Concurrent Haskell
Concurrent Haskell extends Haskell 98 with explicit concurrency. Its two main underlying concepts are:
- A primitive type
MVar αimplementing a bounded/single-place asynchronous channel, which is either empty or holds a value of typeα. - The ability to spawn a concurrent thread via the
forkIOprimitive.
Haskell threads have very low overhead: creation, context-switching and scheduling are all internal to the Haskell runtime. These Haskell-level threads are mapped onto a configurable number of OS-level threads, usually one per processor core.
Software Transactional Memory
The software transactional memory extension to GHC reuses the process forking primitives of Concurrent Haskell. STM however:- avoids
MVars in favour ofTVars. - introduces the
retryandorElseprimitives, allowing alternative atomic actions to be composed together.STM monad
Traditional approach
Consider a banking application as an example, and a transaction in it—the transfer function, which takes money from one account, and puts it into another account. In the IO monad, this might look like:type Account = IORef Integer
transfer :: Integer -> Account -> Account -> IO
transfer amount from to = do
fromVal <- readIORef from --
toVal <- readIORef to
writeIORef from
writeIORef to
This causes problems in concurrent situations where multiple transfers might be taking place on the same account at the same time. If there were two transfers transferring money from account
from, and both calls to transfer ran line from, thus creating a race condition. This would leave the banking application in an inconsistent state. A traditional solution to such a problem is locking. For instance, locks can be placed around modifications to an account to ensure that credits and debits occur atomically. In Haskell, locking is accomplished with MVars:
type Account = MVar Integer
credit :: Integer -> Account -> IO
credit amount account = do
current <- takeMVar account
putMVar account
debit :: Integer -> Account -> IO
debit amount account = do
current <- takeMVar account
putMVar account
Using such procedures will ensure that money will never be lost or gained due to improper interleaving of reads and writes to any individual account. However, if one tries to compose them together to create a procedure like transfer:
transfer :: Integer -> Account -> Account -> IO
transfer amount from to = do
debit amount from
credit amount to
a race condition still exists: the first account may be debited, then execution of the thread may be suspended, leaving the accounts as a whole in an inconsistent state. Thus, additional locks must be added to ensure correctness of composite operations, and in the worst case, one might need to simply lock all accounts regardless of how many are used in a given operation.
Atomic transactions
To avoid this, one can use the STM monad, which allows one to write atomic transactions. This means that all operations inside the transaction fully complete, without any other threads modifying the variables that our transaction is using, or it fails, and the state is rolled back to where it was before the transaction was begun. In short, atomic transactions either complete fully, or it is as if they were never run at all.The lock-based code above translates in a relatively straightforward way:
type Account = TVar Integer
credit :: Integer -> Account -> STM
credit amount account = do
current <- readTVar account
writeTVar account
debit :: Integer -> Account -> STM
debit amount account = do
current <- readTVar account
writeTVar account
transfer :: Integer -> Account -> Account -> STM
transfer amount from to = do
debit amount from
credit amount to
The return types of
STM may be taken to indicate that we are composing scripts for transactions. When the time comes to actually execute such a transaction, a function atomically :: STM a -> IO a is used. The above implementation will make sure that no other transactions interfere with the variables it is using while it is executing, allowing the developer to be sure that race conditions like that above are not encountered. More improvements can be made to make sure that some other "business logic" is maintained in the system, i.e. that the transaction should not try to take money from an account until there is enough money in it:transfer :: Integer -> Account -> Account -> STM
transfer amount from to = do
fromVal <- readTVar from
if >= 0
then do
debit amount from
credit amount to
else retry
Here the
retry function has been used, which will roll back a transaction, and try it again. Retrying in STM is smart in that it won't try to run the transaction again until one of the variables it references during the transaction has been modified by some other transactional code. This makes the STM monad quite efficient.An example program using the transfer function might look like this:
module Main where
import Control.Concurrent
import Control.Concurrent.STM
import Control.Monad
import System.Exit
type Account = TVar Integer
main = do
bob <- newAccount 10000
jill <- newAccount 4000
repeatIO 2000 $ forkIO $ atomically $ transfer 1 bob jill
forever $ do
bobBalance <- atomically $ readTVar bob
jillBalance <- atomically $ readTVar jill
putStrLn
if bobBalance 8000
then exitSuccess
else putStrLn "Trying again."
repeatIO :: Integer -> IO a -> IO a
repeatIO 1 m = m
repeatIO n m = m >> repeatIO m
newAccount :: Integer -> IO Account
newAccount amount = newTVarIO amount
transfer :: Integer -> Account -> Account -> STM
transfer amount from to = do
fromVal <- readTVar from
if >= 0
then do
debit amount from
credit amount to
else retry
credit :: Integer -> Account -> STM
credit amount account = do
current <- readTVar account
writeTVar account
debit :: Integer -> Account -> STM
debit amount account = do
current <- readTVar account
writeTVar account
which should print out "Bob's balance: 8000, Jill's balance: 6000". Here the
atomically function has been used to run STM actions in the IO monad.