A Few Comments On "Sparse Record And Replay With Controlled Scheduling"

This upcoming PLDI paper is cool. One thing I like about it is that it does a detailed comparison against rr, and a fair comparison too. The problem of reproducing race bugs using randomized scheduling in a record-and-replay setting is important, and the paper has interesting quantitative results.

It's unfortunate that the paper doesn't mention rr's chaos mode, which is our attempt to tackle roughly the same problem. It would be very interesting to compare chaos mode to the approach in this paper on the same or similar benchmarks.

I'm quite surprised that the PLDI reviewers accepted this paper. I don't mean that the paper is poor, because I think it's actually quite good. We submitted papers about rr to several conferences including PLDI (until USENIX ATC accepted it), and we consistently got quite strong negative review comments that it wasn't clear enough which programs rr would record and replay successfully, and what properties of the execution were guaranteed to be preserved during the replay. We described many steps we had to take to get applications to record efficiently in rr in practice, and many reviewers seemed to perceive rr as just a collection of hacks and thus not publishable. Yet it seems to me this "sparse replay" approach is considerably more vague than rr about what it can handle and what gets preserved during replay. I do not see any principled reason why the critical reviewers of our rr paper would not have criticised this paper even harder. I wonder what led to a different outcome.

Perhaps making the idea of "sparse replay" (i.e., record only some subset of behaviour that's necessary and sufficient for a particular application) a focus of the paper effectively lampshaded the problem, or just sufficiently reduced expectations by not claiming to be a general-purpose tool.

I also suspect it's partly just "luck of the draw" in reviewer assignment. It is an unfortunate fact that paper review outcomes can be pretty random. As both a submitter and reviewer, I've seen that scores from different reviewers often differ wildly — it's not uncommon for a paper to get both A and D reviews on an A-to-D scale. When a paper gets both A and D, it typically gets a lot more scrutiny from the review committee to reach a decision, but one should also expect that there are many (un)lucky papers that just happen to avoid a D reviewer or fail to connect with an A reviewer. Given how important publications are to many people (fortunately, not to me), it's not a great system. Though, like democracy, maybe it's better than the others.

Microsoft's Azure Time-Travel Debugging

This looks pretty cool. The video is also instructive.

It's not totally clear to me how this works under the hood, but apparently they have hooked up the Nirvana TTD to the .NET runtime so that it will enable TTD recording of invocations of particular methods. That means you can inspect the control flow, the state of registers (i.e. local variables), and any memory read by the method or its callees, at any point during the method invocation. It's not clear what happens if you inspect memory outside the scope of the method (e.g. global variables) or if you inspect memory that was modified concurrently by other threads. Plus there are performance and other issues listed in the blog post.

This seems like a good idea but somewhat more limited than a full-fledged record-everything debugger like rr or WinDbg-TTD. I suspect they're pushing this limited-scope debugging as a way to reduce run-time overhead. Various people have told me that WinDbg-TTD has almost unusably high overhead for Firefox ... though other people have told me they found it tolerable for their work on Chrome, so data is mixed.

One interesting issue here is that if I was designing a Nirvana-style multithread-capable recorder for .NET applications — i.e., one that records all memory reads in some fashion via code instrumentation — I would try building it into the .NET VM itself, like Chronon for Java. That way you avoid recording stuff like GC (noted as a problem for this Azure debugger), and the JIT compiler can optimize your instrumentation. I guess Microsoft people were looking for a way to deploy TTD more widely and decided this was the best option. That would be reasonable, but it would be a "solution-driven" approach to the problem, which I have strong feelings about.

Don't Call Socially Conservative Politicial Parties "Christian"

There is talk about starting a new "Christian" (or "Christian values") political party in New Zealand. The party might be a good idea, but if it's really a "social conservative" party, don't call it "Christian".

Audrey Young writes:

The issues that would galvanise the party are the three big social issues before Parliament at present and likely to be so in election year as well: making abortions easier to get, legalising euthanasia, and legalising recreational cannabis.

None of those issues are specifically Christian. None of them are mentioned directly in the New Testament. I even think Christians can be for some version of all of them (though it makes sense to me that most Christians would oppose the first two at least). Therefore "social conservative" is a much more accurate label than "Christian" for a party focused on opposing those changes.

A truly Christian party's key issues would include reminding the voting public that we all sinners against God, in need of repentance and forgiveness that comes through Jesus. The party would proclaim to voters "how hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God" and warn against storing up treasures on earth instead of heaven. It would insist on policies that support "the least of these". It would find a way to denounce universally popular sins such as greed, gluttony and heterosexual extra-marital sex, and advocate policies that reduce their harm, while visibly observing Paul's dictum "What business is it of mine to judge those outside the church? Are you not to judge those inside?" A Christian party would follow Jesus' warning against "those who for a show make lengthy prayers" and downplay their own piety. It would put extraordinary emphasis on honouring the name of Christ by avoiding any sort of lies, corruption or scandal. Its members would show love for their enemies and not retaliate when attacked. If they fail in public, they would confess and repent in public.

That sounds pretty difficult, but it's what Jesus deserves from any party that claims his name.

I'm all for Christians being involved in politics and applying their Christian worldview to politics, if they can succeed without making moral compromises. But it's incredibly important that any Christian who publicly connects Christ with politics takes into account how that will shape unbelievers' view of Christianity. If they lead people to believe that Christianity is about being socially conservative and avoiding certain hot-button sins, with the gospel nowhere in sight, then they point people towards Hell and betray Jesus and his message.

Debugging Talk At Auckland Rust Meetup

I gave a talk about "debugging techniques for Rust" at tonight's Auckland Rust Meetup. There was many good questions and I had a good time. It wasn't recorded. Thanks to the organiser and sponsors!

I'm also going to give a talk at the next meetup in June!