I was doing some JavaScript programming where I hooked a bunch of image onload() callbacks with functions that would generate alerts, when I noticed that various alerts were firing before I had finished hooking up all my callbacks. This caused me a lot of consternation. JavaScript does not come with any threading primitives. As such, it's very hard to do any synchronization. Yet clearly, my version of Internet Explorer was triggering these callbacks asynchronously, in threads other than my main thread, resulting in various race conditions in my code.
Firefox seems to use a more sensible model. It seems like it has only one JavaScript thread (much like the single UI thread in most GUI systems), and asynchronous events queue up and are only fired when your JavaScript thread isn't doing anything (of course, that's brings up the other problem of the fact that Firefox seems to discard events if too many get queued up--but at least that's easier to handle than race conditions).
I went looking around for various mutex code to solve this problem, but nothing seems quite right. Some Bruce Wallace person created a JavaScript version of mutex, but I don't have much confidence in it. First of all, he replaced a fixed size array from Lamport's Bakery algorithm with a Map. The whole point of the fixed size array was that you could perform atomic reads and writes on it--a reasonable assumption. Once you use a Map, you're assuming atomic adds, atomic removes, and atomic iteration, which are much larger assumptions. In any case, if you had an atomic add operation, then you wouldn't need to implement the Bakery algorithm because you could use atomic add to create a mutex. His assignment of thread ids also has a race condition in it. I suppose I could just assign a separate thread id to each callback in advance, thereby avoiding the race condition, but if I did that, then I wouldn't need this Map nonsense and I could use a fixed size array because I would know how many threads there are in advance.
Instead, I simply reshaped my code so as to minimize the race condition to an atomic increment instruction. It seems unsatisfactory though. Personally, I think JavaScript should not be multi-threaded, but if it is multi-threaded, they should at least supply something like Array atomic_add() and atomic_remove() methods so that users at least have the proper primitives available for building synchronization primitives. And I'm not sure whether JavaScript engines are themselves thread-safe. I know that Mozilla's Rhino claims that it is thread-safe (I vaguely remember them stating that get and put operations were atomic), but I don't know about the engines in FireFox and IE.
Update 2011-3-31: I was going through my blog stats for the first time, and I noticed that people seem to read this post occasionally. This is an old blog post, and I explore the situation in more detail in later blog posts. Actually, JavaScript is NOT multi-threaded. In IE6, you do get some weird non-sequential behaviour, but that's due to nested asynchronous callbacks.
No comments:
Post a Comment