Most of the async runtime functions have been changed to not
expect the task and executor to be passed in. When knowing the
task and executor is necessary, there are runtime functions
available to recover them.
The biggest change I had to make to a runtime function signature
was to swift_task_switch, which has been altered to expect to be
passed the context and resumption function instead of requiring
the caller to park the task. This has the pleasant consequence
of allowing the implementation to very quickly turn around when
it recognizes that the current executor is satisfactory. It does
mean that on arm64e we have to sign the continuation function
pointer as an argument and then potentially resign it when
assigning into the task's resume slot.
rdar://70546948
Create a TargetDispatchClassMetadata for Swift metadata that also has a dispatch-compatible vtable. Dispatch leaves room for ObjC class metadata so the two regions don't overlap. (The vtable currently consists of a single dummy entry; this will be filled out later.)
Rearrange the Job and AsyncTask hierarchy so that AsyncTask inherits only from Job, which in turn inherits from HeapObject. This gives all Job instances a dispatch-compatible isa field. It also gives them a refcount word, which is wasted on instances that aren't AsyncTask instances. Maybe we can find some use for that space in the future.
rdar://75227953
In their previous form, the non-`_f` variants of these entry points were unused, and IRGen
lowered the `createAsyncTask` builtins to use the `_f` variants with a large amount of caller-side
codegen to manually unpack closure values. Amid all this, it also failed to make anyone responsible
for releasing the closure context after the task completed, causing every task creation to leak.
Redo the `swift_task_create_*` entry points to accept the two words of an async closure value
directly, and unpack the closure to get its invocation entry point and initial context size
inside the runtime. (Also get rid of the non-future `swift_task_create` variant, since it's unused
and it's subtly different in a lot of hairy ways from the future forms. Better to add it later
when it's needed than to have a broken unexercised version now.)
First, just call an async -> T function instead of forcing the caller
to piece together which case we're in and perform its own copy. This
ensures that the task is actually kept alive properly.
Second, now that we no longer implicitly depend on the waiting tasks
being run synchronously, go ahead and schedule them to run on the
global executor.
This solves some problems which were blocking the work on TLS-ifying
the task/executor state.
Previously, the error stored in the async context was of type SwiftError
*. In order to enable the context to be callee released, make it
indirect and change its type to SwiftError **.
rdar://71378532
This path is not yet ABI stable so take advantage to correct the
storage. This ABI compatible on most platforms, however, is not
compatible on Windows, which is a ILLP64 platform rather than ILP64.
This extends the storage to 64-bits from 32-bits. In the process, it
avoids some warnings on the windows builds as well.
move comments to the wired up continuations
remove duplicated continuations; leep the wired up ones
before moving to C++ for queue impl
trying to next wait via channel_poll
submitting works; need to impl next()
Introduce `FutureAsyncContext` to line up with the async context formed
by IR generation for the type `<T> () async throws -> T`. When allocating
a future task, set up the context with the address of the future's storage
for the successful result and null out the error result, so the caller
will directly fill in the result. This eliminates a bunch of extra
complexity and a copy.
Use a single atomic for the wait queue that combines the status with
the first task in the queue. Address race conditions in waiting and
completing the future.
Thanks to John for setting the direction here for me.
Extend AsyncTask and the concurrency runtime with basic support for
task futures. AsyncTasks with futures contain a future fragment with
information about the type produced by the future, and where the
future will put the result value or the thrown error in the initial
context.
We still don't have the ability to schedule the waiting tasks on an
executor when the future completes, so this isn't useful for anything
just test, and we can only test limited code paths.
Implement a new builtin, `cancelAsyncTask()`, to cancel the given
asynchronous task. This lowers down to a call into the runtime
operation `swift_task_cancel()`.
Use this builtin to implement Task.Handle.cancel().
There are things about this that I'm far from sold on. In
particular, I'm concerned that in order to implement escalation
correctly, we're going to have to add a status record for the
fact that the task is being executed, which means we're going
to have to potentially wait to acquire the status lock; overall,
that means making an extra runtime function call and doing some
atomics whenever we resume or suspend a task, which is an
uncomfortable amount of overhead.
The testing here is pretty grossly inadequate, but I wanted to
lay down the groundwork here.
