> work stealing executors have long been known to offer significantly lower latency with more consistent P99 than traditional threads. This has been known since forever - in the early 00s
Well, we know how to make "traditional threads" fast, with lower latency and more consistent P99 since forever^2, in the early 90s. [1]
Sure, we can't convince that Finnish guy this is worthwhile to include in THE kernel, despite similar ideas had been running in Google datacenters for idk how many years, 15 years+? But nothing stops us from doing it in the userspace, just as you said, a work stealing executor. And no, no coloring.
Stack is all you need. Just make your "coroutines" stackful. Done. All those attempts trying to be "zero-cost" and change programming model dramatically to avoid a stack, introduced much more overhead than a stack and a piece of decent context switch code.
> You can tell async is directionally kind of correct in that io_uring is the kernel’s approach
lol, it is very hard to model anything proactor like io_uring with async Rust due to its defects.
Stackful coroutines give up a fair amount of efficiency in a number of places to make that workable. It’s fine if you want to use a lot more RAM and Go and Java make that tradeoff, but that’s not suitable for something like Rust. That’s why Rust and C++’s async implementation is rather similar in many ways. Stackful coroutines also play havoc with FFI which carries a huge FFI cost penalty across the board even for code that doesn’t care about coroutines. These aren’t theoretical tradeoffs to just hand wave away as “doesn’t matter” - it literally does for how Rust is positioned. No one is stopping you from using Go or the JVM if that’s the ecosystem you like better.
> lol, it is very hard to model anything proactor like io_uring with async Rust due to its defects.
Not really. People latched on to async cancellation issues as intractable due to one paper but I’m not convinced it’s unsolvable whether due to runtimes that consider the issue more fundamentally or the language adding async drop which lets the existing runtimes solve the problem wholesale.
The point I’m making is that I/O and hardware is fundamentally non-blocking and we will always pay a huge abstraction penalty to try to pretend we have a synchronous programming model.
There are always trade-offs and there is never one best way to do something.
Stack-based coroutines is one way to do it. A relevant trade-off here is overhead, requiring a runtime and narrowing the potential use-cases this can serve (i.e embedded real-time stuff).
If you don’t care about supporting such use cases you can of course just create a copy of goroutines and be pretty happy with the result.
Another case: People who want to run workloads that are inherently incompatible with Kubernetes networking model.
For example:
* For some cursed reasons you want to make sure every single one instance of a large batch job see just one NIC in its container and they are all the same IP and you NAT to the outside world. Ingress? What ingress? This is a batch job!
* Like the previous point, except that your "batch job" somehow has multiple containers in one instance now, and they should be able to reach each other by domain.
That is indeed a weirdly cursed requirement. Why? Black box of legacy stuff? A system that was never designed to be run in multiple does so if all the nodes think they’re the same machine? Defeating a license restriction?
The problem here is both aimed for Day 0 support, both got embargoed preliminary model weights and arch, and I don't think they have access to the other sides embargoed code.
> Mythos Preview identified a memory-corruption vulnerability in a production memory-safe VMM. This vulnerability has not been patched, so we neither name the project nor discuss details of the exploit.
Good morning Sir.
> Has anything changed here? I don't pay much attention but KASLR was considered basically useless for preventing LPE a few years ago.
No. It's still like this. Bonus point that there are always free KASLR leaks (prefetch side-channels).
But then, this thing is just.. I don't have a word for this. Just randomly read paragraphs from the post and it's like, what?
Oh, that. That's true, I didn't know Mythos found that one. I guess I will not comment further on it until there's a write up (edited out a bit more).
> It is easy to turn this into a denial-of-service attack on the host, and conceivably could be used as part of an exploit chain.
So yeah, perhaps some evidence to what I'm getting at. Bug density is too low in that project, it's high enough in others. I'll be way way way more interested in that.
> But then, this thing is just.. I don't have a word for this. Just randomly read paragraphs from the post and it's like, what?
I read about 30% and got bored. I suppose I should have been clearer, but my impression was pretty quickly "cool" and "not worth reading today".
I was lucky then :) Somehow I saw this first. And then the "somewhat reliably writing exploits for SpiderMonkey" part, and then the crypto libraries part. Finally I wonder why is there a Linux LPE mini writeup and realized it's the "automatically turn a syzkaller report to a working exploit" part.
Now that I read the first few things (meh bugs in OpenBSD, FFmpeg, FreeBSD etc) they are indeed all pretty boring!
> However, if it can't figure out to render the json to a visual on its own does it really qualify as AGI? I'd still say the benchmark is doing its job here.
Can you render serialized JSON text blob to a visual with your brain only? The model can't do anything better than this - no harness means no tool at all, no way to e.g. implement a visualizer in whatever programming language and run it.
Why don't human testers receive the same JSON text blob and no visualizers? It's like giving human testers a harness (a playable visualizer), but deliberately cripples it for the model.
Huh. I thought it wasn't supposed to receive any instructions tailored to the task but I didn't understand it to be restricted from accessing truly general tools such as programming languages. To do otherwise is to require pointless hoop jumping as frontier models inevitably get retrained to play games using a json (or other arbitrary) representation at which point it will be natural for them and the real test will begin.
They can copy it. And no, the software moat is not there if someone choose the blatant copy route. They just can't build it in the scale they want yet.
> what if they just use 12nm and create GPUs with much bigger size but comparable performance
well, physics does work that way, depending on what you mean by performance.
(in the sense that power is normally part of performance when we're talking about chips).
you could certainly use a larger process and clone chips at an area and power penalty. but area is the main factor in yield, and talking about power is really talking about "what's the highest clockrate can you can still cool".
so: a clone would work in physics, but it would be slow and hot and expensive (low yield). I think issues like propagation delay would be second- or third-order (the whole point of GPUs is to be latency-tolerant, after all).
For another example, Singapore, one of the "many Asian countries" you mentioned, list "Chinese New Year" as the official name on government websites. [0] Also note that both California and New York is not located in Asia.
And don't get me started with "Lunar New Year? What Lunar New Year? Islamic Lunar New Year? Jewish Lunar New Year? CHINESE Lunar New Year?".
Sometimes people are too lazy to write their own agent loop and decided to run off-the-shelf coding agent (e.g. Claude Code, or Pi in case of clawdbot) in environment.
Well, we know how to make "traditional threads" fast, with lower latency and more consistent P99 since forever^2, in the early 90s. [1]
Sure, we can't convince that Finnish guy this is worthwhile to include in THE kernel, despite similar ideas had been running in Google datacenters for idk how many years, 15 years+? But nothing stops us from doing it in the userspace, just as you said, a work stealing executor. And no, no coloring.
Stack is all you need. Just make your "coroutines" stackful. Done. All those attempts trying to be "zero-cost" and change programming model dramatically to avoid a stack, introduced much more overhead than a stack and a piece of decent context switch code.
> You can tell async is directionally kind of correct in that io_uring is the kernel’s approach
lol, it is very hard to model anything proactor like io_uring with async Rust due to its defects.
[1] https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/121132.121151
reply