<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE library PUBLIC "-//Boost//DTD BoostBook XML V1.0//EN"
  "http://www.boost.org/tools/boostbook/dtd/boostbook.dtd" [
  <!ENTITY % thread.entities SYSTEM "entities.xml">
  %thread.entities;
]>
<!-- Copyright (c) 2002-2003 William E. Kempf, Michael Glassford
     Subject to the Boost Software License, Version 1.0. 
     (See accompanying file LICENSE-1.0 or  http://www.boost.org/LICENSE-1.0)
-->
<section id="thread.rationale" last-revision="$Date: 2006/10/15 14:52:53 $">
  <title>Rationale</title>
  <para>This page explains the rationale behind various design decisions in the
  &Boost.Thread; library. Having the rationale documented here should explain
  how we arrived at the current design as well as prevent future rehashing of
  discussions and thought processes that have already occurred. It can also give
  users a lot of insight into the design process required for this
  library.</para>
  <section id="thread.rationale.Boost.Thread">
    <title>Rationale for the Creation of &Boost.Thread;</title>
    <para>Processes often have a degree of "potential parallelism" and it can
	often be more intuitive to design systems with this in mind. Further, these
	parallel processes can result in more responsive programs. The benefits for
	multithreaded programming are quite well known to most modern programmers,
	yet the C++ language doesn't directly support this concept.</para>
    <para>Many platforms support multithreaded programming despite the fact that
	the language doesn't support it. They do this through external libraries,
	which are, unfortunately, platform specific. POSIX has tried to address this
	problem through the standardization of a "pthread" library. However, this is
	a standard only on POSIX platforms, so its portability is limited.</para>
    <para>Another problem with POSIX and other platform specific thread
	libraries is that they are almost universally C based libraries. This leaves
	several C++ specific issues unresolved, such as what happens when an
	exception is thrown in a thread. Further, there are some C++ concepts, such
	as destructors, that can make usage much easier than what's available in a C
	library.</para>
    <para>What's truly needed is C++ language support for threads. However, the
	C++ standards committee needs existing practice or a good proposal as a
	starting point for adding this to the standard.</para>
    <para>The &Boost.Thread; library was developed to provide a C++ developer
	with a portable interface for writing multithreaded programs on numerous
	platforms. There's a hope that the library can be the basis for a more
	detailed proposal for the C++ standards committee to consider for inclusion
	in the next C++ standard.</para>
  </section>
  <section id="thread.rationale.primitives">
    <title>Rationale for the Low Level Primitives Supported in &Boost.Thread;</title>
    <para>The &Boost.Thread; library supplies a set of low level primitives for
	writing multithreaded programs, such as mutexes and condition variables. In
	fact, the first release of &Boost.Thread; supports only these low level
	primitives. However, computer science research has shown that use of these
	primitives is difficult since it's difficult to mathematically prove that a
	usage pattern is correct, meaning it doesn't result in race conditions or
	deadlocks. There are several algebras (such as CSP, CCS and Join calculus)
	that have been developed to help write provably correct parallel
	processes. In order to prove the correctness these processes must be coded
	using higher level abstractions. So why does &Boost.Thread; support the
	lower level concepts?</para>
    <para>The reason is simple: the higher level concepts need to be implemented
	using at least some of the lower level concepts. So having portable lower
	level concepts makes it easier to develop the higher level concepts and will
	allow researchers to experiment with various techniques.</para>
    <para>Beyond this theoretical application of higher level concepts, however,
	the fact remains that many multithreaded programs are written using only the
	lower level concepts, so they are useful in and of themselves, even if it's
	hard to prove that their usage is correct. Since many users will be familiar
	with these lower level concepts but unfamiliar with any of the higher
	level concepts, supporting the lower level concepts provides
	greater accessibility.</para>
  </section>
  <section id="thread.rationale.locks">
    <title>Rationale for the Lock Design</title>
    <para>Programmers who are used to multithreaded programming issues will
	quickly note that the &Boost.Thread; design for mutex lock concepts is not
	<link linkend="thread.glossary.thread-safe">thread-safe</link> (this is
	clearly documented as well). At first this may seem like a serious design
	flaw. Why have a multithreading primitive that's not thread-safe
	itself?</para>
    <para>A lock object is not a synchronization primitive. A lock object's sole
	responsibility is to ensure that a mutex is both locked and unlocked in a
	manner that won't result in the common error of locking a mutex and then
	forgetting to unlock it. This means that instances of a lock object are only
	going to be created, at least in theory, within block scope and won't be
	shared between threads. Only the mutex objects will be created outside of
	block scope and/or shared between threads. Though it's possible to create a
	lock object outside of block scope and to share it between threads, to do so
	would not be a typical usage (in fact, to do so would likely be an
	error). Nor are there any cases when such usage would be required.</para>
    <para>Lock objects must maintain some state information. In order to allow a
	program to determine if a try_lock or timed_lock was successful the lock
	object must retain state indicating the success or failure of the call made
	in its constructor. If a lock object were to have such state and remain
	thread-safe it would need to synchronize access to the state information
	which would result in roughly doubling the time of most operations. Worse,
	since checking the state can occur only by a call after construction, we'd
	have a race condition if the lock object were shared between threads.</para>
    <para>So, to avoid the overhead of synchronizing access to the state
	information and to avoid the race condition, the &Boost.Thread; library
	simply does nothing to make lock objects thread-safe. Instead, sharing a
	lock object between threads results in undefined behavior. Since the only
	proper usage of lock objects is within block scope this isn't a problem, and
	so long as the lock object is properly used there's no danger of any
	multithreading issues.</para>
  </section>
  <section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable">
    <title>Rationale for NonCopyable Thread Type</title>
    <para>Programmers who are used to C libraries for multithreaded programming
	are likely to wonder why &Boost.Thread; uses a noncopyable design for
	<classname>boost::thread</classname>. After all, the C thread types are
	copyable, and you often have a need for copying them within user
	code. However, careful comparison of C designs to C++ designs shows a flaw
	in this logic.</para>
    <para>All C types are copyable. It is, in fact, not possible to make a
	noncopyable type in C. For this reason types that represent system resources
	in C are often designed to behave very similarly to a pointer to dynamic
	memory. There's an API for acquiring the resource and an API for releasing
	the resource. For memory we have pointers as the type and alloc/free for
	the acquisition and release APIs. For files we have FILE* as the type and
	fopen/fclose for the acquisition and release APIs. You can freely copy
	instances of the types but must manually manage the lifetime of the actual
	resource through the acquisition and release APIs.</para>
    <para>C++ designs recognize that the acquisition and release APIs are error
	prone and try to eliminate possible errors by acquiring the resource in the
	constructor and releasing it in the destructor. The best example of such a
	design is the std::iostream set of classes which can represent the same
	resource as the FILE* type in C. A file is opened in the std::fstream's
	constructor and closed in its destructor. However, if an iostream were
	copyable it could lead to a file being closed twice, an obvious error, so
	the std::iostream types are noncopyable by design. This is the same design
	used by boost::thread, which is a simple and easy to understand design
	that's consistent with other C++ standard types.</para>
    <para>During the design of boost::thread it was pointed out that it would be
	possible to allow it to be a copyable type if some form of "reference
	management" were used, such as ref-counting or ref-lists, and many argued
	for a boost::thread_ref design instead. The reasoning was that copying
	"thread" objects was a typical need in the C libraries, and so presumably
	would be in the C++ libraries as well. It was also thought that
	implementations could provide more efficient reference management than
	wrappers (such as boost::shared_ptr) around a noncopyable thread
	concept. Analysis of whether or not these arguments would hold true doesn't
	appear to bear them out. To illustrate the analysis we'll first provide
	pseudo-code illustrating the six typical usage patterns of a thread
	object.</para>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.simple">
	  <title>1. Use case: Simple creation of a thread.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         create_thread(&amp;bar);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.joined">
	  <title>2. Use case: Creation of a thread that's later joined.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         join(thread);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.loop">
	  <title>3. Use case: Simple creation of several threads in a loop.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            create_thread(&amp;bar);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.loop-join">
	  <title>4. Use case: Creation of several threads in a loop which are later joined.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            threads[i] = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            threads[i].join();
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.pass">
	  <title>5. Use case: Creation of a thread whose ownership is passed to another object/method.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         manager.owns(thread);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale.non-copyable.shared">
	  <title>6. Use case: Creation of a thread whose ownership is shared between multiple
	  objects.</title>
	  <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         manager1.add(thread);
         manager2.add(thread);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
    <para>Of these usage patterns there's only one that requires reference
	management (number 6). Hopefully it's fairly obvious that this usage pattern
	simply won't occur as often as the other usage patterns. So there really
	isn't a "typical need" for a thread concept, though there is some
	need.</para>
    <para>Since the need isn't typical we must use different criteria for
	deciding on either a thread_ref or thread design. Possible criteria include
	ease of use and performance. So let's analyze both of these
	carefully.</para>
    <para>With ease of use we can look at existing experience. The standard C++
	objects that represent a system resource, such as std::iostream, are
	noncopyable, so we know that C++ programmers must at least be experienced
	with this design. Most C++ developers are also used to smart pointers such
	as boost::shared_ptr, so we know they can at least adapt to a thread_ref
	concept with little effort. So existing experience isn't going to lead us to
	a choice.</para>
    <para>The other thing we can look at is how difficult it is to use both
	types for the six usage patterns above. If we find it overly difficult to
	use a concept for any of the usage patterns there would be a good argument
	for choosing the other design. So we'll code all six usage patterns using
	both designs.</para>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.simple">
	  <title>1. Comparison: simple creation of a thread.</title>
	  <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread thrd(&amp;bar);
      }
      void foo()
      {
         thread_ref thrd = create_thread(&amp;bar);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.joined">
	  <title>2. Comparison: creation of a thread that's later joined.</title>
	  <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread thrd(&amp;bar);
         thrd.join();
      }
      void foo()
      {
         thread_ref thrd =
         create_thread(&amp;bar);thrd-&gt;join();
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop">
	  <title>3. Comparison: simple creation of several threads in a loop.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            thread thrd(&amp;bar);
      }
      void foo()
      {
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            thread_ref thrd = create_thread(&amp;bar);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">
	  <title>4. Comparison: creation of several threads in a loop which are later joined.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         std::auto_ptr&lt;thread&gt; threads[NUM_THREADS];
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            threads[i] = std::auto_ptr&lt;thread&gt;(new thread(&amp;bar));
         for (int i= 0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS;
             ++i)threads[i]-&gt;join();
      }
      void foo()
      {
         thread_ref threads[NUM_THREADS];
         for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
            threads[i] = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         for (int i= 0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS;
            ++i)threads[i]-&gt;join();
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.pass">
	  <title>5. Comparison: creation of a thread whose ownership is passed to another object/method.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         thread thrd* = new thread(&amp;bar);
         manager.owns(thread);
      }
      void foo()
      {
         thread_ref thrd = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         manager.owns(thrd);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
	<section id="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.shared">
	  <title>6. Comparison: creation of a thread whose ownership is shared 
	  between multiple objects.</title>
      <programlisting>
      void foo()
      {
         boost::shared_ptr&lt;thread&gt; thrd(new thread(&amp;bar));
         manager1.add(thrd);
         manager2.add(thrd);
      }
      void foo()
      {
         thread_ref thrd = create_thread(&amp;bar);
         manager1.add(thrd);
         manager2.add(thrd);
      }
      </programlisting>
	</section>
    <para>This shows the usage patterns being nearly identical in complexity for
	both designs. The only actual added complexity occurs because of the use of
	operator new in 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link>,
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.pass">(5)</link>, and
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.shared">(6)</link>;
	and the use of std::auto_ptr and boost::shared_ptr in 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link> and 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.shared">(6)</link>
	respectively. However, that's not really
	much added complexity, and C++ programmers are used to using these idioms
	anyway. Some may dislike the presence of operator new in user code, but
	this can be eliminated by proper design of higher level concepts, such as
	the boost::thread_group class that simplifies example 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link>
	down to:</para>
    <programlisting>
    void foo()
    {
       thread_group threads;
       for (int i=0; i&lt;NUM_THREADS; ++i)
          threads.create_thread(&amp;bar);
       threads.join_all();
    }
    </programlisting>
    <para>So ease of use is really a wash and not much help in picking a
	design.</para>
    <para>So what about performance? Looking at the above code examples, 
    we can analyze the theoretical impact to performance that both designs
	have. For <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.simple">(1)</link>
	we can see that platforms that don't have a ref-counted native
	thread type (POSIX, for instance) will be impacted by a thread_ref
	design. Even if the native thread type is ref-counted there may be an impact
	if more state information has to be maintained for concepts foreign to the
	native API, such as clean up stacks for Win32 implementations. 
	For <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.joined">(2)</link>
	and <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop">(3)</link>
	the performance impact will be identical to
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.simple">(1)</link>.
	For <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link>
	things get a little more interesting and we find that theoretically at least
	the thread_ref may perform faster since the thread design requires dynamic
	memory allocation/deallocation. However, in practice there may be dynamic
	allocation for the thread_ref design as well, it will just be hidden from
	the user. As long as the implementation has to do dynamic allocations the
	thread_ref loses again because of the reference management. For 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.pass">(5)</link> we see
	the same impact as we do for 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link>.
	For <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.shared">(6)</link>
	we still have a possible impact to
	the thread design because of dynamic allocation but thread_ref no longer
	suffers because of its reference management, and in fact, theoretically at
	least, the thread_ref may do a better job of managing the references. All of
	this indicates that thread wins for 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.simple">(1)</link>, 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.joined">(2)</link> and 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop">(3)</link>; with 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.loop-join">(4)</link>
	and <link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.pass">(5)</link> the
	winner depending on the implementation and the platform but with the thread design
	probably having a better chance; and with 
	<link linkend="thread.rationale_comparison.non-copyable.shared">(6)</link> 
	it will again depend on the
	implementation and platform but this time we favor thread_ref
	slightly. Given all of this it's a narrow margin, but the thread design
	prevails.</para>
	<para>Given this analysis, and the fact that noncopyable objects for system
	resources are the normal designs that C++ programmers are used to dealing
	with, the &Boost.Thread; library has gone with a noncopyable design.</para>
  </section>
  <section id="thread.rationale.events">
    <title>Rationale for not providing <emphasis>Event Variables</emphasis></title>
    <para><emphasis>Event variables</emphasis> are simply far too
	error-prone. <classname>boost::condition</classname> variables are a much safer
	alternative. [Note that Graphical User Interface <emphasis>events</emphasis> are 
	a different concept, and are not what is being discussed here.]</para>
    <para>Event variables were one of the first synchronization primitives. They
	are still used today, for example, in the native Windows multithreading
	API. Yet both respected computer science researchers and experienced
	multithreading practitioners believe event variables are so inherently
	error-prone that they should never be used, and thus should not be part of a
	multithreading library.</para>
    <para>Per Brinch Hansen &cite.Hansen73; analyzed event variables in some
	detail, pointing out [emphasis his] that "<emphasis>event operations force
	the programmer to be aware of the relative speeds of the sending and
	receiving processes</emphasis>". His summary:</para>
    <blockquote>
      <para>We must therefore conclude that event variables of the previous type
	  are impractical for system design. <emphasis>The effect of an interaction
	  between two processes must be independent of the speed at which it is
	  carried out.</emphasis></para>
    </blockquote>
    <para>Experienced programmers using the Windows platform today report that
	event variables are a continuing source of errors, even after previous bad
	experiences caused them to be very careful in their use of event
	variables. Overt problems can be avoided, for example, by teaming the event
	variable with a mutex, but that may just convert a <link
	linkend="thread.glossary.race-condition">race condition</link> into another
	problem, such as excessive resource use. One of the most distressing aspects
	of the experience reports is the claim that many defects are latent. That
	is, the programs appear to work correctly, but contain hidden timing
	dependencies which will cause them to fail when environmental factors or
	usage patterns change, altering relative thread timings.</para>
    <para>The decision to exclude event variables from &Boost.Thread; has been
	surprising to some Windows programmers. They have written programs which
	work using event variables, and wonder what the problem is. It seems similar
	to the "goto considered harmful" controversy of 30 years ago. It isn't that
	events, like gotos, can't be made to work, but rather that virtually all
	programs using alternatives will be easier to write, debug, read, maintain,
	and will be less likely to contain latent defects.</para>
    <para>[Rationale provided by Beman Dawes]</para>
  </section>
</section>
