Designing the coroutine channel¶

This is a design note for the channel<T> .

It's one of the oldest feature in this library. In this article, I will write about the design background of the type.

John Bandela already talked about the coroutine based channel in CppCon 2016. However, I designed more limited one on my own.

#include <coroutine/channel.hpp> using namespace coro ; constexpr int bye = 0 ; auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { // the type doesn't support for-co_await for now for ( auto [ msg , ok ] = co_await ch . read (); ok ; tie ( msg , ok ) = co_await ch . read ()) { // ok == true: we received a value if ( msg == bye ) break ; co_await ch . write ( msg ); // we can write in the reader coroutine } } auto producer_owner () -> no_return { channel < int > ch {}; consumer ( ch ); // start a consumer routine for ( int msg : { 1 , 2 , 3 , bye }) { auto ok = co_await ch . write ( msg ); // ok == true: we sent a value co_await ch . read ( msg ); // we can read in the writer coroutine } }

Notice that we are reading before writing values to the channel. You can visit more example(test) codes for the type:

There are multiple ways to deliver value(normally an object) from a routine to another routine.

channel<T> is designed to play a role as one of them.

Before the coroutine¶

Before the C++ Coroutines becames available, there were 2 ways.

return : from callee subroutine to caller subroutine

: from callee subroutine to caller subroutine future<T> since C++11 : return with synchronization(shared state)

return forwards a T type object from callee subroutine to caller subroutine.

C++ 11 future<T> , do the same work but uses a shared state to provide synchronization. As we know, such a synchronization is for multi-threaded code. One of those methods' limitation is that they can deliver only 1 object (of T type), only 1 time (with the return ). Which makes inconvenience sometimes...

After the coroutine¶

By adopting coroutine to our world, now we can suspend, and get a new way of delivery.

task<T> : 1 time delivery, from a coroutine to another coroutine

: 1 time delivery, from a coroutine to another coroutine generator<T> : multi-time delivery, from the generator coroutine to activator coroutine

task<T> is the simplest way to get co_return from a coroutine. The most important design point for a coroutine function is that managing suspension( co_await ). It's because suspension is more general than finalization( co_return ). task<T> deals with the cases and activates(resumes) awaiting coroutine when the activatee coroutine returns.

generator<T> uses co_yield to deliver value from activatee(generator coroutine) to activator(resumer subroutine) multiple times. For us, co_yield itself is a syntatic sugar that invokes yield_value and evaluate co_await (therefore, suspend) at the same time. Indeed there is a harmony in the way generator<T> works.

However, what if we can't acquire the value from generator<T> immediately? What if advancing its iterator is asynchronous?

async_generator<T> : generator<T> + awaitable iterator

So async_generator<T> allows us to attach a coroutine which will be resumed when the generator coroutine can yield(perform the delivery). In my perspective, using co_await on its iterator is indeed a good idea for the interface design.

Its user code remains very similar to that of the generator<T>

The consumer coroutine is resumed automatically, so there is no coverage leak

You can review existing implementations.

Please let me know if there is another implementations so I can add them :)

From the https://github.com/kirkshoop/await

In this library, which is based on kirkshoop's work, sequence<T>

From the adorable cppcoro

Another type of the delivery?¶

At this point, we can recognize that we don't have a bidirectional delivery. generator<T> delivers its co_yield ed value only in 1 direction, and so does async_generator<T> .

Also, if we need to write multi-threaded code, there are still needs of the synchronization. It depends on the pattern and can managed well, but it's still hard to the beginners.

For nondirectional delivery, there is a good example in the Go language. It's channel . The channel can suspend both producer and consumer goroutines by affecting their scheduling.

However, there is a difference between the coroutine in the C++ and Goroutine in the Go language. Goroutine is scheduled by the Go runtime, but coroutine are not. It doesn't have a built-in scheduling. Basically, coroutine_handle<T> itself is a pointer and programmers have to manage them manually.

So the requirement for our new type is like the following.

channel<T> Non-directional delivery (at least bidirectional) Optional synchronization Coverage leak prevention Invalidation Zero allocation



We should be able to write/read to a channel in a same coroutine.

It's convenient. And that is important for the beginners.

Optional synchronization¶

It supports single-threaded code and there must be zero-cost in the case.

Coverage leak prevention¶

The type must prevent coverage leak.

That means, it must do its best to make related coroutines reach their ends.

The channel must be able to notify its invalidation.

So its user code can handle the operation failure and prevent undefined behavior while they are writing the code.

With the coverage requirement above, user will co_return the coroutine, or delegate its work somehow.

Zero allocation¶

new / delete is not allowed to avoid unnecessary cost.

Design Concerns¶

Optional synchronization¶

The logic will remain while user applies different synchronization types. So the type will use be template.

template < typename T , typename M = bypass_lock > class channel ; // by default, channel doesn't care about the race condition template < typename T , typename M > class channel final { public : using mutex_type = M ; private : mutex_type mtx ; }

Also, as you can see above, it will use do nothing lockable by default.

// Lockable without lock operation. struct bypass_lock final { constexpr bool try_lock () noexcept { return true ; } constexpr void lock () noexcept { // do nothing since this is 'bypass' lock } constexpr void unlock () noexcept { // it is not locked } };

unlike the channel of Go, the type doesn't provide explicit close operation

Explicit close is simple enough because we can just check the channel's state and break the loop. But it is highly possible that user will carefully design the value if there is no close .

Suppose we have a close for the channel:

auto producer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { int msg {}; // ... while ( ch . closed () == false ){ co_await ch . write ( msg ); // ... if ( cond ) break ; } ch . close (); // ok, no more value co_return ; } auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { while ( ch . closed () == false ){ int msg = co_await ch . read (); // ... } }

In this case, user will think about the state of the channel.

The following questions can be managed by patternized code, but will always arise from the existance of close .

Which line should the close placed?

placed? When it's already closed, what should I do for read/write?

When we don't have a close , users will think about another issue.

When should I stop the read/write?

The question is about managing the loop, and probably they will use something like EOF (sentinel value). In my perspective, it is more likely to have well-designed space for the value_type of the channel:

auto producer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { for ( int msg : { 1 , 2 , 3 , bye }) { co_await ch . write ( msg ); // ... } } auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { int msg {}; for ( co_await ch . read ( msg ); msg != bye ; co_await ch . read ( msg )){ // ... } }

Watching the CppCon 2016 talk will help you a lot for the following notes.

Making a linked list of the coroutine frames¶

Since coroutine frames are allocated separatly, we can use them like a node in the linked list. By placing next pointer in those frame, we can make zero-allocation channel. Actually they are a kind of pre-allocation since the cost is already paid in the frame construction(invocation) steps.

So it will be enough for channel<T> to have 2 linked lists and 1 mutex to operate correctly under multi-threaded code.

template < typename T , typename M > class channel final : internal :: list < reader < T , M >> , internal :: list < writer < T , M >> { // ... private : mutex_type mtx ; }

To make a linked list of the coroutine frames, the type places an objects in the coroutine frame that containes next pointer.

// Coroutine based channel. User have to provide appropriate lockable template < typename T , typename M > class channel final : internal :: list < reader < T , M >> , internal :: list < writer < T , M >> { // ... public : // place a writer in the coroutine's frame decltype ( auto ) write ( reference ref ) noexcept ( false ) { return writer { * this , addressof ( ref )}; } // place a reader in the coroutine's frame decltype ( auto ) read () noexcept ( false ) { return reader { * this }; } };

You can find next pointer in the following writer and reader . Notice that they have a reserved space to receive coroutine_handle<void> from await_suspend .

template < typename T , typename M > class writer final { public : using value_type = T ; using channel_type = channel < T , M > ; private : mutable pointer ptr ; // Address of value mutable void * frame ; union { writer * next = nullptr ; // Next writer in the channel channel_type * chan ; }; };

template < typename T , typename M > class reader { public : using value_type = T ; using channel_type = channel < T , M > ; protected : mutable pointer ptr ; // Address of value mutable void * frame ; union { reader * next = nullptr ; // Next reader in the channel channel_type * chan ; }; };

Because of the design we will place the objects in the frame.

Consider:

auto temporary_reader_object ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { // co_await ch.read(); reader < int > reader = ch . read (); co_await reader ; }

When it's used with for statement, there will be at most 2 read/writes. So it won't be that complicated.

// at most 2 operation in 1 for loop auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { for ( auto [ msg , ok ] = co_await ch . read (); ok ; tie ( msg , ok ) = co_await ch . read ()) { // ... } } auto producer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { for ( int msg : { 1 , 2 , 3 , bye }) { auto ok = co_await ch . write ( msg ); // ... } }

Preventing Coverage Leak¶

We all know that RAII is the best way to make the type system work for us. Let's consider about it.

What is the proper behavior of the linked list on its destruction?

Like the std::list<T> , it must delete its existing nodes to prevent memory leak. Unfortunately, this case is really special because the nodes are existing coroutines' frame.

That means, if we free the node, it will destroy all objects in the frame. That's really brutal because it can break all existing expectations of the function that manages its frame manually (with customized promise_type ).

So the appropriate behavior is to resume those frames and let them recognize that they can't access the channel anymore. In its destructor, channel<T, M> resumes all awaiting coroutines in its linked lists. Notice the destructor is specified noexcept(false) because typically resume operation is not guaranteed noexcept .

template < typename T , typename M > class channel { // ... ~ channel () noexcept ( false ) // channel can't provide exception guarantee... { writer_list & writers = * this ; reader_list & readers = * this ; size_t repeat = 1 ; while ( repeat -- ) { unique_lock lck { mtx }; while ( writers . is_empty () == false ) { writer * w = writers . pop (); auto coro = coroutine_handle < void >:: from_address ( w -> frame ); w -> frame = internal :: poison (); // <-- use a poison value coro . resume (); // <-- resume write operations } while ( readers . is_empty () == false ) { reader * r = readers . pop (); auto coro = coroutine_handle < void >:: from_address ( r -> frame ); r -> frame = internal :: poison (); coro . resume (); // <-- resume read operations } } } }

With the behavior, user code must be changed like the following. It receive not only a value from the channel but also one bool that notifies the channel is still accessible.

// Before auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { int msg {}; for ( co_await ch . read ( msg ); msg != bye ; co_await ch . read ( msg )){ // ... } } // After auto consumer ( channel < int >& ch ) -> no_return { // it's returning tuple, // declare memory objects using structured binding for ( auto [ msg , ok ] = co_await ch . read (); ok ; tie ( msg , ok ) = co_await ch . read ()) { // ok == true: the channel is accessible // ... } }

By doing so, if the reader/writer coroutines are written correctly, channel can guarantee there is no dangling coroutines in its linked lists, and prevent coverage leak of them.

Using a poison in await_resume ¶

I used poison to replace explicit close .

Remember that the co_await expression is affected by await_resume . Returning a tuple from the function can constrain user's code.

In the implementation, to decide to return true or false , both reader<T, M> and writer<T, M> have to check if the poison is delivered.

// Awaitable for channel's read operation template < typename T , typename M > class reader { // ... auto await_resume () noexcept ( false ) -> tuple < value_type , bool > { auto t = make_tuple ( value_type {}, false ); // frame holds poision if the channel is going to be destroyed if ( this -> frame == internal :: poison ()) return t ; // Store first. we have to do this because the resume operation // can destroy the writer coroutine get < 0 > ( t ) = move ( * ptr ); if ( auto coro = coroutine_handle < void >:: from_address ( frame )) coro . resume (); get < 1 > ( t ) = true ; return t ; } };

Unlike reader, writer just returns bool . The signature makes its return can be used in if or while conveniently.

// Awaitable for channel's write operation template < typename T , typename M > class writer final { // ... bool await_resume () noexcept ( false ) { // frame holds poision if the channel is going to destroy if ( this -> frame == internal :: poison ()) return false ; if ( auto coro = coroutine_handle < void >:: from_address ( frame )) coro . resume (); return true ; } };

Furthermore, the signature makes user to places a boolean in the coroutine's frame, not in the channel. So it's on-demand cost.

This part is realted to the requirement, optional synchronization. It will be covered later because they are purely about the implementation.

If you are really curious, visit this page.

The type doesn't weighted for the performance. What I focused was to enforce intuitive code and to guide users' consideration to their behavior (and undelying semantics). It's not replacement nor alternative of the other delivery methods.

To summarize each methods,

return : 1 time, directional, subroutine to subroutine

: 1 time, directional, subroutine to subroutine future<T> : 1 time, directional, subroutine to subroutine, synchronization(shared state)

: 1 time, directional, subroutine to subroutine, synchronization(shared state) task<T> : 1 time, directional, coroutine to coroutine

: 1 time, directional, coroutine to coroutine generator<T> : multi-time, directional, coroutine to coroutine

: multi-time, directional, coroutine to coroutine asnyc_generator<T> : multi-time, directional, coroutine to coroutine, awaitable iterator

: multi-time, directional, coroutine to coroutine, awaitable iterator channel<T> : multi-time (with suspend), non-directional, optional synchronization

For channel<T> itself...

You can see the example with the Compiler Explorer(MSVC) or with the WandBox(clang-8)

Coverage Leak¶

For the requirement, channel becomes a linked list of each reader and writer. Its operations place reader/writer object in the coroutine frame.

In the destructor, all objects in linked lists receive the poison value.

To detect invalidation of the channel, we check the poison value in the await_resume function. It's signature enforces to make a memory object( ok in the example) to receive channel's status.