Author: Richard A. O'Keefe <ok(at)cs(dot)otago(dot)ac(dot)nz> Status: Draft Type: Standards Track Erlang-Version: R12B-4 Created: 05-Aug-2008 Post-History:
An idea from the Logix implementation of Flat Concurrent Prolog can be adapted to Erlang: invisibly to users there can be two implementations of 'atoms', fixing a major system integrity issue and removing the need to warp one's data structure design to code around it.
There are no user-visible changes to the Erlang language or libraries. Interfaces between Erlang and other languages such as C may need to be changed.
We split atoms into two classes: "global" atoms are those atoms which either appear in the post-preprocessing text of some loaded module or are the registered name of any process; "local" atoms are all others which a process creates.
A local atom is represented by a data structure SUCH AS
+----------+ | size+tag | boxed object header; see below +----------+ | hashcode | a 32-bit hash code +----------+ | equivrep | points to Union/Find representative +----------+ | bytes of | | name ... | +----------+
As usual, the size+tag contains a 2 bit tag to say it is an IMMED2 object, a 4-bit subtag to say what kind (I propose 1011), and a 26-bit arity. However, the arity field is split into two subfields:
+--------------+------------+----+--+ | byte count | char count |LATM|BX| +--------------+------------+----+--+ 14 12 4 2 size in bits
The char count says how many Unicode characters there are in the name. The byte count says how many bytes those characters are stored in. For compactness and backwards compatibility, an atom whose name consists only of Latin-1 characters has byte count = char count and name represented as Latin-1; atoms with names outside that range are held in some other form such as UTF-8, SCSU, BOCU, or what have you. This proposal is not specifically about encoding schemes; all I have to say here is that it should be the same for all atoms and it should be at least as good as UTF-8.
The hash code field is a 32-bit hash code. Again, I have
nothing to say about atom hashes as such except to say that
the method should be the same for all atoms in all processes
on a node and that it should be a good one. Advice about
good hashing functions is hard to find.
hashpjw() can be
improved on. I heartily recommend Valloud's book.
The equivrep field is a pointer. It always points to an atom, which may be a global atom or a local atom. Initially, it points to the local atom itself. When a local atom is compared with another local atom,
But this is also combined with Union/Find, very much like binding variables in Prolog. So we "dereference" (chase the equivrep fields) after the second step, and if we end up at the same place, the two local atoms are equal. And if two physically distinct local atoms do turn out equal, we make the younger one (the one most recently created) point to the older one.
Global atoms should have a similar representation; I suggest that the representation of a local atom should be embedded in the representation of a global atom, so that local atoms can be compared with global atoms as if they were both local.
Atoms returned by
list_to_existing_atom/1 are always global atoms.
Atoms returned by
binary_to_term/1 are global
atoms if and only if they are already existing global atoms,
otherwise they are local atoms.
Interfaces provided to other languages, such as C or Java, should leave existing atom-creation operations returning global atoms, and should add operations for creating local atoms.
When a process is garbage collected, a pointer to a local atom is replaced by that local atom's equivrep, so that processes that have ever noticed they have duplicate local atoms don't keep them forever.
There are a number of problems that limit the usefulness of Erlang atoms.
The first is that atom size is limited to 255 bytes,
which makes Erlang atoms of very little use for file names,
FILENAME_MAX is typically 1024 these days.
The second is that atoms are limited to Latin-1 characters. We really do want full Unicode support for them, not so much for programmers to write atoms in strange scripts in their source code as to allow information to flow through an Erlang system as atoms.
Those two are minor problems.
The major problem is the atom table.
It is a global resource, which means that on an SMP system there has to be a lot of locking and unlocking. This proposal doesn't include a new "always return a local atom" operation, but it creates the possibilities for new operations like that which require no locking.
The atom table is limited, in atom.c, to
entries. Even on a 32-bit system, this is smaller than a
machine could support; it is an arbitrary limit, and such limits
are always a problem.
The atom table is not garbage collected. Once an atom has been created, it says created. Historic Prolog systems, like Quintus Prolog, did the same thing. Back in 1984 this was recognised as a problem, especially for programs that wanted to access large volumes of stored data. Modern Prolog systems, like SWI Prolog, do collect atoms; SWI Prolog would not be nearly so useful for manipulating large collections of RDF data if it were otherwise. This proposal does not add garbage collection for the atom table; what it does is to stop most of the atoms that would have been collected ever entering that table in the first place.
Filling up the atom table crashes or hangs the entire node.
This means that it is far too easy to crash or hash Erlang software by feeding it too many atoms.
And that means that Erlang programmers who would like to use atoms in data structures (as keys in dictionaries, say) use binaries instead: binaries are not limited in size or number, can hold UTF-8 if you want them to, are garbage collected, and are generally safer to use.
While this proposal makes atoms more convenient to use (they may be longer, more numerous, and may contain Unicode), the real point is to make atoms safer to use. If you can stream data from source through an Erlang process, mapping external "strings" to binaries, you will be able to do the same thing just as safely mapping them to atoms.
Erlang is not the first language to face these problems. It isn't even the first concurrent language to face them. Flat Concurrent Prolog was there first, and while I have not seen the Logix source code, the idea was explained in Logix documentation many years ago. I know this can work because it did work.
Logix used this approach for all atoms; eventually, I believe Erlang will need to as well in order to handle thousands of processors without lots of locks. Right now, it makes sense to keep on using the old representation for fairly "static" atoms. In particular, we would like module and function names (and frame keys when we have them) to be just the way they are now. If an application is loaded after a local atom has been created, we may find that it is a module name or function name after all; this is one of the reasons for the equivrep field. Once it's noticed, the duplication won't survive another garbage collection.
The current 'global atom' representation has a hack to make term comparison faster. For simplicity I have not described it above, because that's orthogonal to the issues this EEP is concerned with. I note (a) that for the ord0 field to continue in its present form, the encoding would best be UTF-8 or BOCU, and (b) to keep the compactness of the Latin-1 atoms, the ord0 field should be the first 31 bits that would have been stored had the atom been stored in whichever of UTF-8 or BOCU is chosen. I also note (c) that if you don't allow "native" byte ordering to dictate the order in which the bytes of an atom's name are stored, you don't need a special ord0 field.
I should confess that this proposal doesn't entirely avoid the crashes and hangs problem. If an Erlang system can be persuaded to load modules from an untrustworthy source, it can still be made to try to create enough atoms to get into trouble. This is one of the reasons that I think Erlang will eventually have to abandon the global atom table. However, anyone who loads modules
from untrustworthy sources should KNOW they are doing that; it is
an obviously dangerous thing to do.
list_to_atom/1 is NOT an
obviously dangerous function, and it should not be any more
No existing code (outside the Erlang implementation) should be affected in the slightest.
None. The change is simple in concept, but affects several atoms in the core of the system.
This document has been placed in the public domain.