Thread-local storage

From HaskellWiki
Revision as of 16:09, 8 August 2006 by Taral (talk | contribs)

Jump to: navigation, search

No facility for thread-local storage exists yet in any Haskell compiler.

If we override 'fork', then we can implement a thread-local storage facility using 'ThreadId'. The following implementation uses one variable per type:

However, if many people are going to use thread-local storage then it would be best to have a standard implementation, for library compatibility.

Simon Marlow and Simon Peyton-Jones have both expressed that they support some form of thread-local storage in the standard libraries.[1][2]

Proposal 1 ('threadlocal')

Robert Dockins has put forward a proposal[3] which deals specially with initialization issues.

This deals with initialization which is important if the TLS is used for state.

Proposal 2

Frederik Eaton posted an example API to the Haskell mailing list [4]. It depends on two new functions 'withParams' and 'getParams'.

import qualified Data.Map as M
import Data.Maybe
import Data.Unique
import Data.IORef
import Data.Typeable

-- only these 2 must be implemented:
withParams :: ParamsMap -> IO () -> IO ()
getParams :: IO ParamsMap

type ParamsMap = M.Map Unique Value

data Value = forall a . (Typeable a) => V a

type IOParam a = IORef (Unique, a)

newIOParam :: Typeable a => a -> IO (IOParam a)
newIOParam def = do
    k <- newUnique
    newIORef (k,def)

withIOParam :: Typeable a => IOParam a -> a -> IO () -> IO ()
withIOParam p value act = do
    (k,def) <- readIORef p
    m <- getParams
    withParams (M.insert k (V value) m) act

getIOParam :: Typeable a => IOParam a -> IO a
getIOParam p = do
    (k,def) <- readIORef p
    m <- getParams
    return $ fromMaybe def (M.lookup k m >>= (\ (V x) -> cast x))

Comments (feel free to delete)

  • Why not use Dynamic instead of Value?
  • Why is withParams "IO ()" instead of "IO a"?
  • Is it possible to set default values for threads where the IOParam was not set?
  • Is it possible to have a value in TLS that is not Typeable?
  • Would the idea be to use unsafePerformIO to create the Uniques for top-level keys?

Proposal 3

Simon Peyton-Jones gave another proposal:

* The thoughts that Simon and were considering about thread-local state
are quite close to Robert's proposal.  For myself, I am somewhat
persuaded that some form of implicitly-passed state in the IO monad
(without explicit parameters) is useful.   Examples I often think of are
        - Allocating unique identifiers
        - Making random numbers
        - Where stdin and stdout should go
In all of these cases, a form of dynamic binding is just what we want:
send stdout to the current thread's stdout, use the current thread's
random number seed, etc.

* There's no need to connect it to *state*.  The key top-level thing you
need is to allocate what Adrian Hey calls a "thing with identity".
I'll call it a key.  For example, rather than a 'threadlocal'
declaration, one might just have:

        newkey foo :: Key Int

where 'newkey' the keyword; this declares a new key with type (Key Int),
distinct from all other keys.

Now you can imagine that the IO monad could provide operations
        withBinding :: Key a -> a -> IO b -> IO b
        lookupBinding :: Key a -> IO a

very much like the dynamic-binding primitives that have popped up on
this thread.

* If you want *state*, you can have a (Key (IORef Int)).  Now you look
up the binding to get an IORef (or MVar, whatever you like) and you can
mutate that at will.  So this separates a thread-local *environment*
from thread-local *state*.

* Keys may be useful for purposes other than withBinding and
thread-local state.  One would also want to dynamically create new keys:
        newKey :: IO (Key a)

* I agree with Robert that a key issue is initialisation.  Maybe it
should be possible to associate an initialiser with a key.  I have not
thought this out.

*  A key issue is this: when forking a thread, does the new thread
inherit the current thread's bindings, or does it get a
freshly-initialised set.  Sometimes you want one, sometimes the other,

Frederik's response is:

The main difference between my and your proposals, as I see it, is 
that your proposal is based on "keys" which can be used for other 
I think that leads to an interface which is less natural. In my 
proposal, the IOParam type is quite similar to an IORef - it has a 
user-specified initial state, and the internal implementation is 
hidden from the user - yours differs in both of these aspects. 


Keys seem like a mechanism that can help many things. E.g. the implementation of Typeable. It might be wise to require keys to be monomorphically typed to solve the polymorphic references problem.

Change "Key" to "IODynamicRef" and it's my proposal for dynamic binding. Calling it a "Key" is just funny to me. -- Taral 16:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


It would be nice for TLS not act as unsafeCoerce#. This means that they should be monomorphic. The current status is:

  • TLSVar code - safe
  • Proposal 1 - unsafe like global polymorphic IORefs
  • Proposal 2 - safe with a runtime check
  • Proposal 3 - same as proposal 1.

Cons of Thread local storage

Einar Karttunen expressed concern that extensive use of thread-local storage might cause problems with libraries that run actions in thread pools. He suggested that it would be better to define monads which contain all of the contextual state [5]. Frederik Eaton pointed out that in many reasonable designs, an approach which carries state in custom monads requires code which is quadratic in the number of layers of context [6]. Einar Karttunen also suggested a function which would solve the thread pool problem:

-- | Tie all TLS references in the IO action to the current
-- environment rather than the environment it will actually
-- be executed.
tieToCurrentTLS :: IO a -> IO (IO a)