- 9e durability/throughput/scale: the measurement backbone -- run the employee program, restart to prove persistence, benchmark read/write through compiled .wo, ~1M-row mixed load with throughput floor + p99 ceiling + flat RSS; the gate every optimization signs (before/after delta required, no measured delta = not accepted) - 9f io_uring group-commit: replace fsync-per-commit with batched io_uring durability overlapped on shard threads; same ack-after- durable contract, crash battery unchanged, automatic fsync fallback on kernels without it; deliberately LAST (needs 8's threads to overlap and 9e's baseline to beat) - wired the existing levers into the arc: iteration 8 (thread-per-core) = "optimize multithreading", 7b (mark-sweep) = "implement GC" -- each now gated by re-running 9e and recording the delta - explicit sequence recorded in 9e: 9b lands -> 9e baseline -> 7b re-bench -> 8 re-bench -> 9f re-bench - roadmap + board rows for 9e/9f; four forks each for the specs (load generator, absolute vs relative budgets, what "1M" means, durable vs RAM headline; ring model, liburing vs raw, batch boundary, fallback testing) Co-Authored-By: Claude Opus 5 (1M context) <noreply@anthropic.com>
2.4 KiB
2.4 KiB
Iteration 8 — shard-actor runtime
Format:
product/story-iteration-template. Part of Story — one language, one runtime, one database, one binary.
Goals
- The runtime scales past one core the doctrine way: pinned thread-per-core shards, each owning its own heap and event loop; cross-shard communication is a message send that moves ownership — shared mutable state never exists.
- The language grows
spawnand message send; garbage collection stays per-shard, so no global pause appears at any core count.
Acceptance Criteria
- What to achieve?
- Given a program spawning actors across shards,
- when an owned object is sent to another shard,
- then the sender can no longer touch it (compile-time move), the receiver owns it, and its eventual free routes back to its allocation-home arena.
- What to achieve?
- Given debug builds with shard-ownership asserts,
- when the deterministic actor corpus runs under ASan and TSan,
- then zero races, zero leaks, and identical output across runs.
- What to achieve?
- Given a
@gcreference, - when code attempts to send it cross-shard,
- then the compiler rejects it — aliased references cannot cross heap boundaries.
- Given a
Out Of Scope
- Fibers/green threads (recorded in the blue-green vision §3; extends this scheduler later).
- Cross-shard transactions (the database iteration's 2PC concern, later).
Info
- The C reference (
runtime/wo-rt.c, phases A–F) is the substrate: epoll loops, eventfd mail, the machinery this iteration lifts intowovm. - The VM's object header has carried a shard id since iteration 2 — no relayout.
- Gated by the benchmark (2026-08-15): this is the "optimize multithreading" lever of the performance arc — thread-per-core is a throughput/scale claim, so landing it means re-running iteration 9e at the connection/concurrency scale it unlocks and recording the before/after delta. It is also where the io_uring write path (9f) gets a thread to overlap durability against.
Proposed Solution
- Execute the existing plan:
docs/superpowers/plans/2026-08-01-shard-actor-vm-runtime.md(pinned-worker scheduler, shard-stamped heaps, MPSC mailbox rings + mail eventfds, send-as-move with home-routed frees, gc pacing per tick, spawn/send surface, actor corpus).