The Scalar Select Anti-Pattern

https://matklad.github.io/2025/05/14/scalar-select-aniti-pattern.html

47•goranmoomin•12mo ago

Comments

castratikron•12mo ago

As long as processing one event does not affect any of the other events in the batch. E.g. events are file IO, and processing one event causes another event's descriptor to get closed before that event can be processed.

wahern•12mo ago

If the close routine on an event source, or the low-level (e.g. epoll) registration, deregistration, and dequeueing logic doesn't know how to keep polling and liveness state consistent between userspace and the kernel, they've got much bigger problems. This looks like Rust code so I would hope the event stream libraries are, e.g., keeping Rc'd file objects and properly managing reference integrity viz-a-viz kernel state before the application caller ever sees the first dequeued event in a cycle. This is a perennial issue with event loop libraries and buggy application code (in every language). One can't just deal with raw file descriptors, call the close syscall directly, etc, hoping to keep state consistent implicitly. There's an unavoidable tie-in needed between application's wrappers around low-level resources and the event loop in use.

taeric•12mo ago

I'm not entirely clear on what the proposal is at the end? Seems that the long term answer as to "which of these implications to pursue" is "all of them?" Simply taking in a batch of instructions doesn't immediately change much? You still have to be able to do each of the other things. And you will still expect some dependencies between batches that could possibly interact in the same ways.

In a sense, this is no different than how your processor is dealing with instructions coming in. You will have some instructions that can be run without waiting on previous ones. You will have some that can complete quickly. You will have some that are stalled on other parts of the system. (I'm sure I could keep wording an instruction to match each of the implications.)

To that end, part of your program has to deal with taking off "whats next" and finding how to prepare that to pass to the execution portion of your program. You can make that only take in batches, but you are almost certainly responsible for how you chunk them moreso than whatever process is sending the instructions to you? Even if you are handed clear batches, it is incumbent on you to batch them as they go off to the rest of the system.

lmz•12mo ago

I guess the proposal is "instead of fetching and acting on one event at a time, consider fetching all available events and look for opportunities to optimize which ones you process (e.g. by prioritization or by skipping certain events if superseded by newer ones)".

taeric•12mo ago

I mean, I got that. But you could as easily say "instead of fetching and acting on one event at a time, fetch and triage/route instructions into applicable queues."

In particular, there is no guarantee that moving to batches changes any of the problems you may have from acting on a single one at a time. To that end, you will have to look into all of the other strategies sooner or later.

Following from that, the problem is not "processMessage" or whatever. The problem is that you haven't broken "processMessage" up into the constituent "receive/triage/process/resolve" loop that you almost certainly will have to end up with.

malkia•12mo ago

in CPU's - pipelining!

jchw•12mo ago

I believe something similar is going on internally in Windows with event queues. It coalesces and prioritizes input events when multiple of them pile up before you're able to pop new events off of the queue. (For some events, e.g. pointer events, you can even go and query frames that were coalesced during input handling.) On the application/API end, it just looks like a "scalar select" loop, but actually it is doing batching behavior for input events!

(On the flip side, if you have a Wayland client that falls behind on processing its event queue, it can crash. On the whole this isn't really that bad but if you have something sending a shit load of events it can cause very bad behavior. This has made me wonder if it's possible, with UNIX domain sockets, to implement some kind of event coalescing on the server-side, to avoid flooding the client with high-precision pointer movement events while it's falling behind. Maybe start coalescing when FIONREAD gets to some high watermark? No idea...)

Princeton mandates proctoring in-person exams, upending 133 years of precedent

Rars: a Rust RAR implementation, mostly written by LLMs

Setting up a free *.city.state.us locality domain (2025)

Linux gaming is faster because Windows APIs are becoming Linux kernel features

MacBook Neo Deep Dive: Benchmarks, Wafer Economics, and the 8GB Gamble

A History of IDEs at Google

Making the news available at no cost is a victory

The Emacsification of Software

Xs of Y – roguelike that names itself every run. Written in 4kLoC

S-100 Virtual Workbench

GitHub Actions issued GitHub_TOKEN disclosure in GitHub Actions logs

Launch HN: Ardent (YC P26) – Postgres sandboxes in seconds with zero migration

ReactOS

The great memory panic of 2026 – Asymco

The US is winning the AI race where it matters most: commercialization

Reverting the incremental GC in Python 3.14 and 3.15

A sentimental tour of late 1990s and early 2000s hacking tools

"Not Medically Necessary": Helping America's Health Insurers Deny Coverage

Twin brothers wipe 96 government databases minutes after being fired

Exploring 8 Shaft Weaving

Leaving GitHub for Forgejo

New stainless steel can survive conditions for hydrogen production in seawater

An idiot's guide to lead optimisation for proteins

Substrate (YC S24) Is Hiring a Technical Success Manager

Preserving Fisher-Price Pixter

I moved my digital stack to Europe

Show HN: Needle: We Distilled Gemini Tool Calling into a 26M Model

Open Source Resistance: keep OSS alive on company time

Deterministic Fully-Static Whole-Binary Translation Without Heuristics

Heritability of human life span is ~50% when heritability is redefined