TAO Real-Time Architecture 

This page describes and compares the two main ORB designs we considered for supporting Real-Time CORBA 1.0 in TAO.  The first design, codenamed reactor-per-lane and shown in Figure 1, was chosen for our initial implementation.  The second design, queue-per-lane, might also get implemented in the future, as a part of a project evaluating alternative ORB architectures for Real-Time CORBA.

Design I: Reactor-per-Lane

Figure 1: Reactor-per-lane

When a Real-Time POA is creating an IOR, it includes one or more of its threadpool's acceptor endpoints into that IOR according to the following rules.  If the POA's priority model is server declared, we use the acceptor from the lane whose priority is equal to the priority of the target object.  If the priority model is client propagated, all endpoints from the POA's threadpool are included into the IOR.  Finally, if the PriorityBandedConnectionPolicy is set, then endpoints from the threadpool lanes with priorities falling into one of the specified priority bands are selected.  The endpoints, selected according to the rules above, and their corresponding priorities are stored in IORs using a special TaggedComponent TAO_TAG_ENDPOINTS.  During each invocation, to obtain a connection to the server, the client-side ORB selects one of these endpoints based on the effective policies.  For example, if the object has client propagated priority model, the ORB selects the endpoint whose priority is equal to the priority of the client thread making the invocation.  If on the client-side, during invocation, or on the server-side, during IOR creation, an endpoint of the right priority is not available, it means the system has not been configured properly, and the ORB throws an exception.  The design and rules described above ensure that when a threadpool with lanes is used, client requests are processed by the thread of desired priority from very beginning, and priority inversions are minimized.

Some applications need less rigid, more dynamic environment.  They do not have the advanced knowledge or  cannot afford the cost of configuring all of the resources ahead of time, and have a greater tolerance for priority inversions.  For such applications, threadpools without lanes are a way to go.  In TAO, threadpools without lanes have different semantics that their with-lanes counterparts.  Pools without lanes have a single acceptor endpoint used in all IORs, and their threads change priorities on the fly, as necessary, to service all types of requests.

Design II: Queue-per-Lane

Figure 2: Queue-per-lane

Global acceptor is listening for connections from clients.  Once a connection is established, it is moved to the appropriate reactor during the first request, once its priority is known.  Threads in each lane are blocked on condition variable, waiting for requests to show up in their queue.  I/O threads read incoming requests, determine their target POA and its threadpool, and deposit the requests into the right queue for processing.  

Design Comparison

• Better performance
  Unlike in queue-per-lane, since each request is serviced in one thread, there are no context switches, and there are opportunities for stack and TSS optimizations.
• No priority inversions during connection establishment
  In reactor-per-lane, threads accepting connections are the same threads that will be servicing the requests coming in on those connections, i.e., priority of the accepting thread is equal to the priority of requests on the connection.  In queue-per-lane, however, because of a global acceptor, there is no differentiation between high priority and low priority clients until the first request.
• Control over all threads with standard threadpool API
  In reactor-per-lane, the ORB does not create any threads of its own, so application programmer has full control over the number and properties of all the threads with the Real-Time CORBA Threadpool APIs.  Queue-per-lane, on the other hand, has I/O layer threads, so either a proprietary API has to be added or application programmer will not have full control over all the thread resources..

Queue-per-lane advantages:

• Better feature support and adaptability
  Queue-per-lane supports ORB-level request buffering, while reactor-per-lane can only provide buffering in the transport.  With its two-layer structure, queue-per-lane is a more decoupled design than reactor-per-lane, making it easier to add new features or introduce changes 
• Better scalability 
  Reactor, connector and connection cache are per-priority resources in queue-per-lane, and per-lane in reactor-per-lane.  If a server is configured with many threadpools that have similar lane priorities, queue-per-lane might require significantly fewer of the above-mentioned resources.  It also uses fewer acceptors, and its IORs are a bit smaller.
• Easier piece-by-piece integration into the ORB
  Ease of implementation and integration are important practical considerations in any project.  Because of its two-layer structure, queue-per-lane is an easier design to implement, integrate and test piece-by-piece.

Last modified: $Date$