Erlang spawning large amounts of C processes

Question

I've been looking into how I could embed languages (let's use Lua as an example) in Erlang. This of course isn't a new idea and there are many libraries out there that can do this. However I was wondering if it was possible to start a Genserver with state which is modified by Lua. This means that once you start the Genserver, it will start a (long running) Lua process to manipulate the Genserver's state. I know this is possible as well, but I was wondering if I could spawn 1,000 10,000 or even 100,000 of these processes.

I'm not really familiar with this topic but I have done some research. (Please correct me if I'm wrong on any of these options).

TLDR; Skip to the last paragraph.

First option: NIFs:

This doesn't seem like an option since it will block the Erlang Scheduler of the current process. If I want to spawn a large amount of these it will freeze the entire runtime.

Second option: Port Driver:

It's like a NIF but communicates by sending data to a specified port, which can also send data back to Erlang. This is nice although this also seems to block the scheduler. I've tried a library which does the boiler plat for you as well, but that seemed to block the scheduler after spawning 10 processes. I've also looked into the postgresql example on the Erlang Documentation which is said to be async but I couldn't get the example code to work (R13?). Is it even possible to run as many Port Driver processes without blocking the runtime?

Third option: C Nodes:

I thought this was very interesting and wanted to try it out, but apparently the project "erlang-lua" already does this. It's nice because it won't crash your Erlang VM if something goes wrong and the processes are isolated. But in order to actually spawn a single process you need to spawn an entire node. I have no idea how expensive this is. Nor am I sure what the limit is for connecting nodes in a cluster, but I don't see myself spawning 100,000 C nodes.

Fourth option: Ports:

At first I thought this was the same as a Port Driver but it's actually different. You spawn a process which executes an application and communicates through STDIN and STDOUT. This would work well for spawning a large amount of processes, and (I think?) they aren't a threat to the Erlang VM. But if I'm going to communicate through STDIN / STDOUT, why even bother with an embeddable language to begin with? Might as well use any other scripting language.

And so after much research in a field I'm not familiar with I've come to this. You could a Genserver as an "entity" where the AI is written in Lua. Which is why I'd like to have a processes for each entity. My question is how do I achieve spawning many Genservers which communicate with long running Lua processes? Is this even possible? Should I be tackling my problem differently?

Answer 1

If you can make the Lua code — or more accurately, its underlying native code — cooperate with the Erlang VM, you have a few choices.

Consider one of the most important functions of the Erlang VM: managing the execution of a (potentially large number of) Erlang's lightweight processes across a relatively small set of scheduler threads. It uses several techniques to know when a process has used up its timeslice or is waiting and so should be scheduled out to give another process a chance to run.

You seem to be asking how you can get native code to run however it likes within the VM, but as you've already hinted, the reason native code can cause problems for the VM is that it has no practical way to stop the native code from completely taking over a scheduler thread and thus preventing regular Erlang processes from executing. Because of this, native code has to cooperatively yield the scheduler thread back to the VM.

For older NIFs, the choices for such cooperation were:

1. Keep the amount of time NIF calls ran on a scheduler thread to 1ms or less.
2. Create one or more private threads. Transition each long-running NIF call from its scheduler thread over to a private thread for execution, then return the scheduler thread to the VM.

The problems here are that not all calls can complete in 1ms or less, and that managing private threads can be error-prone. To get around the first problem, some developers would break the work down into chunks and use an Erlang function as a wrapper to manage a series of short NIF calls, each of which completed one chunk of work. As for the second problem, well, sometimes you just can't avoid it, despite its inherent difficulty.

NIFs running on Erlang 17.3 or later can also cooperatively yield the scheduler thread using the enif_schedule_nif function. To use this feature, the native code has to be able to do its work in chunks such that each chunk can complete within the usual 1ms NIF execution window, similar to the approach mentioned earlier but without the need to artificially return to an Erlang wrapper. My bitwise example code provides many details about this.

Erlang 17 also brought an experimental feature, off by default, called dirty schedulers. This is a set of VM schedulers that do not have the same native code execution time constraints as the regular schedulers; work there can block for essentially infinite periods without disrupting normal VM operation.

Dirty schedulers come in two flavors: CPU schedulers for CPU-bound work, and I/O schedulers for I/O-bound work. In a VM compiled to enable dirty schedulers, there are by default as many dirty CPU schedulers as there are regular schedulers, and there are 10 I/O schedulers. These numbers can be altered using command-line switches, but note that to try to prevent regular scheduler starvation, you can never have more dirty CPU schedulers than regular schedulers. Applications use the same enif_schedule_nif function mentioned earlier to execute NIFs on dirty schedulers. My bitwise example code provides many details about this too. Dirty schedulers will remain an experimental feature for Erlang 18 as well.

Native code in linked-in port drivers is subject to the same on-scheduler execution time constraints as NIFs, but drivers have two features NIFs don't:

1. Driver code can register file descriptors into the VM polling subsystem and be notified when any of those file descriptors becomes I/O-ready.
2. The driver API supports access to a non-scheduler async thread pool, the size of which is configurable but by default has 10 threads.

The first feature allows native driver code to avoid blocking a thread for I/O. For example, instead of performing a blocking recv call, driver code can register the socket file descriptor so the VM can poll it and call the driver back when the file descriptor becomes readable.

The second feature provides a separate thread pool useful for driver tasks that can't conform to the scheduler thread native code execution time constraints. You can achieve the same in a NIF but you have to set up your own thread pool and write your own native code to manage and access it. But regardless of whether you use the driver async thread pool, your own NIF thread pool, or dirty schedulers, note that they are all regular operating system threads, and so trying to start a huge number of them simply isn't practical.

Native driver code does not yet have dirty scheduler access, but this work is on-going and it might become available as an experimental feature in an 18.x release.

If your Lua code can make use of one or more of these features to cooperate with the Erlang VM, then what you're attempting may be possible.