Does anybody else have thoughts on this? Other language contributors? It seems like we still might not have enough of a consensus for a vote?
Thanks, Micah On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 7:32 AM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> wrote: > Correct. The encapsulated IPC message will just be 4 bytes bigger. > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019, 9:31 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> wrote: > > > > > I guess I still dont understand how the IPC stream format works :-/ > > > > To put it clearly: what happens in Flight? Will a Flight message > > automatically get the "stream continuation message" in front of it? > > > > > > Le 02/07/2019 à 16:15, Wes McKinney a écrit : > > > On Tue, Jul 2, 2019 at 4:23 AM Antoine Pitrou <anto...@python.org> > > wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >> Le 02/07/2019 à 00:20, Wes McKinney a écrit : > > >>> Thanks for the references. > > >>> > > >>> If we decided to make a change around this, we could call the first 4 > > >>> bytes a stream continuation marker to make it slightly less ugly > > >>> > > >>> * 0xFFFFFFFF: continue > > >>> * 0x00000000: stop > > >> > > >> Do you mean it would be a separate IPC message? > > > > > > No, I think this is only about how we could change the message prefix > > > from 4 bytes to 8 bytes > > > > > > > > > https://github.com/apache/arrow/blob/master/docs/source/format/IPC.rst#encapsulated-message-format > > > > > > Currently a 0x00000000 (0 metadata size) is used as an end-of-stream > > > marker. So what I was saying is that the first 8 bytes could be > > > > > > <4 bytes: stream continuation><int32_t metadata size> > > > > > >> > > >> > > >>> > > >>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 4:35 PM Micah Kornfield < > emkornfi...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> Hi Wes, > > >>>> I'm not an expert on this either, my inclination mostly comes from > > some research I've done. I think it is important to distinguish two > cases: > > >>>> 1. unaligned access at the processor instruction level > > >>>> 2. undefined behavior > > >>>> > > >>>> From my reading unaligned access is fine on most modern > architectures > > and it seems the performance penalty has mostly been eliminated. > > >>>> > > >>>> Undefined behavior is a compiler/language concept. The problem is > > the compiler can choose to do anything in UB scenarios, not just the > > "obvious" translation. Specifically, the compiler is under no obligation > > to generate the unaligned access instructions, and if it doesn't SEGVs > > ensue. Two examples, both of which relate to SIMD optimizations are > linked > > below. > > >>>> > > >>>> I tend to be on the conservative side with this type of thing but if > > we have experts on the the ML that can offer a more informed opinion, I > > would love to hear it. > > >>>> > > >>>> [1] > > http://pzemtsov.github.io/2016/11/06/bug-story-alignment-on-x86.html > > >>>> [2] https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=65709 > > >>>> > > >>>> On Mon, Jul 1, 2019 at 1:41 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> The <0xffffffff><int32_t size> solution is downright ugly but I > think > > >>>>> it's one of the only ways that achieves > > >>>>> > > >>>>> * backward compatibility (new clients can read old data) > > >>>>> * opt-in forward compatibility (if we want to go to the labor of > > doing > > >>>>> so, sort of dangerous) > > >>>>> * old clients receiving new data do not blow up (they will see a > > >>>>> metadata length of -1) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> NB 0xFFFFFFFF <length> would look like: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In [13]: np.array([(2 << 32) - 1, 128], dtype=np.uint32) > > >>>>> Out[13]: array([4294967295, 128], dtype=uint32) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In [14]: np.array([(2 << 32) - 1, 128], > > >>>>> dtype=np.uint32).view(np.int32) > > >>>>> Out[14]: array([ -1, 128], dtype=int32) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> In [15]: np.array([(2 << 32) - 1, 128], > > dtype=np.uint32).view(np.uint8) > > >>>>> Out[15]: array([255, 255, 255, 255, 128, 0, 0, 0], > dtype=uint8) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Flatbuffers are 32-bit limited so we don't need all 64 bits. > > >>>>> > > >>>>> Do you know in what circumstances unaligned reads from Flatbuffers > > >>>>> might cause an issue? I do not know enough about UB but my > > >>>>> understanding is that it causes issues on some specialized > platforms > > >>>>> where for most modern x86-64 processors and compilers it is not > > really > > >>>>> an issue (though perhaps a performance issue) > > >>>>> > > >>>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 6:36 PM Micah Kornfield < > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> At least on the read-side we can make this detectable by using > > something like <0xffffffff><int32_t size> instead of int64_t. On the > write > > side we would need some sort of default mode that we could flip on/off if > > we wanted to maintain compatibility. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> I should say I think we should fix it. Undefined behavior is > > unpaid debt that might never be collected or might cause things to fail > in > > difficult to diagnose ways. And pre-1.0.0 is definitely the time. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> -Micah > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:17 PM Wes McKinney <wesmck...@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 5:14 PM Wes McKinney < > wesmck...@gmail.com> > > wrote: > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> hi Micah, > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> This is definitely unfortunate, I wish we had realized the > > potential > > >>>>>>>> implications of having the Flatbuffer message start on a 4-byte > > >>>>>>>> (rather than 8-byte) boundary. The cost of making such a change > > now > > >>>>>>>> would be pretty high since all readers and writers in all > > languages > > >>>>>>>> would have to be changed. That being said, the 0.14.0 -> 1.0.0 > > version > > >>>>>>>> bump is the last opportunity we have to make a change like this, > > so we > > >>>>>>>> might as well discuss it now. Note that particular > implementations > > >>>>>>>> could implement compatibility functions to handle the 4 to 8 > byte > > >>>>>>>> change so that old clients can still be understood. We'd > probably > > want > > >>>>>>>> to do this in C++, for example, since users would pretty quickly > > >>>>>>>> acquire a new pyarrow version in Spark applications while they > are > > >>>>>>>> stuck on an old version of the Java libraries. > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> NB such a backwards compatibility fix would not be > > forward-compatible, > > >>>>>>> so the PySpark users would need to use a pinned version of > pyarrow > > >>>>>>> until Spark upgraded to Arrow 1.0.0. Maybe that's OK > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> - Wes > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> On Sun, Jun 30, 2019 at 3:01 AM Micah Kornfield < > > emkornfi...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> While working on trying to fix undefined behavior for unaligned > > memory > > >>>>>>>>> accesses [1], I ran into an issue with the IPC specification > [2] > > which > > >>>>>>>>> prevents us from ever achieving zero-copy memory mapping and > > having aligned > > >>>>>>>>> accesses (i.e. clean UBSan runs). > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Flatbuffer metadata needs 8-byte alignment to guarantee aligned > > accesses. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> In the IPC format we align each message to 8-byte boundaries. > > We then > > >>>>>>>>> write a int32_t integer to to denote the size of flat buffer > > metadata, > > >>>>>>>>> followed immediately by the flatbuffer metadata. This means > the > > >>>>>>>>> flatbuffer metadata will never be 8 byte aligned. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Do people care? A simple fix would be to use int64_t instead > > of int32_t > > >>>>>>>>> for length. However, any fix essentially breaks all previous > > client > > >>>>>>>>> library versions or incurs a memory copy. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> [1] https://github.com/apache/arrow/pull/4757 > > >>>>>>>>> [2] https://arrow.apache.org/docs/ipc.html > > >
