[erlang-questions] pid representation in external term format

[Serge Aleynikov]

It seems to me that you were mistaken as the 4 (id) and 4 (serial) in the
External Term Format specification (*) indicate the sizes in bytes rather
than in bits.

(*) http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/erl_ext_dist.html#id87011


On Thu, Sep 12, 2013 at 6:22 PM, Michael Truog <mjtruog@REDACTED> wrote:

>  On 09/11/2013 09:58 AM, Serge Aleynikov wrote:
>
>  Presently the PID representation in external term format is limited to
> the following:
>
>  http://www.erlang.org/doc/apps/erts/erl_ext_dist.html#id87011
>
>  ./erts/emulator/beam/erl_node_container_utils.h:#define
> ERTS_MAX_PID_NUMBER           ((1 << _PID_NUM_SIZE) - 1)
> ./erts/emulator/beam/erl_term.h:#define _PID_NUM_SIZE                 15
>
>  ID is limited to 15 bits
> Serial is limited to 3 bits
>
>  So in total a PID consists of 18 bits, and therefore it seems that the
> number of pids on any remote node cannot exceed 2^18 (262144).  While it
> may seem like a large number, when creating a node in other languages that
> implement Erlang distributed transport (e.g. C/C#/Java) and create/destroy
> mailboxes, the local pid counter used to create unique Pids can easily go
> over that limit.  The work-around is to cache freed local pids and
> resurrect them when pid counter wraps around 2^18 boundary.
>
>  This brings the question of whether that limitation is still necessary
> in the current version of distribution.  Internally Pids use a wider
> representation (is it 28 bits?), so aside for supporting older versions of
> beam (which can be worked around through flags in distributed transport) is
> there any valid reason not to increase the pid maximum numbering limit?
>
>  BTW, as a side note, how is the same problem addressed in the beam when
> the pid ID counter reaches that limit? Does it make it possible that a
> newly assigned Pid becomes non-unique? (I.e. if some entity still maintains
> a reference to an old Pid that died, and later after the pid ID counter
> wrapped around, a new Pid was assigned the same Pid ID number of a
> previously dead Pid, then the entity that had the reference to the old Pid
> with the same ID, could send a message to it that would not be valid for
> the new Pid.)
>
>  Serge
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> erlang-questions mailing listerlang-questions@REDACTED://erlang.org/mailman/listinfo/erlang-questions
>
>  Why wouldn't the Erlang VM be changed to use 4 bits for the Serial and 4
> bits for the Id, so that the sizes match what the External Term Format
> allows?  Is this change on the Erlang VM roadmap?
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://erlang.org/pipermail/erlang-questions/attachments/20130912/bf79489e/attachment.htm>