I read that maintaining a stack manually could sometimes avoid stack overflow of recursion algorithms, because manually-maintained stack is allocated in heap, which has much larger size than the run-time thread stack. Is there any other benefit of reimplementing recursion with a manually-maintained stack? Why not just increase that program's stack size, which is much more straightforward?
If you can solve your problem simply by increasing the stack size, that's almost certainly the right solution.
If your algorithm is complex, a manually-maintained stack might save you time and space. You can allocate and free memory exactly when needed and reuse space, especially with multiple or conditional recursion. If the arguments are of various sizes, you can hold the storage used to only what you need in each call.
If you do this well, it's possible that you'll also save time in maintaining argument space ... if the algorithm happens to waste time fetching superfluous data with an automatic stack. I wouldn't count on this.
Reinventing the wheel is generally a bad idea: you have to debug and maintain the new code. Unless the old wheel was a rectangle ... :-)
Related
We can print a linked list in reverse order with a stack as well as using recursion. My teacher said that using explicit stack is better since recursion also uses stack but has to maintain a lot of other parameters. Even if we use std::stack from stack, doesn't referring to an external library also take up time? How does using an explicit stack save time/space compared to using a recursive solution?
Recursion involves the use of implicit stacks. This is implemented in the background by the compiler being used to compile your code.
This background stack created by the compiler is known as a ‘Call stack’. Call Stack can be implemented using stack data structure which stores information about the active subroutines of a computer program.
Each subroutine call uses a frame inside the call stack called the stack frame. When a function returns a value, it’s stack frame is popped off the call stack.
Recursion's Call Stack vs Explicit Call Stack?
Stack overflow
The fundamental difference between the 2 stacks is that the space allocated by the compiler for the call stack of a program is fixed. This means there will be a stack overflow if you’re not sure about the maximum no. of recursive function calls expected and there are way too many calls than the space allocated to the stack can handle at a given point of time.
On the other hand, if you define an explicit stack, it’s implemented on the heap space allocated to the program by the compiler at run time. And guess what, the heap size is not fixed and can increase dynamically during run-time when required. You don’t really have to worry about the explicit stack overflowing.
Space and Time
Which one will be faster for a given situation?
Iterating on an explicit stack can be faster than recursion in languages that don’t support recursion related optimizations such as tail call optimization for tail recursion.
What’s Tail recursion?
Tail recursion is a special case of recursion where the recursive function doesn’t do any more computation after the recursive function call i.e. the last step of the function is a call to the recursive function.
What’s Tail-call optimization (TCO)?
Tail-call optimization is where you are able to avoid allocating a new stack frame for a function because the calling function will simply return the value that it gets from the called function.
So, compilers/languages that support tail-call optimizations implement the call to the recursive function with only a single stack frame in the call stack. If your compiler/language doesn’t support this, then using an explicit stack will save you a LOT of space and time.
Python doesn’t support tail call optimization. The main reason for this is to have a complete and clear stack trace which enables efficient debugging. Almost all C/C++ compilers support tail call optimization.
Sometimes explicitly controlling the stack helps simplify things when multiple parameters are being used.
whereas, a recursive solution makes the size of the source code a lot smaller and more maintainable.
Conclusion
In the end, There’s no fixed answer. For a particular scenario, many factors need to be considered such as scalability, code maintainability, language/compiler being used, etc.
The best way would be to implement the solution using both ways, time the 2 solutions on an input set and analyze peak space utilization before deploying it on a production setup.
See Wikipedia - Recursion versus Iteration
I am trying to understand all the low-level stuff Compilers / Interpreters / the Kernel do for you (because I'm yet another person who thinks they could design a language that's better than most others)
One of the many things that sparked my curiosity is Async-Await.
I've checked the under-the-hood implementation for a couple languages, including C# (the compiler generates the state machine from sugar code) and Rust (where the state machine has to be implemented manually from the Future trait), and they all implement Async-Await using state machines.
I've not found anything useful by googling ("async copy stack frame" and variations) or in the "Similar questions" section.
To me, this method seems rather complicated and overhead-heavy;
Could you not implement Async-Await by simply memcopying the stack frames of async calls to/from heap?
I'm aware that it is architecturally impossible for some languages (I thank the CLR can't do it, so C# can't either).
Am I missing something that makes this logically impossible? I would expect less complicated code and a performance boost from doing it that way, am I mistaken? I suppose when you have a deep stack hierarchy after a async call (eg. a recursive async function) the amount of data you would have to memcopy is rather large, but there are probably ways to work around that.
If this is possible, then why isn't it done anywhere?
Yes, an alternative to converting code into state machines is copying stacks around. This is the way that the go language does it now, and the way that Java will do it when Project Loom is released.
It's not an easy thing to do for real-world languages.
It doesn't work for C and C++, for example, because those languages let you make pointers to things on the stack. Those pointers can be used by other threads, so you can't move the stack away, and even if you could, you would have to copy it back into exactly the same place.
For the same reason, it doesn't work when your program calls out to the OS or native code and gets called back in the same thread, because there's a portion of the stack you don't control. In Java, project Loom's 'virtual threads' will not release the thread as long as there's native code on the stack.
Even in situations where you can move the stack, it requires dedicated support in the runtime environment. The stack can't just be copied into a byte array. It has to be copied off in a representation that allows the garbage collector to recognize all the pointers in it. If C# were to adopt this technique, for example, it would require significant extensions to the common language runtime, whereas implementing state machines can be accomplished entirely within the C# compiler.
I would first like to begin by saying that this answer is only meant to serve as a starting point to go in the actual direction of your exploration. This includes various pointers and building up on the work of various other authors
I've checked the under-the-hood implementation for a couple languages, including C# (the compiler generates the state machine from sugar code) and Rust (where the state machine has to be implemented manually from the Future trait), and they all implement Async-Await using state machines
You understood correctly that the Async/Await implementation for C# and Rust use state machines. Let us understand now as to why are those implementations chosen.
To put the general structure of stack frames in very simple terms, whatever we put inside a stack frame are temporary allocations which are not going to outlive the method which resulted in the addition of that stack frame (including, but not limited to local variables). It also contains the information of the continuation, ie. the address of the code that needs to be executed next (in other words, the control has to return to), within the context of the recently called method. If this is a case of synchronous execution, the methods are executed one after the other. In other words, the caller method is suspended until the called method finishes execution. This, from a stack perspective fits in intuitively. If we are done with the execution of a called method, the control is returned to the caller and the stack frame can be popped off. It is also cheap and efficient from a perspective of the hardware that is running this code as well (hardware is optimised for programming with stacks).
In the case of asynchronous code, the continuation of a method might have to trigger several other methods that might get called from within the continuation of callers. Take a look at this answer, where Eric Lippert outlines the entirety of how the stack works for an asynchronous flow. The problem with asynchronous flow is that, the method calls do not exactly form a stack and trying to handle them like pure stacks may get extremely complicated. As Eric says in the answer, that is why C# uses graph of heap-allocated tasks and delegates that represents a workflow.
However, if you consider languages like Go, the asynchrony is handled in a different way altogether. We have something called Goroutines and here is no need for await statements in Go. Each of these Goroutines are started on their own threads that are lightweight (each of them have their own stacks, which defaults to 8KB in size) and the synchronization between each of them is achieved through communication through channels. These lightweight threads are capable of waiting asynchronously for any read operation to be performed on the channel and suspend themselves. The earlier implementation in Go is done using the SplitStacks technique. This implementation had its own problems as listed out here and replaced by Contigious Stacks. The article also talks about the newer implementation.
One important thing to note here is that it is not just the complexity involved in handling the continuation between the tasks that contribute to the approach chosen to implement Async/Await, there are other factors like Garbage Collection that play a role. GC process should be as performant as possible. If we move stacks around, GC becomes inefficient because accessing an object then would require thread synchronization.
Could you not implement Async-Await by simply memcopying the stack frames of async calls to/from heap?
In short, you can. As this answer states here, Chicken Scheme uses a something similar to what you are exploring. It begins by allocating everything on the stack and move the stack values to heap when it becomes too large for the GC activities (Chicken Scheme uses Generational GC). However, there are certain caveats with this kind of implementation. Take a look at this FAQ of Chicken Scheme. There is also lot of academic research in this area (linked in the answer referred to in the beginning of the paragraph, which I shall summarise under further readings) that you may want to look at.
Further Reading
Continuation Passing Style
call-with-current-continuation
The classic SICP book
This answer (contains few links to academic research in this area)
TLDR
The decision of which approach to be taken is subjective to factors that affect the overall usability and performance of the language. State Machines are not the only way to implement the Async/Await functionality as done in C# and Rust. Few languages like Go implement a Contigious Stack approach coordinated over channels for asynchronous operations. Chicken Scheme allocates everything on the stack and moves the recent stack value to heap in case it becomes heavy for its GC algorithm's performance. Moving stacks around has its own set of implications that affect garbage collection negatively. Going through the research done in this space will help you understand the advancements and rationale behind each of the approaches. At the same time, you should also give a thought to how you are planning on designing/implementing the other parts of your language for it be anywhere close to be usable in terms of performance and overall usability.
PS: Given the length of this answer, will be happy to correct any inconsistencies that may have crept in.
I have been looking into various strategies for doing this myseøf, because I naturally thi k I can design a language better than anybody else - same as you. I just want to emphasize that when I say better, I actually mean better as in tastes better for my liking, and not objectively better.
I have come to a few different approaches, and to summarize: It really depends on many other design choices you have made in the language.
It is all about compromises; each approach has advantages and disadvantages.
It feels like the compiler design community are still very focused on garbage collection and minimizing memory waste, and perhaps there is room for some innovation for more lazy and less purist language designers given the vast resources available to modern computers?
How about not having a call stack at all?
It is possible to implement a language without using a call stack.
Pass continuations. The function currently running is responsible for keeping and resuming the state of the caller. Async/await and generators come naturally.
Preallocated static memory addresses for all local variables in all declared functions in the entire program. This approach causes other problems, of course.
If this is your design, then asymc functions seem trivial
Tree shaped stack
With a tree shaped stack, you can keep all stack frames until the function is completely done. It does not matter if you allow progress on any ancestor stack frame, as long as you let the async frame live on until it is no longer needed.
Linear stack
How about serializing the function state? It seems like a variant of continuations.
Independent stack frames on the heap
Simply treat invocations like you treat other pointers to any value on the heap.
All of the above are trivialized approaches, but one thing they have in common related to your question:
Just find a way to store any locals needed to resume the function. And don't forget to store the program counter in the stack frame as well.
Any recursion can be modified to be a iterative function with stack structure, then why do I ever want to do that? If the answer is to avoid stackoverflow, then how come computer can overflow by recursion at all? why not compiler automatically put a recursion function on a stack in heap by default or with an additional keyword? I understand heap is also limited, but it is much bigger than stack allocated to a program.
Activation records can indeed be heap allocated, but this is usually considered too expensive. Despite that there are a few implementations which take this approach: Stackless Python and SML/NJ, for instance.
In those cases the motivation is probably aiding the implementation of continuations, not "fixing" stack overflow.
According to C/C++ maximum stack size of program and MSDN, the maximum stack size on Windows is 1 MiB. Your question is interesting. A keyword would certainly be possible and the compiler could do it. You need to ask compiler makers about it, but I guess it is not a very interesting feature.
Caching would be difficult because of other local variables lying on the stack and recursion book-keeping variables on the heap. Information is scattered around in memory.
Some recursive algorithms can be turned into truly iterative ones (like the calculation of the Factorial) or even into a closed-form expression (see for example the Fibonacci numbers). Then, there is no need for book-keeping of recursive calls.
In an iterative process you keep track of recursion state yourself.
It is possible that you can do this more efficient then the compiler can with the very general procedural mechanism (whose efficiency can be hampered by all kinds of ABI concerns).
Stack checking is possible, but not easy on all systems, since not all systems employ a fixed stack or linear address space. It also has an overhead of course, since the check is added to each recursion.
So I'm having a hard time grasping the idea behind pointers and all that memory allocation.
I'm thinking nowadays with computer as powerful as they are right now why do we have to use pointers at all?
Isn't there always a workaround to do things without the help of pointers?
Pointers are an indirection: instead of working with the data itself, you are working with (something) that points to the data. Depending on the semantics of the language, this allows many things: cheaply switch to another instance of data (by setting the pointer to point to another instance), passing pointers allows access to the original data without having to make (a possibly expensive) copy, etc.
Memory allocation is related to pointers, but separate: you can have pointers without allocating memory. The reason you need pointers for memory allocation is that the actual address the allocated block of memory resides is not known at compile time, so you can only access it via a level of indirection (i.e. pointers) -- the compiler statically allocates space for the pointer that will point to the dynamically allocated memory.
Pointers are incredibly powerful. Just because computers have a faster processing time nowdays, doesn't mean that's any reason to abandon something as essential as pointers. Passing around giant chunks of memory on the stack is inefficient at best, catastrophic at worst. With pointers, you only need to maintain a reference to where the data resides, rather than duplicating huge chunks of memory each time you call a function.
Also, if you're copying all the data every time, how do you modify the original data? Aside from returning the copy of the structure in every call that touches it.
I remember reading somewhere that Dijkstra was assessing a student for a programming course; this student was quite intelligent but s/he wasn't able to solve the problem because there was sort of a mental block.
All the code was sort of ok, but what was needed was simply to use the expression
a[a[i+1]] = j;
and even if being so close to the solution still the goal seemed to be miles away.
Languages "without pointers" already exist... e.g. BASIC. Without explicit pointers, that is. But the indirection idea... the idea that you can have data to mean just where to find other data is central to programming.
The very idea of array is about being able to use computed values to find other values.
Trying to hide this idea is an horrible plan. According to Dijkstra anyone that has been exposed to the BASIC language has already received such a mental mutilation that is impossible to recover as a good programmer (and probably the absence of explicit indirection was one of the problems).
I think he was exaggerating.
Just a bit.
My problem is:
I have a perl script which uses lot of memory (expected behaviour because of caching). But, I noticed that the more I do caching, slower it gets and the process spends most of the time in sleep mode.
I thought pre-allocating memory to the process might speed up the performance.
Does someone have any ideas here?
Update:
I think I am not being very clear here. I will put question in clearer way:
I am not looking for the ways of pre-allocating inside the perl script. I dont think that would help me much here. What I am interested in is a way to tell OS to allocate X amount of memory for my perl script so that it does not have to compete with other processes coming in later.
Assume that I cant get away with the memory usage. Although, I am exploring ways of reducing that too but dont expect much improvement there.
FYI, I am working on a solaris 10 machine.
What I gathered from your posting and comments is this:
Your program gets slow when memory use rises
Your pogram increasingly spends time sleeping, not computing.
Most likely eplanation: Sleeping means waiting for a resource to become available. In this case the resource most likely is memory. Use the vmstat 1 command to verify. Have a look at the sr column. If it goes beyond ~150 consistently the system is desperate to free pages to satisfy demand. This is accompanied by high activity in the pi, po and fr columns.
If this is in fact the case, your best choices are:
Upgrade system memory to meet demand
Reduce memory usage to a level appropiate for the system at hand.
Preallocating memory will not help. In either case memory demand will exceed the available main memory at some point. The kernel will then have to decide which pages need to be in memory now and which pages may be cleared and reused for the more urgently needed pages. If all regularily needed pages (the working set) exceeds the size of main memory, the system is constantly moving pages from and to secondary storage (swap). The system is then said to be thrashing and spends not much time doing useful work. There is nothing you can do about this execept adding memory or using less of it.
From a comment:
The memory limitations are not very severe but the memory footprint easily grows to GBs and when we have competing processes for memory, it gets very slow. I want to reserve some memory from OS so that thrashing is minimal even when too many other processes come. Jagmal
Let's take a different tack then. The problem isn't really with your Perl script in particular. Instead, all the processes on the machine are consuming too much memory for the machine to handle as configured.
You can "reserve" memory, but that won't prevent thrashing. In fact, it could make the problem worse because the OS won't know if you are using the memory or just saving it for later.
I suspect you are suffering the tragedy of the commons. Am I right that many other users are on the machine in question? If so, this is more of a social problem than a technical problem. What you need is someone (probably the System Administrator) to step in and coordinate all the processes on the machine. They should find the most extravagant memory hogs and work with their programmers to reduce the cost on system resources. Further, they ought to arrange for processes to be scheduled so that resource allocation is efficient. Finally, they may need to get more or improved hardware to handle the expected system load.
Some questions you might ask yourself:
are my data structures really useful for the task at hand?
do I really have to cache that much?
can I throw away cached data after some time?
my #array;
$#array = 1_000_000; # pre-extend array to one million elements,
# http://perldoc.perl.org/perldata.html#Scalar-values
my %hash;
keys(%hash) = 8192; # pre-allocate hash buckets
# (same documentation section)
Not being familiar with your code, I'll venture some wild speculation here [grin] that these techniques aren't going to offer new great efficiencies to your script, but that the pre-allocation could help a little bit.
Good luck!
-- Douglas Hunter
I recently rediscovered an excellent Randal L. Schwartz article that includes preallocating an array. Assuming this is your problem, you can test preallocating with a variation on that code. But be sure to test the result.
The reason the script gets slower with more caching might be thrashing. Presumably the reason for caching in the first place is to increase performance. So a quick answer is: reduce caching.
Now there may be ways to modify your caching scheme so that it uses less main memory and avoids thrashing. For instance, you might find that caching to a file or database instead of to memory can boost performance. I've found that file system and database caching can be more efficient than application caching and can be shared among multiple instances.
Another idea might be to alter your algorithm to reduce memory usage in other areas. For instance, instead of pulling an entire file into memory, Perl programs tend to work better reading line by line.
Finally, have you explored the Memoize module? It might not be immediately applicable, but it could be a source of ideas.
I could not find a way to do this yet.
But, I found out that (See this for details)
Memory allocated to lexicals (i.e.
my() variables) cannot be reclaimed or
reused even if they go out of scope.
It is reserved in case the variables
come back into scope. Memory allocated
to global variables can be reused
(within your program) by using
undef()ing and/or delete().
So, I believe a possibility here could be to check if i can reduce the total memory print of lexical variables at a given point in time.
It sounds like you are looking for limit or ulimit. But I suspect that will cause a script that goes over the limit to fail, which probably isn't what you want.
A better idea might be to share cached data between processes. Putting data in a database or in a file works well in my experience.
I hate to say it, but if your memory limitations are this severe, Perl is probably not the right language for this application. C would be a better choice, I'd think.
One thing you could do is to use solaris zones (containers) .
You could put your process in a zone and allocate it resources like RAM and CPU's.
Here are two links to some tutorials :
Solaris Containers How To Guide
Zone Resource Control in the Solaris 10 08/07 OS
While it's not pre-allocating as you asked for, you may also want to look at the large page size options, so that when perl has to ask the OS for more memory for your program, it gets it in
larger chunks.
See Solaris Internals: Multiple Page Size Support for more information on the difference this makes and how to do it.
Look at http://metacpan.org/pod/Devel::Size
You could also inline a c function to do the above.
As far as I know, you cannot allocate memory directly from Perl. You can get around this by writing an XS module, or using an inline C function like I mentioned.