The Scalar Select Anti-Pattern

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

47•goranmoomin•1y ago

Comments

castratikron•1y 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•1y 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•1y 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•1y 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•1y 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•1y ago

in CPU's - pipelining!

jchw•1y 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...)

Running Gemma 4 26B at 5 tokens/sec on a 13-year-old Xeon with no GPU

Codex Micro

Mysteries of Telegram Data Centers

Show HN: misa77 - a codec that decodes 2x faster than LZ4 (at better ratios)

Collection of Digital Clock Designs

Murati's Thinking Machines Releases Open-Weights 975B Parameter LLM

Stripe, Advent offer to buy PayPal for more than $53B

Launch HN: Coasty (YC S26) – An API for computer-use agents

Artie (YC S23) Is Hiring Software Engineers

Open-source memory for coding agents, synced over SSH

My midlife crisis Corolla is fast, furious, and modded

Sleep regularity is a stronger predictor of mortality risk than sleep duration (2023)

Towards a Harness That Can Do Anything

When A.I. Is a Member of the Family

Prioritize mental health, and why communication is so important

A General Goal-Conditioned Minecraft Model

The Memory Heist

Unsolved Problems in MLOps

What designing 54 computer science cards taught me about graphic design

Editing React components that never rendered

The Three-Second Theft: Why AI Voice Fraud Outruns Every Defence

OpenAI loses trademark dispute at EU court

Today I Rescued 7,234 Old GIFs

Inkling: Our Open-Weights Model

The well-calibrated Bayesian [pdf] (1982)

The Conservationist Who Turned 40 Terabytes of Public Data into a Video Game

Weathergotchi – an open-source climate Tamagotchi

FreeBSD 16 Retires the Last of Its GPL Code from Its Base System

What Every Python Developer Should Know About the CPython ABI

DEA to Temporarily Schedule 7-Oh and Related Substances to Protect Public Safety