Asynchronous processing with a single thread

Question

Even after reading http://krondo.com/?p=1209 or Does an asynchronous call always create/call a new thread? I am still confused about how to provide asynchronous calls on an inherently single-threaded system. I will explain my understanding so far and point out my doubts.

One of the examples I read was describing a TCP server providing asynch processing of requests - a user would call a method e.g. get(Callback c) and the callback would be invoked some time later. Now, my first issue here - we have already two systems, one server and one client. This is not what I mean, cause in fact we have two threads at least - one in the server and one on the client side.

The other example I read was JavaScript, as this is the most prominent example of single-threaded asynch system with Node.js. What I cannot get through my head, maybe thinking in Java terms, is this:If I execute the code below (apologies for incorrect, probably atrocious syntax):

function foo(){
    read_file(FIle location, Callback c) //asynchronous call, does not block
    //do many things more here, potentially for hours
}

the call to read file executes (sth) and returns, allowing the rest of my function to execute. Since there is only one thread i.e. the one that is executing my function, how on earth the same thread (the one and only one which is executing my stuff) will ever get to read in the bytes from disk?

Basically, it seems to me I am missing some underlying mechanism that is acting like round-robin scheduler of some sort, which is inherently single-threaded and might split the tasks to smaller ones or call into a multiothraded components that would spawn a thread and read the file in.

Thanks in advance for all comments and pointing out my mistakes on the way.

Update: Thanks for all responses. Further good sources that helped me out with this are here:

1. http://www.html5rocks.com/en/tutorials/async/deferred/
2. http://lostechies.com/johnteague/2012/11/30/node-js-must-know-concepts-asynchrounous/
3. http://www.interact-sw.co.uk/iangblog/2004/09/23/threadless (.NET)
4. http://ejohn.org/blog/how-javascript-timers-work/ (intrinsics of timers)
5. http://www.mobl-lang.org/283/reducing-the-pain-synchronous-asynchronous-programming/

Answer 1

The real answer is that it depends on what you mean by "single thread".

There are two approaches to multitasking: cooperative and interrupt-driven. Cooperative, which is what the other StackOverflow item you cited describes, requires that routines explicitly relinquish ownership of the processor so it can do other things. Event-driven systems are often designed this way. The advantage is that it's a lot easier to administer and avoids most of the risks of conflicting access to data since only one chunk of your code is ever executing at any one time. The disadvantage is that, because only one thing is being done at a time, everything has to either be designed to execute fairly quickly or be broken up into chunks that to so (via explicit pauses like a yield() call), or the system will appear to freeze until that event has been fully processed.

The other approach -- threads or processes -- actively takes the processor away from running chunks of code, pausing them while something else is done. This is much more complicated to implement, and requires more care in coding since you now have the risk of simultaneous access to shared data structures, but is much more powerful and -- done right -- much more robust and responsive.

Yes, there is indeed a scheduler involved in either case. In the former version the scheduler is just spinning until an event arrives (delivered from the operating system and/or runtime environment, which is implicitly another thread or process) and dispatches that event before handling the next to arrive.