I am new to Go and am currently attempting to run a function that creates a file and returns it's filename and have this run concurrently.
I've decided to try and accomplish this with goroutines and a WaitGroup. When I use this approach, I end up with a list size that is a couple hundred files less than the input size. E.g. for 5,000 files I get around 4,700~ files created.
I believe this is due to some race conditions:
wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
filenames := make([]string, 0)
for i := 0; i < totalFiles; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
defer wg.Done()
filenames = append(filenames, createFile())
}()
}
wg.Wait()
return filenames, nil
Don't communicate by sharing memory; share memory by communicating.
I tried using channels to "share memory by communicating". Whenever I do this, there appears to be a deadlock that I can't seem to wrap my head around why. Would anyone be able to point me in the right direction for using channels and waitgroups together properly in order to save all of the created files to a shared data structure?
This is the code that produces the deadlock for me (fatal error: all goroutines are asleep - deadlock!):
wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
filenames := make([]string, 0)
ch := make(chan string)
for i := 0; i < totalFiles; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
defer wg.Done()
ch <- createFile()
}()
}
wg.Wait()
for i := range ch {
filenames = append(filenames, i)
}
return filenames, nil
Thanks!
The first one has a race. You have to protect access to filenames:
mu:=sync.Mutex{}
for i := 0; i < totalFiles; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
defer wg.Done()
mu.Lock()
defer mu.Unlock()
filenames = append(filenames, createFile())
}()
}
For the second case, you are waiting for the goroutines to finish, but goroutines can only finish once you read from the channel, so deadlock. You can fix it by reading from the channel in a separate goroutine.
go func() {
for i := range ch {
filenames = append(filenames, i)
}
}()
wg.Wait()
close(ch) // Required, so the goroutine can terminate
return filenames, nil
There is a lock-free version, if the number of files is fixed:
filenames := make([]string, totalFiles)
for i := 0; i < totalFiles; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func(index int) {
defer wg.Done()
filenames[index]=createFile()
}(i)
}
wg.Wait()
Related
I'm working through The Go Programming Language and learning about goroutines, and came across the following issue. In this example, the following function is meant to take a channel of files and process each of them:
func makeThumbnails5(filenames <-chan string) int64 {
sizes := make(chan int64)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for f := range filenames {
wg.Add(1)
// worker
go func(f string) {
defer wg.Done()
thumb, err := thumbnail.ImageFile(f)
if err != nil {
log.Println(err)
return
}
info, _ := os.Stat(thumb)
sizes <- info.Size()
}(f)
}
// closer
go func() {
wg.Wait()
close(sizes)
}()
var total int64
for size := range sizes {
total += size
}
wg.Wait()
return total
}
I've tried to use this function the following way:
func main() {
thumbnails := os.Args[1:] /* Get a list of all the images from the CLI */
ch := make(chan string, len(thumbnails))
for _, val := range thumbnails {
ch <- val
}
makeThumbnails5(ch)
}
However, when I run this program, I get the following error:
fatal error: all goroutines are asleep - deadlock!
It doesn't appear that the closer goroutine is running. Could someone help me understand what is going wrong here, and what I can do to run this function correctly?
As I commented it deadlocks because the filenames chan is never closed and thus the for f := range filenames loop never completes. However, just closing the input chan means that all goroutines launched in the loop would get stuck at the line sizes <- info.Size() until the loop ends. Not a problem in this case but if the input can be huge it could be (then you'd probably want to limit the number of concurrent workers too). So it makes sense to have the main loop in a goroutine too so that the for size := range sizes loop can start consuming. Following should work:
func makeThumbnails5(filenames <-chan string) int64 {
sizes := make(chan int64)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
defer wg.Done()
for f := range filenames {
wg.Add(1)
// worker
go func(f string) {
defer wg.Done()
thumb, err := thumbnail.ImageFile(f)
if err != nil {
log.Println(err)
return
}
info, _ := os.Stat(thumb)
sizes <- info.Size()
}(f)
}
}()
// closer
go func() {
wg.Wait()
close(sizes)
}()
var total int64
for size := range sizes {
total += size
}
return total
}
The implementation of the main has a similar problem that if the input is huge you're essentially load it all into memory (buffered chan) before passing it on to be processed. Perhaps something like following is better
func main() {
ch := make(chan string)
go func(thumbnails []string) {
defer close(ch)
for _, val := range thumbnails {
ch <- val
}
}(os.Args[1:])
makeThumbnails5(ch)
}
I'm learning Go and I am trying to implement a job queue.
What I'm trying to do is:
Have the main goroutine feed lines through a channel for multiple parser workers (that parse a line to s struct), and have each parser send the struct to a channel of structs that other workers (goroutines) will process (send to database, etc).
The code looks like this:
lineParseQ := make(chan string, 5)
jobProcessQ := make(chan myStruct, 5)
doneQ := make(chan myStruct, 5)
fileName := "myfile.csv"
file, err := os.Open(fileName)
if err != nil {
log.Fatal(err)
}
defer file.Close()
reader := bufio.NewReader(file)
// Start line parsing workers and send to jobProcessQ
for i := 1; i <= 2; i++ {
go lineToStructWorker(i, lineParseQ, jobProcessQ)
}
// Process myStruct from jobProcessQ
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
go WorkerProcessStruct(i, jobProcessQ, doneQ)
}
lineCount := 0
countSend := 0
for {
line, err := reader.ReadString('\n')
if err != nil && err != io.EOF {
log.Fatal(err)
}
if err == io.EOF {
break
}
lineCount++
if lineCount > 1 {
countSend++
lineParseQ <- line[:len(line)-1] // Avoid last char '\n'
}
}
for i := 0; i < countSend; i++ {
fmt.Printf("Received %+v.\n", <-doneQ)
}
close(doneQ)
close(jobProcessQ)
close(lineParseQ)
Here's a simplified playground: https://play.golang.org/p/yz84g6CJraa
the workers look like this:
func lineToStructWorker(workerID int, lineQ <-chan string, strQ chan<- myStruct ) {
for j := range lineQ {
strQ <- lineToStruct(j) // just parses the csv to a struct...
}
}
func WorkerProcessStruct(workerID int, strQ <-chan myStruct, done chan<- myStruct) {
for a := range strQ {
time.Sleep(time.Millisecond * 500) // fake long operation...
done <- a
}
}
I know the problem is related to the "done" channel because if I don't use it, there's no error, but I can't figure out how to fix it.
You don't start reading from doneQ until you've finished sending all the lines to lineParseQ, which is more lines than there is buffer space. So once the doneQ buffer is full, that send blocks, which starts filling the lineParseQ buffer, and once that's full, it deadlocks. Move either the loop sending to lineParseQ, the loop reading from doneQ, or both, to separate goroutine(s), e.g.:
go func() {
for _, line := range lines {
countSend++
lineParseQ <- line
}
close(lineParseQ)
}()
This will still deadlock at the end, because you've got a range over a channel and the close after it in the same goroutine; since range continues until the channel is closed, and the close comes after the range finishes, you still have a deadlock. You need to put the closes in appropriate places; that being, either in the sending routine, or blocked on a WaitGroup monitoring the sending routines if there are multiple senders for a given channel.
// Start line parsing workers and send to jobProcessQ
wg := new(sync.WaitGroup)
for i := 1; i <= 2; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go lineToStructWorker(i, lineParseQ, jobProcessQ, wg)
}
// Process myStruct from jobProcessQ
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
go WorkerProcessStruct(i, jobProcessQ, doneQ)
}
countSend := 0
go func() {
for _, line := range lines {
countSend++
lineParseQ <- line
}
close(lineParseQ)
}()
go func() {
wg.Wait()
close(jobProcessQ)
}()
for a := range doneQ {
fmt.Printf("Received %v.\n", a)
}
// ...
func lineToStructWorker(workerID int, lineQ <-chan string, strQ chan<- myStruct, wg *sync.WaitGroup) {
for j := range lineQ {
strQ <- lineToStruct(j) // just parses the csv to a struct...
}
wg.Done()
}
func WorkerProcessStruct(workerID int, strQ <-chan myStruct, done chan<- myStruct) {
for a := range strQ {
time.Sleep(time.Millisecond * 500) // fake long operation...
done <- a
}
close(done)
}
Full working example here: https://play.golang.org/p/XsnewSZeb2X
Coordinate the pipeline with sync.WaitGroup breaking each piece into stages. When you know one piece of the pipeline is complete (and no one is writing to a particular channel), close the channel to instruct all "workers" to exit e.g.
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
i := i
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
Worker(i)
wg.Done()
}()
}
// wg.Wait() signals the above have completed
Buffered channels are handy to handle burst workloads, but sometimes they are used to avoid deadlocks in poor designs. If you want to avoid running certain parts of your pipeline in a goroutine you can buffer some channels (matching the number of workers typically) to avoid a blockage in your main goroutine.
If you have dependent pieces that read & write and want to avoid deadlock - ensure they are in separate goroutines. Having all parts of the pipeline it its own goroutine will even remove the need for buffered channels:
// putting all channel work into separate goroutines
// removes the need for buffered channels
lineParseQ := make(chan string, 0)
jobProcessQ := make(chan myStruct, 0)
doneQ := make(chan myStruct, 0)
Its a tradeoff of course - a goroutine costs about 2K in resources - versus a buffered channel which is much less. As with most designs it depends on how it is used.
Also don't get caught by the notorious Go for-loop gotcha, so use a closure assignment to avoid this:
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
i := i // new i (not the i above)
go func() {
myfunc(i) // otherwise all goroutines will most likely get '5'
}()
}
Finally ensure you wait for all results to be processed before exiting.
It's a common mistake to return from a channel based function and believe all results have been processed. In a service this will eventually be true. But in a standalone executable the processing loop may still be working on results.
go func() {
wgW.Wait() // waiting on worker goroutines to finish
close(doneQ) // safe to close results channel now
}()
// ensure we don't return until all results have been processed
for a := range doneQ {
fmt.Printf("Received %v.\n", a)
}
by processing the results in the main goroutine, we ensure we don't return prematurely without having processed everything.
Pulling it all together:
https://play.golang.org/p/MjLpQ5xglP3
func check(name string) string {
resp, err := http.Get(endpoint + name)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
defer resp.Body.Close()
body, err := ioutil.ReadAll(resp.Body)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
return string(body)
}
func worker(name string, wg *sync.WaitGroup, names chan string) {
defer wg.Done()
var a = check(name)
names <- a
}
func main() {
names := make(chan string)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go worker("www"+strconv.Itoa(i), &wg, names)
}
fmt.Println(<-names)
}
The expected result would be 5 results but, only one executes and the process ends.
Is there something I am missing? New to go.
The endpoint is a generic API that returns json
You started 5 goroutines, but read input for one only. Also, you are not waiting for your goroutines to end.
// If there are only 5 goroutines unconditionally, you don't need the wg
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
go worker("www"+strconv.Itoa(i), names)
}
for i:=1;i<=5;i++ {
fmt.Println(<-names)
}
If, however, you don't know how many goroutines you're waiting, then the waitgroup is necessary.
for i := 1; i <= 5; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go worker("www"+strconv.Itoa(i), &wg, names)
}
// Read from the channel until it is closed
done:=make(chan struct{})
go func() {
for x:=range names {
fmt.Println(x)
}
// Signal that println is completed
close(done)
}()
// Wait for goroutines to end
wg.Wait()
// Close the channel to terminate the reader goroutine
close(names)
// Wait until println completes
<-done
You are launching 5 goroutines, but are reading from the names channel only once.
fmt.Println(<-names)
As soon as that first channel read is done, main() exits.
That means everything stops before having the time to be executed.
To know more about channels, see "Concurrency made easy" from Dave Cheney:
If you have to wait for the result of an operation, it’s easier to do it yourself.
Release locks and semaphores in the reverse order you acquired them.
Channels aren’t resources like files or sockets, you don’t need to close them to free them.
Acquire semaphores when you’re ready to use them.
Avoid mixing anonymous functions and goroutines
Before you start a goroutine, always know when, and how, it will stop
This is in reference to following code in The Go Programming Language - Chapter 8 p.238 copied below from this link
// makeThumbnails6 makes thumbnails for each file received from the channel.
// It returns the number of bytes occupied by the files it creates.
func makeThumbnails6(filenames <-chan string) int64 {
sizes := make(chan int64)
var wg sync.WaitGroup // number of working goroutines
for f := range filenames {
wg.Add(1)
// worker
go func(f string) {
defer wg.Done()
thumb, err := thumbnail.ImageFile(f)
if err != nil {
log.Println(err)
return
}
info, _ := os.Stat(thumb) // OK to ignore error
fmt.Println(info.Size())
sizes <- info.Size()
}(f)
}
// closer
go func() {
wg.Wait()
close(sizes)
}()
var total int64
for size := range sizes {
total += size
}
return total
}
Why do we need to put the closer in a goroutine? Why can't below work?
// closer
// go func() {
fmt.Println("waiting for reset")
wg.Wait()
fmt.Println("closing sizes")
close(sizes)
// }()
If I try running above code it gives:
waiting for reset
3547
2793
fatal error: all goroutines are asleep - deadlock!
Why is there a deadlock in above? fyi, In the method that calls makeThumbnail6 I do close the filenames channel
Your channel is unbuffered (you didn't specify any buffer size when make()ing the channel). This means that a write to the channel blocks until the value written is read. And you read from the channel after your call to wg.Wait(), so nothing ever gets read and all your goroutines get stuck on the blocking write.
That said, you do not need WaitGroup here. WaitGroups are good when you don't know when your goroutine is done, but you are sending results back, so you know. Here is a sample code that does a similar thing to what you are trying to do (with fake worker payload).
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func main() {
var procs int = 0
filenames := []string{"file1", "file2", "file3", "file4"}
mychan := make(chan string)
for _, f := range filenames {
procs += 1
// worker
go func(f string) {
fmt.Printf("Worker processing %v\n", f)
time.Sleep(time.Second)
mychan <- f
}(f)
}
for i := 0; i < procs; i++ {
select {
case msg := <-mychan:
fmt.Printf("got %v from worker channel\n", msg)
}
}
}
Test it in the playground here https://play.golang.org/p/RtMkYbAqtGO
Although it's been a while since the question was raised, I encountered the same issue. Initially my main looked like the following:
func main() {
filenames := make(chan string, len(os.Args))
for _, f := range os.Args[1:] {
filenames <- f
}
sizes := makeThumbnails6(filenames)
close(filenames)
log.Println("Total size: ", sizes)}
This version deadlocks as the call range filenames in makeThumbnails6 is synchronous, thus close(filenames) in main was never called. The channel in makeThumbnails6 is unbuffered so goroutines block when trying to send back the size.
The solution was to move close(filenames) before making the function call in main.
The code is wrong. In short, the channel sizes is unbuffered. To fix it, we need to use a buffered channel with enough capacity when creating sizes. One-liner fix is enough, as shown. Here I just made a simple assumption that 1024 is big enough.
func makeThumbnails6(filenames chan string) int64 {
sizes := make(chan int64, 1024) // CHANGE
var wg sync.WaitGroup // number of working goroutines
for f := range filenames {
wg.Add(1)
// worker
go func(f string) {
defer wg.Done()
thumb, err := thumbnail.ImageFile(f)
if err != nil {
log.Println(err)
return
}
info, _ := os.Stat(thumb) // OK to ignore error
fmt.Println(info.Size())
sizes <- info.Size()
}(f)
}
// closer
go func() {
wg.Wait()
close(sizes)
}()
var total int64
for size := range sizes {
total += size
}
return total
}
So I come accross this issue with go a lot. Let's say I have a text file with 100,000 lines of text. Now I wanna save all these lines to a db. So I would do something like this:
file, _ := iotuil.ReadFile("file.txt")
fileLines := strings.Split(string(file), "\n")
Now I would loop over all the lines in the file:
for _, l := range fileLines{
saveToDB(l)
}
Now I wanna run this saveToDB func concurrently:
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for _, l := range fileLines{
wg.Add(1)
go saveToDB(l, &wg)
}
wg.Wait()
I don't know if this is a problem or not but that would run 100,000 concurrent functions. Is there any way of saying hey run 100 concurrent functions wait for all of those to finish then run 100 more.
for i, _ := range fileLine {
for t = 0; t < 100; t++{
wg.Add(1)
go saveToDB(fileLine[i], &wg)
}
wg.Wait()
}
Do I need to do something like that or is there a cleaner way to go about this? Or is me running the 100,000 concurrent tasks not an issue?
I think the best approach for this would be to keep a pool of worker goroutines, dispatch the work for them in channels, and then close the channel so they would exit.
something like this:
// create a channel for work "tasks"
ch := make(chan string)
wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
// start the workers
for t := 0; t < 100; t++{
wg.Add(1)
go saveToDB(ch, &wg)
}
// push the lines to the queue channel for processing
for _, line := range fileline {
ch <- line
}
// this will cause the workers to stop and exit their receive loop
close(ch)
// make sure they all exit
wg.Wait()
and then the saveFunction looks like this:
func saveToDB(ch chan string, wg *sync.WaitGroup) {
// cnosume a line
for line := range ch {
// do work
actuallySaveToDB(line)
}
// we've exited the loop when the dispatcher closed the channel,
// so now we can just signal the workGroup we're done
wg.Done()
}