Interactive code snippets not yet available for SoH 2.0, see our Status of of School of Haskell 2.0 blog post

3. Software Transactional Memory

Software Transactional Memory is a promising new approach to the challenge of concurrency, as I will explain in this section. I shall explain STM using Haskell, the most beautiful programming language I know, because STM fits into Haskell particularly elegantly. If you don’t know any Haskell, don’t worry; we’ll learn it as we go.

3.1 Side effects and input/output in Haskell

Here is the beginning of the code for transfer in Haskell:

transfer :: Account -> Account -> Int -> IO ()
-- Transfer ’amount’ from account ’from’ to account ’to’
transfer from to amount = ...

The second line of this definition, starting “--”, is a comment. The first line gives the type signature for transfer. This signature says that transfer takes as its arguments2 two values of type Account (the source and destination accounts), and an Int (the amount to transfer), and returns a value of type IO (). This result type says “transfer returns an action that, when performed, may have some side effects, and then returns a value of type ()”. The type (), pronounced “unit”, has just one value, which is also written (); it is akin to void in C. So transfer’s result type IO () announces that its side effects constitute the only reason for calling it. Before we go further, we must explain how side effects are handled in Haskell.

A “side effect” is anything that reads or writes mutable state. Input/output is a prominent example of a side effect. For example, here are the signatures of two Haskell functions with input/output effects:

hPutStr  :: Handle -> String -> IO ()
hGetLine :: Handle -> IO String

We call any value of type IO t an “action”. So (hPutStr h "hello")3 is an action that, when performed, will print "hello" on handle4 h and return the unit value. Similarly, (hGetLine h) is an action that, when performed, will read a line of input from handle h and return it as a String. We can glue together little side-effecting programs to make bigger side-effecting programs using Haskell’s “do” notation. For example, hEchoLine reads a string from the input and prints it:

hEchoLine :: Handle -> IO String
hEchoLine h = do
    s <- hGetLine h
    hPutStr h ("I just read that " ++ s)
    return s

The notation:


constructs an action by gluing together the smaller actions a1 . . . an in sequence. So hEchoLine h is an action that, when performed, will first perform hGetLine h to read a line from h, naming the result s. Then it will perform hPutStr to print s, preceded5 by “I just read: ”. Finally, it returns the string s. This last line is interesting, because return is not a built-in language construct: rather, it is a perfectly ordinary function with type

return :: a -> IO a

The action return v, when performed, returns v without having caused any side effects6. This function works on values of any type, and we indicate this by using a type variable a in its type.

Input/output is one important sort of side effect. Another is the act of reading or writing a mutable variable. For example, here is a function that increments the value of a mutable variable:

incRef :: IORef Int -> IO ()
incRef var = do
    val <- readIORef var
    writeIORef var (val+1)

Here, incRef var is an action that first performs readIORef var to read the value of the variable, naming its value val, and then performs writeIORef to write the value (val+1) into the variable. The types of readIORef and writeIORef are as follows:

readIORef  :: IORef a -> IO a
writeIORef :: IORef a -> a -> IO ()

A value of type IORef t should be thought of as a pointer, or reference, to a mutable location containing a value of type t, a bit like the type (t *) in C. In the case of incRef, the argument has type IORef Int because incRef only applies to locations that contain an Int.

So far I have explained how to build big actions by combining smaller ones together — but how does an action ever actually get performed? In Haskell, the whole program defines a single IO action, called main. To run the program is to perform the action main. For example, here is a complete program:

import System.IO

-- show
main :: IO ()
main = do
    hPutStr stdout "Hello"
    hPutStr stdout " world\n"

This program is a sequential program, because the do-notation combines IO actions in sequence. To construct a concurrent program we need one more primitive, forkIO:

forkIO :: IO a -> IO ThreadId

The function forkIO, which is built into Haskell, takes an IO action as its argument, and spawns it as a concurrent Haskell thread. Once created, it is run concurrently with all the other Haskell threads, by the Haskell runtime system. For example, suppose we modified our main program thus7:

import System.IO
import Control.Concurrent

-- show
main :: IO ()
main = do 
    forkIO (hPutStr stdout "Hello")
    hPutStr stdout " world\n"

Now the two hPutStr actions would run concurrently. Which of them would “win” (by printing its string first) is unspecified. Haskell threads spawned by forkIO are extremely lightweight: they occupy a few hundred bytes of memory, and it is perfectly reasonable for a single program to spawn thousands of them.

Gentle reader, you may by now be feeling that Haskell is a very clumsy and verbose language. After all, our three-line definition of incRef accomplishes no more than x++ does in C! Indeed, in Haskell side effects are extremely explicit and somewhat verbose. However, remember first that Haskell is primarily a functional language. Most programs are written in the functional core of Haskell, which is rich, expressive, and concise. Haskell thereby gently encourages you to write programs that make sparing use of side effects.

Second, notice that being explicit about side effects reveals a good deal of useful information. Consider two functions:

f :: Int -> Int
g :: Int -> IO Int

From looking only at their types we can see that f is a pure function: it has no side effects. Given a particular Int, say 42, the call (f 42) will return the same value every time it is called. In contrast, g has side effects, and this is apparent in its type. Each time g is performed it may give a different result — for example it may read from stdin, or modify a mutable variable — even if its argument is the same every time. This ability to make side effects explicit will prove very useful in what follows.

Lastly, actions are first-class values: they may be passed as arguments as well as returned as results. For example, here is the definition of a (simplified) for loop function, written entirely in Haskell rather than being built in:

nTimes :: Int -> IO () -> IO ()
nTimes 0 do_this = return ()
nTimes n do_this = do
    nTimes (n-1) do_this

This recursive function takes an Int saying how many times to loop, and an action do_this; it returns an action that, when performed, performs the do_this action n times. Here is an example of a use of nTimes to print “Hello” 10 times:

main = nTimes 10 (hPutStr stdout "Hello\n")

In effect, by treating actions as first-class values, Haskell supports user-defined control structures.

This chapter is not the place for a full introduction to Haskell, or even to side effects in Haskell. A good starting point for further reading is the tutorial “Tackling the awkward squad” [9].

3.2 Transactions in Haskell

Now we can return to our transfer function. Here is its code:

transfer :: Account -> Account -> Int -> IO ()
-- Transfer ’amount’ from account ’from’ to account ’to’
transfer from to amount
  = atomically (do  deposit to amount
                    withdraw from amount)

The inner do-block should by now be fairly self-explanatory: we call deposit to deposit amount in to, and withdraw to withdraw amount from account from. We will write these auxiliary functions in a moment, but first look at the call to atomically. It takes an action as its argument, and performs it atomically. More precisely, it makes two guarantees:

Atomicity: the effects of atomically act become visible to another thread all at once. This ensures that no other thread can see a state in which money has been deposited in to but not yet withdrawn from from.

Isolation: during a call atomically act, the action act is completely unaffected by other threads. It is as if act takes a snapshot of the state of the world when it begins running, and then executes against that snapshot.

Here is a simple execution model for atomically. Suppose there is a single, global lock. Then atomically act grabs the lock, performs the action act, and releases the lock. This implementation brutally ensures that no two atomic blocks can be executed simultaneously, and thereby ensures atomicity.

There are two problems with this model. First, it does not ensure isolation at all: while one thread is accessing an IORef inside an atomic block (holding the Global Lock), there is nothing to stop another thread writing the same IORef directly (i.e. outside atomically, without holding the Global Lock), thereby destroying the isolation guarantee. Second, performance is dreadful, because every atomic block would be serialised even if no actual interference was possible.

I will discuss the second problem shortly, in Section 3.3. Meanwhile, the first objection is easily addressed with the type system. We give atomically the following type:

atomically :: STM a -> IO a

The argument of atomically is an action of type STM a. An STM action is like an IO action, in that it can have side effects, but the range of side effects for STM actions is much smaller. The main thing you can do in an STM action is read or write a transactional variable, of type (TVar a), much as we could read or write IORefs in an IO action8.

readTVar  :: TVar a -> STM a
writeTVar :: TVar a -> a -> STM ()

STM actions can be composed together with the same do-notation as IO actions — the do-notation is overloaded to work on both types, as is return9. Here, for example, is the code for withdraw:

type Account = TVar Int

withdraw :: Account -> Int -> STM ()
withdraw acc amount = do
    bal <- readTVar acc
    writeTVar acc (bal - amount)

We represent an Account by a transactional variable containing an Int for the account balance. Then withdraw is an STM action that decrements the balance in the account by amount.

To complete the definition of transfer we can define deposit in terms of withdraw:

deposit :: Account -> Int -> STM ()
deposit acc amount = withdraw acc (- amount)

Notice that, transfer ultimately performs four primitive read/write actions: a read and then write on account to, followed by a read and then write on account from. These four actions execute atomically, and that meets the specification given at the start of Section 2.

The type system neatly prevents us from reading or writing a TVar outside of a transaction. For example, suppose we tried this:

bad :: Account -> IO ()
bad acc = do
    hPutStr stdout "Withdrawing..."
    withdraw acc 10

This program is rejected because the hPutStr is an IO action, while the withdraw is an STM action, and the two cannot be combined in a single do block. If we wrap a call to atomically around the withdraw, all is well:

good :: Account -> IO ()
good acc = do 
    hPutStr stdout "Withdrawing..."
    atomically (withdraw acc 10)

3.3 Implementing transactional memory

The guarantees of atomicity and isolation that I described earlier should be all that a programmer needs in order to use STM. Even so, I often find it helpful to have a reasonable implementation model to guide my intuitions, and I will sketch one such implementation in this section. But remember that this is just one possible implementation. One of the beauties of the STM abstraction is that it presents a small, clean interface that can be implemented in a variety of ways, some simple and some sophisticated.

One particularly attractive implementation is well established in the database world, namely optimistic execution. When (atomically act) is performed, a thread-local transaction log is allocated, initially empty. Then the action act is performed, without taking any locks at all. While performing act, each call to writeTVar writes the address of the TVar and its new value into the log; it does not write to the TVar itself. Each call to readTVar first searches the log (in case the TVar was written by an earlier call to writeTVar); if no such record is found, the value is read from the TVar itself, and the TVar and value read are recorded in the log. In the meantime, other threads might be running their own atomic blocks, reading and writing TVars like crazy.

When the action act is finished, the implementation first validates the log and, if validation is successful, commits the log. The validation step examines each readTVar recorded in the log, and checks that the value in the log matches the value currently in the real TVar. If so, validation succeeds, and the commit step takes all the writes recorded in the log and writes them into the real TVars.

These steps are performed truly indivisibly: the implementation disables interrupts, or uses locks or compare-and-swap instructions — whatever is necessary to ensure that validation and commit are perceived by other threads as completely indivisible. All of this is handled by the implementation, however, and the programmer does not need to know or care how it is done.

What if validation fails? Then the transaction has had an inconsistent view of memory. So we abort the transaction, re-initialise the log, and run act all over again. This process is called re-execution. Since none of act’s writes have been committed to memory, it is perfectly safe to run it again. However, notice that it is crucial that act contains no effects other than reads and writes on TVars. For example, consider

atomically (do x <- readTVar xv
               y <- readTVar yv
               if x>y then launchMissiles
                      else return () )

where launchMissiles :: IO () causes serious international side-effects. Since the atomic block is executed without taking locks, it might have an inconsistent view of memory if other threads are concurrently modifying xv and yv. If that happens, it would be a mistake to launch the missiles, and only then discover that validation fails so the transaction should be re-run. Fortunately, the type system prevents us running IO actions inside STM actions, so the above fragment would be rejected by the type checker. This is another big advantage of distinguishing the types of IO and STM actions.

3.4 Blocking and choice

Atomic blocks as we have introduced them so far are utterly inadequate to coordinate concurrent programs. They lack two key facilities: blocking and choice. In this section I’ll describe how the basic STM interface is elaborated to include them in a fully-modular way.

Suppose that a thread should block if it attempts to overdraw an account (i.e. withdraw more than the current balance). Situations like this are common in concurrent programs: for example, a thread should block if it reads from an empty buffer, or when it waits for an event. We achieve this in STM by adding the single function retry, whose type is

retry :: STM a

Here is a modified version of withdraw that blocks if the balance would go negative:

limitedWithdraw :: Account -> Int -> STM ()
limitedWithdraw acc amount = do
    bal <- readTVar acc
    if amount > 0 && amount > bal
    then retry
    else writeTVar acc (bal - amount)

The semantics of retry are simple: if a retry action is performed, the current transaction is abandoned and retried at some later time. It would be correct to retry the transaction immediately, but it would also be inefficient: the state of the account will probably be unchanged, so the transaction will again hit the retry. An efficient implementation would instead block the thread until some other thread writes to acc. How does the implementation know to wait on acc? Because the transaction read acc on the way to the retry, and that fact is conveniently recorded in the transaction log.

The conditional in limitedWithdraw has a very common pattern: check that a boolean condition is satisfied and, if not, retry. This pattern is easy to abstract as a function, check:

check :: Bool -> STM ()
check True  = return ()
check False = retry

Now we can use check to re-express limitedWithdraw a little more neatly:

limitedWithdraw :: Account -> Int -> STM ()
limitedWithdraw acc amount = do
    bal <- readTVar acc
    check (amount <= 0 || amount <= bal)
    writeTVar acc (bal - amount)

We now turn our attention to choice. Suppose you want to withdraw money from account A if it has enough money, but if not then withdraw it from account B? For that, we need the ability to choose an alternative action if the first one retries. To support choice, STM Haskell has one further primitive action, called orElse, whose type is

orElse :: STM a -> STM a -> STM a

Like atomically itself, orElse takes actions as its arguments, and glues them together to make a bigger action. Its semantics are as follows. The action (orElse a1 a2) first performs a1; if a1 retries (i.e. calls retry), it tries a2 instead; if a2 also retries, the whole action retries. It may be easier to see how orElse is used:

limitedWithdraw2 :: Account -> Account -> Int -> STM ()
-- (limitedWithdraw2 acc1 acc2 amt) withdraws amt from acc1,
-- if acc1 has enough money, otherwise from acc2.
-- If neither has enough, it retries.
limitedWithdraw2 acc1 acc2 amt
  = orElse (limitedWithdraw acc1 amt) (limitedWithdraw acc2 amt)

Since the result of orElse is itself an STM action, you can feed it to another call to orElse and so choose among an arbitrary number of alternatives.

3.5 Summary so far

In this section I have introduced all the key transactional memory operations supported by STM Haskell. They are summarised in Figure 1.


This figure includes one operation that has not so far arisen: newTVar is the way in which you can create new TVar cells, and we will use it in the following section.

» Next: The Santa Claus problem.

 2 You may think it odd that there are three function arrows in this type signature, rather than one. That’s because Haskell supports currying, which you can find described in any book about Haskell (e.g. [13]), or on Wikipedia. For the purposes of this paper, simply treat all the types except the final one as arguments.

 3 In Haskell we write function application using simple juxtaposition. In most languages you would write hPutStr(h,"hello"), but in Haskell you write simply (hPutStr h "hello").

 4 A Handle in Haskell plays the role of a file descriptor in C: it says which file or pipe to read or write. As in Unix, there are three pre-defined handles, stdin, stdout, and stderr.

 5 The (++) operator concatenates two strings.

 6 The IO type indicates the possibility of side effects, not the certainty!

 7 In the first line of main, we could instead have written tid <- forkIO (hPutStr ...), to bind the ThreadId returned by forkIO to tid. However, since we do not use the returned ThreadId, we are free to discard it by omitting the “tid <-” part.

 8 The nomenclature is inconsistent here: it would be more consistent to use either TVar and IOVar, or TRef and IORef. But it would be disruptive to change at this stage; for better or worse we have TVar and IORef.

 9 This overloading of do-notation and return is not an ad-hoc trick to support IO and STM. Rather, IO and STM are both examples of a common pattern, called a monad [15], and the overloading is achieved by expressing that common pattern using Haskell’s very general type-class mechanism [16, 10].

[9] Simon Peyton Jones. Tackling the awkward squad: monadic input/output, concurrency, exceptions, and foreign-language calls in Haskell. In CAR Hoare, M Broy, and R Steinbrueggen, editors, Engineering Theories of Software Construction, Marktoberdorf Summer School 2000, NATO ASI Series, pages 47–96. IOS Press, 2001.

[10] Simon Peyton Jones, Mark Jones, and Erik Meijer. Type classes: an exploration of the design space. In J Launchbury, editor, Haskell workshop, Amsterdam, 1997.

[13] SJ Thompson. Haskell: the craft of functional programming. Addison Wesley, 1999.

[15] PL Wadler. The essence of functional programming. In 20th ACM Sym- posium on Principles of Programming Languages (POPL’92), pages 1–14. ACM, Albuquerque, January 1992.

[16] PL Wadler and S Blott. How to make ad-hoc polymorphism less ad hoc. In Proc 16th ACM Symposium on Principles of Programming Languages, Austin, Texas. ACM, January 1989.

comments powered by Disqus