto this train, it will be left behind at some point, and
things will just move on to something else like Python or whatever
platform where applications that require GPUs, accelerators, etc are
welcome. I would really hate it if the best humanity can come up with is
More information about the panama-dev