Avoid a continuation frame and layer of thunks that was in place for
checking for breaks just after applying a continuation. Instead, we
install just the continuation marks and check for breaks before
actually jumping; the break checker can't tell the difference, since
marks are the only way for it to check the continuation. This
improvement cust about 40% of the time for simple continuation capture
and application.
The ctak benchmark had lost a `(lambda (k) ...)`, which made it a
slightly different benchamrk than it was supposed to be. There's not a
good option here; changing it is a break with past Racket
benchmarking, but leaving it broken is misleading. Since the repaired
benchmark runs about the same in traditional Racket, it seems the
lesser evil to repair the benchmark. But also increase the number of
iterations, which makes the benchmark better for Racket CS (which runs
10 titmes as fast) and will help highlight the adjustment if someone
is trying to compare.
A misplaced `wrap-evt` could allow the result from `sync` on
a log receiver to be an opaque event, instead of a vector.
In other cases, a differently misplaced `wrap-evt` could also cause an
internal instance of `control-state-evt` to not be unregistered
correctly.
The solution to both problems is to add a wrapper procedure to
`control-state-evt`.
Closes#2664
Repair problems with asynchronous callbacks for futures and for
foreign callbacks. Asynchronous callbacks are used for future "sync"
operations, like `hash-set!`, that run must in a place's main thread
(as of commit f574583907).
Separately, synchronization to clean up future threads used a `ping?`
flag in a backwards sense, and it also treated a record as a box.
These problems could cause place termination to hang.
Related to #2725
The `math` library relies on this working right, since MPFR is
normally not compiled as thread-safe.
Also, fix some locking/interrupt/atomicity problems with async
callbacks generally.
When `sync` or `place-channel-get` is used on a place channel whose
other end has been GCed, then the blocking thread should also be
GCable. The `sync` case didn't work because the implementation uses
`replace-evt`. Change `sync` so that it can recognize asynchronous
`replace-evt`s in the same way as semaphores and channels (which is
more than traditional Racket offers).
When a place terminates, it was directly accessing its parent's
custodian. Prior support for cross-place uses of a hash table
probably helped hide this problem previously.
At least for now. Chez Scheme can fasl some things that traditional
Racket would refuse. This seems like a problem, but it's not a new
one, and it's not immediately obvious how to fix it. One test started
failing because the representation of scopes changed just enough to
become faslable.
Although extremely unlikely, it was possible for multiple Racket
threads operating on the same scopes to race on a multi-scope's table
mapping phase levels to scopes.
Also, for some some mutable hash tables that will be shared across
places as read-only in Racket CS, make sure they are definitely set up
for iteration.
An `eq?`-based hash table in the implementation of custodians was
still shared across threads.
Also, taking the global lock at the Rumble level did not disable
interrupts. Since sometimes the lock is taken with interrupts
disabled, threads could potentially deadlock by not having an order.
Fix the problem by disabling interrupts before taking the lock.
Use the pseudo-random generator API that is now available from Chez
Scheme. While the generator can be written in Scheme, the lack of
unboxed floating-point arithmetic unfortunately makes it about 6 times
as slow as a built-in implementation. That difference is significant
when `sync` uses `random` for fair scheduling.
The `time-apply` function was measuring thread time instead of proecss
time. While thread time would be more useful in many cases, it's meant
to report process time.
Mutable `eq?`- and `eqv?`-based hash tables were formerly guarded by a
lock that made them safe for Scheme threads (i.e., OS-level threads).
In particular, that futures could concurrently access hash tables. But
the cost of that lock appears to be too high for such a rarely-used
capability.
Switching `eq?`- and `eqv?`-based hash tables so that they're safe
only for Racket threads means that the lock on a hash table can be
much cheaper. A lock is still needed to because the Rumble layer adds
extra fields for iteration. In the specific case of `hash-ref` on
`eq?`-based tables, however, the lock can be ignored, which makes one
of the most common `hash-ref`s much faster.
Overall, `hash-ref` on a mutable `eq?`-based hash table is now 4-5
times as fast, which makes it about twice as fast as traditional
Racket's `hash-ref`. A `hash-set!` operation is about twice as fast as
before, which puts it on par with traditional Rackets `hash-set!`. The
`hash-ref` improvement makes `send` about twice as fast as before in
Racket CS, making it a little faster than traditional Racket.
Since futures can no longer concurrently access `eq?`- and
`eqv?`-based hash tables, they have to synchronize with the main
thread for access. Racket CS had avoided the "sync" action on futures
that traditional Racket sometimes uses, but this change introduces
sync actions to Racket CS, since it's appropriate for accessing
mutable `eq?`- and `eqv?`-based hash tables.
