My use case:
append items(small struct) to a slice in the main process
every 100 items I want to process items in a processor go routine (then pop them from slice)
items comme in very fast continuously
I read that if there is at least one "write" in more then two goroutines using a variable (slice in my case), one shall handle the concurrency (mutex or similar).
My questions:
If I do not handle with a mutex the r/w on slice do I risk problems ? (ie. Item 101 arrives while the processor is working on 1-100s)
What is the best concurrency technique for the incoming item flow to remain "fluent" ?
Disclaimer:
I do not want any event queueing, I need to process items in a given "bundle" size
Actually you don't need a lock here. Here is a working code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
type myStruct struct {
Cpt int
}
func main() {
buf := make([]myStruct, 0, 100)
wg := sync.WaitGroup{}
// Main process
// Appending one million times
for i := 0; i < 10e6; i++ {
// Locking buffer
// Appending
buf = append(buf, myStruct{Cpt: i})
// Did we reach 100 items ?
if len(buf) >= 100 {
// Yes we did. Creating a slice from the buffer
processSlice := make([]myStruct, 100)
copy(processSlice, buf[0:100])
// Emptying buffer
buf = buf[:0]
// Running processor in parallel
// Adding one element to waitgroup
wg.Add(1)
go processor(&wg, processSlice)
}
}
// Waiting for all processors to finish
wg.Wait()
}
func processor(wg *sync.WaitGroup, processSlice []myStruct) {
// Removing one element to waitgroup when done
defer wg.Done()
// Doing some process
fmt.Printf("Procesing items from %d to %d\n", processSlice[0].Cpt, processSlice[99].Cpt)
}
A few notes about your problem and this solution:
If you want a minimal stop time in your feeding process (e.g, to respond as fast as possible to a HTTP call), then the minimal thing to do is just the copy part, and run the processor function in a go routine. By doing so, you have to create a unique process slice dynamically and copying the content of your buffer inside it.
The sync.WaitGroup object is needed to ensure that the last processor function has ended before exiting the program.
Note that this is not a perfect solution: If you run this pattern for a long time, and the input data comes in more than 100 times faster than the processor processes the slices, then there are going to be:
More and more processSlice instances in RAM -> Risks for filling the RAM and hitting the swap
More and more parallel processor goroutines -> Same risks for the RAM, and more to process in the same time, making each of the calls be slower and the problem gets self-feeding.
This will end up in the system crashing at some point.
The solution for this is to have a limited number of workers that ensures there is no crash. However, when this number of workers is fully busy, then there will be wait in the feeding process, which does not answer what you want. However this is a good solution to absorb a charge which intensity is changing in time.
In general, just remember that if you feed more data than you can process in the same time, your program will just reach a limit at some point where it can't handle it so it has to slow down input acquisition or crash. This is mathematical!
Related
I'm just getting into concurrency in Go and trying to create a dispatch go routine that will send jobs to a worker pool listening on the jobchan channel. If a message comes into my dispatch function via the dispatchchan channel and my other go routines are busy, the message is appended onto the stack slice in the dispatcher and the dispatcher will try to send again later when a worker becomes available, and/or no more messages are received on the dispatchchan. This is because the dispatchchan and the jobchan are unbuffered, and the go routine the workers are running will append other messages to the dispatcher up to a certain point and I don't want the workers blocked waiting on the dispatcher and creating a deadlock. Here's the dispatcher code I've come up with so far:
func dispatch() {
var stack []string
acount := 0
for {
select {
case d := <-dispatchchan:
stack = append(stack, d)
case c := <-mw:
acount = acount + c
case jobchan <-stack[0]:
if len(stack) > 1 {
stack[0] = stack[len(stack)-1]
stack = stack[:len(stack)-1]
} else {
stack = nil
}
default:
if acount == 0 && len(stack) == 0 {
close(jobchan)
close(dispatchchan)
close(mw)
wg.Done()
return
}
}
}
Complete example at https://play.golang.wiki/p/X6kXVNUn5N7
The mw channel is a buffered channel the same length as the number of worker go routines. It acts as a semaphore for the worker pool. If the worker routine is doing [m]eaningful [w]ork it throws int 1 on the mw channel and when it finishes its work and goes back into the for loop listening to the jobchan it throws int -1 on the mw. This way the dispatcher knows if there's any work being done by the worker pool, or if the pool is idle. If the pool is idle and there are no more messages on the stack, then the dispatcher closes the channels and return control to the main func.
This is all good but the issue I have is that the stack itself could be zero length so the case where I attempt to send stack[0] to the jobchan, if the stack is empty, I get an out of bounds error. What I'm trying to figure out is how to ensure that when I hit that case, either stack[0] has a value in it or not. I don't want that case to send an empty string to the jobchan.
Any help is greatly appreciated. If there's a more idomatic concurrency pattern I should consider, I'd love to hear about it. I'm not 100% sold on this solution but this is the farthest I've gotten so far.
This is all good but the issue I have is that the stack itself could be zero length so the case where I attempt to send stack[0] to the jobchan, if the stack is empty, I get an out of bounds error.
I can't reproduce it with your playground link, but it's believable, because at lest one gofunc worker might have been ready to receive on that channel.
My output has been Msgcnt: 0, which is also easily explained, because gofunc might not have been ready to receive on jobschan when dispatch() runs its select. The order of these operations is not defined.
trying to create a dispatch go routine that will send jobs to a worker pool listening on the jobchan channel
A channel needs no dispatcher. A channel is the dispatcher.
If a message comes into my dispatch function via the dispatchchan channel and my other go routines are busy, the message is [...] will [...] send again later when a worker becomes available, [...] or no more messages are received on the dispatchchan.
With a few creative edits, it was easy to turn that into something close to the definition of a buffered channel. It can be read from immediately, or it can take up to some "limit" of messages that can't be immediately dispatched. You do define limit, though it's not used elsewhere within your code.
In any function, defining a variable you don't read will result in a compile time error like limit declared but not used. This stricture improves code quality and helps identify typeos. But at package scope, you've gotten away with defining the unused limit as a "global" and thus avoided a useful error - you haven't limited anything.
Don't use globals. Use passed parameters to define scope, because the definition of scope is tantamount to functional concurrency as expressed with the go keyword. Pass the relevant channels defined in local scope to functions defined at package scope so that you can easily track their relationships. And use directional channels to enforce the producer/consumer relationship between your functions. More on this later.
Going back to "limit", it makes sense to limit the quantity of jobs you're queueing because all resources are limited, and accepting more messages than you have any expectation of processing requires more durable storage than process memory provides. If you don't feel obligated to fulfill those requests no matter what, don't accept "too many" of them in the first place.
So then, what function has dispatchchan and dispatch()? To store a limited number of pending requests, if any, before they can be processed, and then to send them to the next available worker? That's exactly what a buffered channel is for.
Circular Logic
Who "knows" when your program is done? main() provides the initial input, but you close all 3 channels in `dispatch():
close(jobchan)
close(dispatchchan)
close(mw)
Your workers write to their own job queue so only when the workers are done writing to it can the incoming job queue be closed. However, individual workers also don't know when to close the jobs queue because other workers are writing to it. Nobody knows when your algorithm is done. There's your circular logic.
The mw channel is a buffered channel the same length as the number of worker go routines. It acts as a semaphore for the worker pool.
There's a race condition here. Consider the case where all n workers have just received the last n jobs. They've each read from jobschan and they're checking the value of ok. disptatcher proceeds to run its select. Nobody is writing to dispatchchan or reading from jobschan right now so the default case is immediately matched. len(stack) is 0 and there's no current job so dispatcher closes all channels including mw. At some point thereafter, a worker tries to write to a closed channel and panics.
So finally I'm ready to provide some code, but I have one more problem: I don't have a clear problem statement to write code around.
I'm just getting into concurrency in Go and trying to create a dispatch go routine that will send jobs to a worker pool listening on the jobchan channel.
Channels between goroutines are like the teeth that synchronize gears. But to what end do the gears turn? You're not trying to keep time, nor construct a wind-up toy. Your gears could be made to turn, but what would success look like? Their turning?
Let's try to define a more specific use case for channels: given an arbitrarily long set of durations coming in as strings on standard input*, sleep that many seconds in one of n workers. So that we actually have a result to return, we'll say each worker will return the start and end time the duration was run for.
So that it can run in the playground, I'll simulate standard input with a hard-coded byte buffer.
package main
import (
"bufio"
"bytes"
"fmt"
"os"
"strings"
"sync"
"time"
)
type SleepResult struct {
worker_id int
duration time.Duration
start time.Time
end time.Time
}
func main() {
var num_workers = 2
workchan := make(chan time.Duration)
resultschan := make(chan SleepResult)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
var resultswg sync.WaitGroup
resultswg.Add(1)
go results(&resultswg, resultschan)
for i := 0; i < num_workers; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go worker(i, &wg, workchan, resultschan)
}
// playground doesn't have stdin
var input = bytes.NewBufferString(
strings.Join([]string{
"3ms",
"1 seconds",
"3600ms",
"300 ms",
"5s",
"0.05min"}, "\n") + "\n")
var scanner = bufio.NewScanner(input)
for scanner.Scan() {
text := scanner.Text()
if dur, err := time.ParseDuration(text); err != nil {
fmt.Fprintln(os.Stderr, "Invalid duration", text)
} else {
workchan <- dur
}
}
close(workchan) // we know when our inputs are done
wg.Wait() // and when our jobs are done
close(resultschan)
resultswg.Wait()
}
func results(wg *sync.WaitGroup, resultschan <-chan SleepResult) {
for res := range resultschan {
fmt.Printf("Worker %d: %s : %s => %s\n",
res.worker_id, res.duration,
res.start.Format(time.RFC3339Nano), res.end.Format(time.RFC3339Nano))
}
wg.Done()
}
func worker(id int, wg *sync.WaitGroup, jobchan <-chan time.Duration, resultschan chan<- SleepResult) {
var res = SleepResult{worker_id: id}
for dur := range jobchan {
res.duration = dur
res.start = time.Now()
time.Sleep(res.duration)
res.end = time.Now()
resultschan <- res
}
wg.Done()
}
Here I use 2 wait groups, one for the workers, one for the results. This makes sure Im done writing all the results before main() ends. I keep my functions simple by having each function do exactly one thing at a time: main reads inputs, parses durations from them, and sends them off to the next worker. The results function collects results and prints them to standard output. The worker does the sleeping, reading from jobchan and writing to resultschan.
workchan can be buffered (or not, as in this case); it doesn't matter because the input will be read at the rate it can be processed. We can buffer as much input as we want, but we can't buffer an infinite amount. I've set channel sizes as big as 1e6 - but a million is a lot less than infinite. For my use case, I don't need to do any buffering at all.
main knows when the input is done and can close the jobschan. main also knows when jobs are done (wg.Wait()) and can close the results channel. Closing these channels is an important signal to the worker and results goroutines - they can distinguish between a channel that is empty and a channel that is guaranteed not to have any new additions.
for job := range jobchan {...} is shorthand for your more verbose:
for {
job, ok := <- jobchan
if !ok {
wg.Done()
return
}
...
}
Note that this code creates 2 workers, but it could create 20 or 2000, or even 1. The program functions regardless of how many workers are in the pool. It can handle any volume of input (though interminable input of course leads to an interminable program). It does not create a cyclic loop of output to input. If your use case requires jobs to create more jobs, that's a more challenging scenario that can typically be avoided with careful planning.
I hope this gives you some good ideas about how you can better use concurrency in your Go applications.
https://play.golang.wiki/p/cZuI9YXypxI
I need to read about 600 pcap files, each file is about 100MB.
I use gopacket to load pcap file, and check it.
Case1: uses 1 routine to check.
Case2: uses 40 routines to check.
And I found that the time consumed by case1 and case2 are similar.
The difference is cpu usage of case1 only has 200%, and case2 can reach to 3000%.
My question is why multiple routines cannot improve performance?
There are some comments in code, hope that will help.
package main
import (
"flag"
"fmt"
"io/ioutil"
"log"
"os"
"strings"
"sync"
"github.com/google/gopacket"
"github.com/google/gopacket/layers"
"github.com/google/gopacket/pcap"
)
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup
var dir = flag.String("dir", "../pcap", "input dir")
var threadNum = flag.Int("threads", 40, "input thread number")
flag.Parse()
fmt.Printf("dir=%s, threadNum=%d\n", *dir, *threadNum)
pcapFileList, err := ioutil.ReadDir(*dir)
if err != nil {
panic(err)
}
log.Printf("start. file number=%d.", len(pcapFileList))
fileNumPerRoutine := len(pcapFileList) / *threadNum
lastFileNum := len(pcapFileList) % *threadNum
// split files to different routine
// each routine only process files which belong to itself
if fileNumPerRoutine > 0 {
for i := 0; i < *threadNum; i++ {
start := fileNumPerRoutine * i
end := fileNumPerRoutine * (i + 1)
if lastFileNum > 0 && i == (*threadNum-1) {
end = len(pcapFileList)
}
// fmt.Printf("start=%d, end=%d\n", start, end)
wg.Add(1)
go checkPcapRoutine(i, &wg, dir, pcapFileList[start:end])
}
}
wg.Wait()
log.Printf("end.")
}
func checkPcapRoutine(id int, wg *sync.WaitGroup, dir *string, pcapFileList []os.FileInfo) {
defer wg.Done()
for _, p := range pcapFileList {
if !strings.HasSuffix(p.Name(), "pcap") {
continue
}
pcapFile := *dir + "/" + p.Name()
log.Printf("checkPcapRoutine(%d): process %s.", id, pcapFile)
handle, err := pcap.OpenOffline(pcapFile)
if err != nil {
log.Printf("error=%s.", err)
return
}
defer handle.Close()
packetSource := gopacket.NewPacketSource(handle, handle.LinkType())
// Per my test, if I don't parse packets, it is very fast, even use only 1 routine, so IO should not be the bottleneck.
// What puzzles me is that every routine has their own packets, each routine is independent, but it still seems to be processed serially.
// This is the first time I use gopacket, maybe used wrong parameter?
for packet := range packetSource.Packets() {
gtpLayer := packet.Layer(layers.LayerTypeGTPv1U)
lays := packet.Layers()
outerIPLayer := lays[1]
outerIP := outerIPLayer.(*layers.IPv4)
if gtpLayer == nil && (outerIP.Flags&layers.IPv4MoreFragments != 0) && outerIP.Length < 56 {
log.Panicf("file:%s, idx=%d may leakage.", pcapFile, j+1)
break
}
}
}
}
To run two or more tasks in parallel the operations required to carry out those tasks must have a property of not being dependent on each other or some external resources which are then said to be shared by those tasks.
In real world, the tasks which are truly and completely independent are rare (so rare that there is even a dedicated name for the class of such tasks: they are said to be embarrasingly parallel) but when the amount of dependency of tasks on each other's progression and contending to access shared resources is below some threshold, adding more "workers" (goroutines) may improve the total time it takes to complete a set of tasks.
Notice "may" here: for instance, your storage device and the file system on it and the kernel data structures and code to work with the filesystem and the storage device is a shared medium all your goroutines have to access. This medium has a certain limit on both its throughput and latency; basically, you can only read, like, M bytes per second from that medium—and whether you have a single reader fully utilizing this bandwidth, or N readers—each utilizing some amount around M/N of it—does not matter: you physically cannot read faster than that limit of M BPS.
Moreover, the resources most frequently found in real world tend to degrade their performance when contended for: say, if the resource has to be locked to be accessed, the more accessors actively wanting to take the lock you have, the more CPU time is spent in the lock management code (when the resource is more complicated — such as that conglomerate of intricate stuff which "an FS on a storage device—all managed by the kernel" is — the analysis of how it degrades when is being accessed concurrently becomes way more complicated).
TL;DR
I can make an educated guess that your task is simply I/O-bound as the goroutines have to read the files.
You can verify that by modifying the code to first fetch all the files into memory and then handing the buffers to the parsing goroutines.
The drastic amount of CPU spent you're observing in your case is a red herring: contemporary systems like to take 100% CPU utilization to mean "full utilization of a single hardware processing thread" — so if you have, like 4 CPU cores with HyperThreading™ (or whatever AMD has for this) enabled, the full capacity of your system is 4×2=8, or 800%.
The fact you're may be seeing more than the theoretical capacity (which we do not know) may be explained by your system showing that way the so-called "starvation": you have many software threads wanting to be executed but waiting for their CPU time, and the system showing that as insane CPU utilization.
In Go, a sync.Mutex or chan is used to prevent concurrent access of shared objects. However, in some cases I am just interested in the "latest" value of a variable or field of an object.
Or I like to write a value and do not care if another go-routine overwrites it later or has just overwritten it before.
Update: TLDR; Just don't do this. It is not safe. Read the answers, comments, and linked documents!
Update 2021: The Go memory model is going to be specified more thoroughly and there are three great articles by Russ Cox that will teach you more about the surprising effects of unsynchronized memory access. These articles summarize a lot of the below discussions and learnings.
Here are two variants good and bad of an example program, where both seem to produce "correct" output using the current Go runtime:
package main
import (
"flag"
"fmt"
"math/rand"
"time"
)
var bogus = flag.Bool("bogus", false, "use bogus code")
func pause() {
time.Sleep(time.Duration(rand.Uint32()%100) * time.Millisecond)
}
func bad() {
stop := time.After(100 * time.Millisecond)
var name string
// start some producers doing concurrent writes (DANGER!)
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
go func(i int) {
pause()
name = fmt.Sprintf("name = %d", i)
}(i)
}
// start consumer that shows the current value every 10ms
go func() {
tick := time.Tick(10 * time.Millisecond)
for {
select {
case <-stop:
return
case <-tick:
fmt.Println("read:", name)
}
}
}()
<-stop
}
func good() {
stop := time.After(100 * time.Millisecond)
names := make(chan string, 10)
// start some producers concurrently writing to a channel (GOOD!)
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
go func(i int) {
pause()
names <- fmt.Sprintf("name = %d", i)
}(i)
}
// start consumer that shows the current value every 10ms
go func() {
tick := time.Tick(10 * time.Millisecond)
var name string
for {
select {
case name = <-names:
case <-stop:
return
case <-tick:
fmt.Println("read:", name)
}
}
}()
<-stop
}
func main() {
flag.Parse()
if *bogus {
bad()
} else {
good()
}
}
The expected output is as follows:
...
read: name = 3
read: name = 3
read: name = 5
read: name = 4
...
Any combination of read: and read: name=[0-9] is correct output for this program. Receiving any other string as output would be an error.
When running this program with go run --race bogus.go it is safe.
However, go run --race bogus.go -bogus warns of the concurrent reads and writes.
For map types and when appending to slices I always need a mutex or a similar method of protection to avoid segfaults or unexpected behavior. However, reading and writing literals (atomic values) to variables or field values seems to be safe.
Question: Which Go data types can I safely read and safely write concurrently without a mutext and without producing segfaults and without reading garbage from memory?
Please explain why something is safe or unsafe in Go in your answer.
Update: I rewrote the example to better reflect the original code, where I had the the concurrent writes issue. The important leanings are already in the comments. I will accept an answer that summarizes these learnings with enough detail (esp. on the Go-runtime).
However, in some cases I am just interested in the latest value of a variable or field of an object.
Here is the fundamental problem: What does the word "latest" mean?
Suppoose that, mathematically speaking, we have a sequence of values Xi, with 0 <= i < N. Then obviously Xj is "later than" Xi if j > i. That's a nice simple definition of "latest" and is probably the one you want.
But when two separate CPUs within a single machine—including two goroutines in a Go program—are working at the same time, time itself loses meaning. We cannot say whether i < j, i == j, or i > j. So there is no correct definition for the word latest.
To solve this kind of problem, modern CPU hardware, and Go as a programming language, gives us certain synchronization primitives. If CPUs A and B execute memory fence instructions, or synchronization instructions, or use whatever other hardware provisions exist, the CPUs (and/or some external hardware) will insert whatever is required for the notion of "time" to regain its meaning. That is, if the CPU uses barrier instructions, we can say that a memory load or store that was executed before the barrier is a "before" and a memory load or store that is executed after the barrier is an "after".
(The actual implementation, in some modern hardware, consists of load and store buffers that can rearrange the order in which loads and stores go to memory. The barrier instruction either synchronizes the buffers, or places an actual barrier in them, so that loads and stores cannot move across the barrier. This particular concrete implementation gives an easy way to think about the problem, but isn't complete: you should think of time as simply not existing outside the hardware-provided synchronization, i.e., all loads from, and stores to, some location are happening simultaneously, rather than in some sequential order, except for these barriers.)
In any case, Go's sync package gives you a simple high level access method to these kinds of barriers. Compiled code that executes before a mutex Lock call really does complete before the lock function returns, and the code that executes after the call really does not start until after the lock function returns.
Go's channels provide the same kinds of before/after time guarantees.
Go's sync/atomic package provides much lower level guarantees. In general you should avoid this in favor of the higher level channel or sync.Mutex style guarantees. (Edit to add note: You could use sync/atomic's Pointer operations here, but not with the string type directly, as Go strings are actually implemented as a header containing two separate values: a pointer, and a length. You could solve this with another layer of indirection, by updating a pointer that points to the string object. But before you even consider doing that, you should benchmark the use of the language's preferred methods and verify that these are a problem, because code that works at the sync/atomic level is hard to write and hard to debug.)
Which Go data types can I safely read and safely write concurrently without a mutext and without producing segfaults and without reading garbage from memory?
None.
It really is that simple: You cannot, under no circumstance whatsoever, read and write concurrently to anything in Go.
(Btw: Your "correct" program is not correct, it is racy and even if you get rid of the race condition it would not deterministically produce the output.)
Why can't you use channels
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup // wait group to close channel
var buffer int = 1 // buffer of the channel
// channel to get the share data
cName := make(chan string, buffer)
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
wg.Add(1) // add to wait group
go func(i int) {
cName <- fmt.Sprintf("name = %d", i)
wg.Done() // decrease wait group.
}(i)
}
go func() {
wg.Wait() // wait of wait group to be 0
close(cName) // close the channel
}()
// process all the data
for n := range cName {
println("read:", n)
}
}
The above code returns the following output
read: name = 0
read: name = 5
read: name = 1
read: name = 2
read: name = 3
read: name = 4
read: name = 7
read: name = 6
read: name = 8
read: name = 9
https://play.golang.org/p/R4n9ssPMOeS
Article about channels
I want to compute the inverse element of a prime in modular arithmetic.
In order to speed things up I start a few goroutines which try to find the element in a certain range. When the first one finds the element, it sends it to the main goroutine and at this point I want to terminate the program. So I call close in the main goroutine, but I don't know if the goroutines will finish their execution (I guess not). So a few questions arise:
1) Is this a bad style, should I have something like a WaitGroup?
2) Is there a more idiomatic way to do this computation?
package main
import "fmt"
const (
Procs = 8
P = 1000099
Base = 1<<31 - 1
)
func compute(start, end uint64, finished chan struct{}, output chan uint64) {
for i := start; i < end; i++ {
select {
case <-finished:
return
default:
break
}
if i*P%Base == 1 {
output <- i
}
}
}
func main() {
finished := make(chan struct{})
output := make(chan uint64)
for i := uint64(0); i < Procs; i++ {
start := i * (Base / Procs)
end := (i + 1) * (Base / Procs)
go compute(start, end, finished, output)
}
fmt.Println(<-output)
close(finished)
}
Is there a more idiomatic way to do this computation?
You don't actually need a loop to compute this.
If you use the GCD function (part of the standard library), you get returned numbers x and y such that:
x*P+y*Base=1
this means that x is the answer you want (because x*P = 1 modulo Base):
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math/big"
)
const (
P = 1000099
Base = 1<<31 - 1
)
func main() {
bigP := big.NewInt(P)
bigBase := big.NewInt(Base)
// Compute inverse of bigP modulo bigBase
bigGcd := big.NewInt(0)
bigX := big.NewInt(0)
bigGcd.GCD(bigX,nil,bigP,bigBase)
// x*bigP+y*bigBase=1
// => x*bigP = 1 modulo bigBase
fmt.Println(bigX)
}
Is this a bad style, should I have something like a WaitGroup?
A wait group solves a different problem.
In general, to be a responsible go citizen here and ensure your code runs and tidies up behind itself, you may need to do a combination of:
Signal to the spawned goroutines to stop their calculations when the result of the computation has been found elsewhere.
Ensure a synchronous process waits for the goroutines to stop before returning. This is not mandatory if they properly respond to the signal in #1, but if you don't wait, there will be no guarantee they have terminated before the parent goroutine continues.
In your example program, which performs this task and then quits, there is strictly no need to do either. As this comment indicates, your program's main method terminates upon a satisfactory answer being found, at which point the program will end, any goroutines will be summarily terminated, and the operating system will tidy up any consumed resources. Waiting for goroutines to stop is unnecessary.
However, if you wrapped this code up into a library or it became part of a long running "inverse prime calculation" service, it would be desirable to tidy up the goroutines you spawned to avoid wasting cycles unnecessarily. Additionally, in general, you may have other scenarios in which goroutines store state, hold handles to external resources, or hold handles to internal objects which you risk leaking if not properly tidied away – it is desirable to properly close these.
Communicating the requirement to stop working
There are several approaches to communicate this. I don't claim this is an exhaustive list! (Please do suggest other general-purpose methods in the comments or by proposing edits to the post.)
Using a special channel
Signal the child goroutines by closing a special "shutdown" channel reserved for the purpose. This exploits the channel axiom:
A receive from a closed channel returns the zero value immediately
On receiving from the shutdown channel, the goroutine should immediately arrange to tidy any local state and return from the function. Your earlier question had example code which implemented this; a version of the pattern is:
func myGoRoutine(shutdownChan <-chan struct{}) {
select {
case <-shutdownChan:
// tidy up behaviour goes here
return
// You may choose to listen on other channels here to implement
// the primary behaviour of the goroutine.
}
}
func main() {
shutdownChan := make(chan struct{})
go myGoRoutine(shutdownChan)
// some time later
close(shutdownChan)
}
In this instance, the shutdown logic is wasted because the main() method will immediately return after the call to close. This will race with the shutdown of the goroutine, but we should assume it will not properly execute its tidy-up behaviour. Point 2 addresses ways to fix this.
Using a context
The context package provides the option to create a context which can be cancelled. On cancellation, a channel exposed by the context's Done() method will be closed, which signals time to return from the goroutine.
This approach is approximately the same as the previous method, with the exception of neater encapsulation and the availability of a context to pass to downstream calls in your goroutine to cancel nested calls where desired. Example:
func myGoRoutine(ctx context.Context) {
select {
case <-ctx.Done():
// tidy up behaviour goes here
return
// Put real behaviour for the goroutine here.
}
}
func main() {
// Get a context (or use an existing one if you are provided with one
// outside a `main` method:
ctx := context.Background()
// Create a derived context with a cancellation method
ctx, cancel := context.WithCancel(ctx)
go myGoRoutine(ctx)
// Later, when ready to quit
cancel()
}
This has the same bug as the other case in that the main method will not wait for the child goroutines to quit before returning.
Waiting (or "join"ing) for child goroutines to stop
The code which closes the shutdown channel or closes the context in the above examples will not wait for child goroutines to stop working before continuing. This may be acceptable in some instances, while in others you may require the guarantee that goroutines have stopped before continuing.
sync.WaitGroup can be used to implement this requirement. The documentation is comprehensive. A wait group is a counter which should be incremented using its Add method on starting a goroutine and decremented using its Done method when a goroutine completes. Code can wait for the counter to return to zero by calling its Wait method, which blocks until the condition is true. All calls to Add must occur before a call to Wait.
Example code:
func main() {
var wg sync.WaitGroup
// Increment the WaitGroup with the number of goroutines we're
// spawning.
wg.Add(1)
// It is common to wrap a goroutine in a function which performs
// the decrement on the WaitGroup once the called function returns
// to avoid passing references of this control logic to the
// downstream consumer.
go func() {
// TODO: implement a method to communicate shutdown.
callMyFunction()
wg.Done()
}()
// Indicate shutdown, e.g. by closing a channel or cancelling a
// context.
// Wait for goroutines to stop
wg.Wait()
}
Is there a more idiomatic way to do this computation?
This algorithm is certainly parallelizable through use of goroutines in the manner you have defined. As the work is CPU-bound, the limitation of goroutines to the number of available CPUs makes sense (in the absence of other work on the machine) to benefit from the available compute resource.
See peterSO's answer for a bug fix.
I have something like this mock (code below) which distributes the same keyword out to multiple goroutines, except the goroutines all take different amount of times doing things with the keyword but can operate independently of each other so they don't need any synchronization. The solution given below to distribute clearly synchronizes the goroutines.
I just want to toss this idea out there to see how other people would deal with this type of distribution, as I assume it is fairly common and someone else has thought about it before.
Here are some other solutions I have thought up and why they seem kinda meh to me:
One goroutine for each keyword
Each time a new keyword comes in spawn a goroutine to handle the distribution
Give the keyword a bitmask or something for each goroutine to update
This way once all of the workers have touched the keyword it can be deleted and we can move on
Give each worker its own stack to work off of
This seems kinda appealing, just give each worker a stack to add each keyword to, but we would eventually run into a problem of a ton of memory being taken up since it is planned to run so long
The problem with all of these is that my code is supposed to run for a long time, unwatched, and that would lead to either a huge build up of keywords or goroutines due to the lazy worker taking longer than the others. It almost seems like it'd be nice to give each worker its own Amazon SQS queue or implement something similar to that myself.
EDIT:
Store the keyword outside the program
I just thought of doing it this way instead, I could perhaps just store the keyword outside the program until they all grab it and then delete it once it has been used up. This sits ok with me actually, I don't have a problem with using up disk space
Anyway here is an example of the approach that waits for all to finish:
package main
import (
"flag"
"fmt"
"math/rand"
"os"
"os/signal"
"strconv"
"time"
)
var (
shutdown chan struct{}
count = flag.Int("count", 5, "number to run")
)
type sleepingWorker struct {
name string
sleep time.Duration
ch chan int
}
func NewQuicky(n string) sleepingWorker {
var rq sleepingWorker
rq.name = n
rq.ch = make(chan int)
rq.sleep = time.Duration(rand.Intn(5)) * time.Second
return rq
}
func (r sleepingWorker) Work() {
for {
fmt.Println(r.name, "is about to sleep, number:", <-r.ch)
time.Sleep(r.sleep)
}
}
func NewLazy() sleepingWorker {
var rq sleepingWorker
rq.name = "Lazy slow worker"
rq.ch = make(chan int)
rq.sleep = 20 * time.Second
return rq
}
func distribute(gen chan int, workers ...sleepingWorker) {
for kw := range gen {
for _, w := range workers {
fmt.Println("sending keyword to:", w.name)
select {
case <-shutdown:
return
case w.ch <- kw:
fmt.Println("keyword sent to:", w.name)
}
}
}
}
func main() {
flag.Parse()
shutdown = make(chan struct{})
go func() {
c := make(chan os.Signal, 1)
signal.Notify(c, os.Interrupt)
<-c
close(shutdown)
}()
x := make([]sleepingWorker, *count)
for i := 0; i < (*count)-1; i++ {
x[i] = NewQuicky(strconv.Itoa(i))
go x[i].Work()
}
x[(*count)-1] = NewLazy()
go x[(*count)-1].Work()
gen := make(chan int)
go distribute(gen, x...)
go func() {
i := 0
for {
i++
select {
case <-shutdown:
return
case gen <- i:
}
}
}()
<-shutdown
os.Exit(0)
}
Let's assume I understand the problem correctly:
There's not too much you can do about it I'm afraid. You have limited resources (assuming all resources are limited) so if data to your input is written faster then you process it, there will be some synchronisation needed. At the end the whole process will run as quickly as the slowest worker anyway.
If you really need data from the workers available as soon as possible, the best you can do is to add some kind of buffering. But the buffer must be limited in size (even if you run in the cloud it would be limited by your wallet) so assuming never ending torrent of input it will only postpone the choke until some time in the future where you will start seeing "synchronisation" again.
All the ideas you presented in your questions are based on buffering the data. Even if you run a routine for every keyword-worker pair, this will buffer one element in every routine and, unless you implement the limit on total number of routines, you'll run out of memory. And even if you always leave some room for the quickest worker to spawn a new routine, the input queue won't be able to deliver new items as it would be choked on the slowest worker.
Buffering would solve your problem if on average you input is slower than processing time, but you have occasional spikes. If your buffer is big enough you can than accommodate the increase of throughput and maybe your quickest worker won't notice a thing.
Solution?
As go comes with buffered channels, this is the easiest to implement (also suggested by icza in the comment). Just give each worker a buffer. If you know which worker is the slowest, you can give it a bigger buffer. In this scenario you're limited by the memory of your machine.
If you're not happy with the single-machine memory limit then yes, per one of your ideas, you can "simply" store the buffer (queue) for each worker on the hard drive. But this is also limited and just postpones the blocking scenario until later. This is essentially the same as your Amazon SQS proposal (you could keep buffer in the cloud, but you need either limit it reasonably or prepare for the bill.)
The final note, depending on the system you're building, it might be not a good idea to buffer items in such a massive scale allowing to build up the backlog for the slower workers – it's often not desirable to have a worker hours, days, weeks behind the input flow and this is what would happen with an infinite buffer. The real answer then would be: improve your slowest worker to process things faster. (And add some buffering to improve the experience.)