[Python-ideas] The async API of the future: Reactors
Guido van Rossum
guido at python.org
Sun Oct 14 19:15:27 CEST 2012
On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Ben Darnell <ben at bendarnell.com> wrote:
> First of all, to clear up the terminology, edge-triggered actually has
> a specific meaning in this context that is separate from the question
> of whether callbacks are used more than once. The edge- vs
> level-triggered question is moot with one-shot callbacks, but when
> you're reusing callbacks in edge-triggered mode you won't get a second
> call until you've drained the socket buffer and then it becomes
> readable again. This turns out to be helpful for hybrid
> event/threaded systems, since the network thread may go into the next
> iteration of its loop while the worker thread is still consuming the
> data from a previous event.
Yeah, sorry for contributing to the confusion here! Glyph cleared it up for me.
> You can't always emulate edge-triggered behavior since it needs
> knowledge of internal socket buffers (epoll has an edge-triggered mode
> and I think kqueue does too, but you can't get edge-triggered behavior
> if you're falling back to select()). However, you can easily get
> one-shot callbacks from an event loop with persistent callbacks just
> by unregistering the callback once it has received an event. This has
> a performance cost, though - in tornado we try to avoid unnecessary
> unregister/register pairs.
We should do be careful to support all this in our event loop design,
without necessarily offering two ways of doing everything -- the event
loop should be at liberty to use the most efficient strategy for the
platform. (If that depends on what sort of I/O the user is interested
in, we should be sure that that information reaches the event loop
too. I like the idea more and more of an IO object that encapsulates a
socket or other event source, using predefined subclasses for each
type that is relevant to the platform.
>> I'm not at all familiar with the Twisted reactor interface. My own
>> design would be along the following lines:
>> - There's an abstract Reactor class and an abstract Async I/O object
>> class. To get a reactor to call you back, you must give it an I/O
>> object, a callback, and maybe some more stuff. (I have gone back and
>> like passing optional args for the callback, rather than requiring
>> lambdas to create closures.) Note that the callback is *not* a
>> designated method on the I/O object! In order to distinguish between
>> edge-triggered and level-triggered, you just use a different reactor
>> method. There could also be a reactor method to schedule a "bare"
>> callback, either after some delay, or immediately (maybe with a given
>> priority), although such functionality could also be implemented
>> through magic I/O objects.
> One reason to have a distinct method for running a bare callback is
> that you need to have some thread-safe entry point, but you otherwise
> don't really want locking on all the internal methods. Tornado's
> IOLoop.add_callback and Twisted's Reactor.callFromThread can be used
> to run code in the IOLoop's thread (which can then call the other
> IOLoop methods).
That's an important use case to support.
> We also have distinct methods for running a callback after a timeout,
> although if you had a variant of add_handler that didn't require a
> subsequent call to remove_handler you could probably do timeouts using
> a magical IO object. (an additional subtlety for the time-based
> methods is how time is computed. I recently added support in tornado
> to optionally use time.monotonic instead of time.time)
>> - In systems supporting file descriptors, there's a reactor
>> implementation that knows how to use select/poll/etc., and there are
>> concrete I/O object classes that wrap file descriptors. On Windows,
>> those would only be socket file descriptors. On Unix, any file
>> descriptor would do. To create such an I/O object you would use a
>> platform-specific factory. There would be specialized factories to
>> create e.g. listening sockets, connections, files, pipes, and so on.
> Jython is another interesting case - it has a select() function that
> doesn't take integer file descriptors, just the opaque objects
> returned by socket.fileno().
> While it's convenient to have higher-level constructors for various
> specialized types, I'd like to emphasize that having the low-level
> interface is important for interoperability. Tornado doesn't know
> whether the file descriptors are listening sockets, connected sockets,
> or pipes, so we'd just have to pass in a file descriptor with no other
Yeah, the IO object will still need to have a fileno() method.
>> - In systems like App Engine that don't support async I/O on file
>> descriptors at all, the constructors for creating I/O objects for disk
>> files and connection sockets would comply with the interface but fake
>> out almost everything (just like today, using httplib or httplib2 on
>> App Engine works by adapting them to a "urlfetch" RPC request).
> Why would you be allowed to make IO objects for sockets that don't
> work? I would expect that to just raise an exception. On app engine
> RPCs would be the only supported async I/O objects (and timers, if
> those are implemented as magic I/O objects), and they're not
> implemented in terms of sockets or files.
Here's my use case. Suppose in general one can use async I/O for disk
files, and it is integrated with the standard (abstract) event loop.
So someone writes a handy templating library that wants to play nice
with async apps, so it uses the async I/O idiom to read e.g. the
template source code. Support I want to use that library on App
Engine. It would be a pain if I had to modify that template-reading
code to not use the async API. But (given the right async API!) it
would be pretty simple for the App Engine API to provide a mock
implementation of the async file reading API that was synchronous
under the hood. Yes, it would block while waiting for disk, but App
Engine uses threads anyway so it wouldn't be a problem.
Another, current-day, use case is the httplib interface in the stdlib
(a fairly fancy HTTP/1.1 client, although it has its flaws). That's
based on sockets, which App Engine doesn't have; we have a "urlfetch"
RPC that you give a URL (and more optional stuff) and returns a record
containing the contents and headers. But again, many useful 3rd party
libraries use httplib, and they won't work unless we somehow support
httplib. So we have had to go out of our way to cover most uses of
httplib. While the app believes it is opening the connection and
sending the request, we are actually just buffering everything; and
when the app starts reading from the connection, we make the urlfetch
RPC and buffer the response, which we then feed back to the app as it
believes it is reading from the socket. As long as the app doesn't try
to get the socket's file descriptor and call select() it will work
But some libraries *do* call select(), and here our emulation breaks
down. It would be nicer if the standard way to do async stuff was
higher level than select(), so that we could offer the emulation at a
level that would integrate with the event loop -- that way, ideally
when we have to send the urlfetch RPC we could actually return a
Future (or whatever), and the task would correctly be suspended, just
*thinking* it was waiting for the response on a socket, but actually
waiting for the RPC.
Hopefully SSL provides another use case.
--Guido van Rossum (python.org/~guido)
More information about the Python-ideas