I would like to implement a "crawler" with n workers where each worker is able to add additional jobs. The program should stop when there are no jobs left and all workers have finished their work.
I have the following code (you can play with it at https://play.golang.org/p/_j22p_OfYv):
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
func main() {
pathChan := make(chan string)
fileChan := make(chan string)
workers := 3
var wg sync.WaitGroup
paths := map[string][]string{
"/": {"/test", "/foo", "a", "b"},
"/test": {"aa", "bb", "cc"},
"/foo": {"/bar", "bbb", "ccc"},
"/bar": {"aaaa", "bbbb", "cccc"},
}
for i := 0; i < workers; i++ {
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
for {
path, ok := <-pathChan
if !ok {
break
}
for _, f := range paths[path] {
if f[0] == '/' {
pathChan <- f
} else {
fileChan <- f
}
}
}
wg.Done()
}()
}
pathChan <- "/"
for {
filePath, ok := <-fileChan
if !ok {
break
}
fmt.Println(filePath)
}
wg.Wait()
close(pathChan)
}
Unfortunately, this ends in a dead-lock. Where exactly is the problem? Also, what is the best practice to write such functionality? Are channels the correct feature to use?
EDIT:
I have updated my code to use two wait groups, one for the jobs and one for the workers (see https://play.golang.org/p/bueUJzMhqj):
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
func main() {
pathChan := make(chan string)
fileChan := make(chan string)
jobs := new(sync.WaitGroup)
workers := new(sync.WaitGroup)
nworkers := 2
paths := map[string][]string{
"/": {"/test", "/foo", "a", "b"},
"/test": {"aa", "bb", "cc"},
"/foo": {"/bar", "bbb", "ccc"},
"/bar": {"aaaa", "bbbb", "cccc"},
}
for i := 0; i < nworkers; i++ {
workers.Add(1)
go func() {
defer workers.Done()
for {
path, ok := <-pathChan
if !ok {
break
}
for _, f := range paths[path] {
if f[0] == '/' {
jobs.Add(1)
pathChan <- f
} else {
fileChan <- f
}
}
jobs.Done()
}
}()
}
jobs.Add(1)
pathChan <- "/"
go func() {
jobs.Wait()
close(pathChan)
workers.Wait()
close(fileChan)
}()
for {
filePath, ok := <-fileChan
if !ok {
break
}
fmt.Println(filePath)
}
}
This indeed seems to work, but obviously a deadlock will still happen if nworkers is set to 1, because the single worker will wait forever when adding something to the channel pathChan. To solve this issue, the channel buffer can be increased (e.g. pathChan := make(chan string, 2)), but this will only work as long as two buffer isn't completely full. Of course, the buffer size could be set to a large number, say 10000, but the code could still hit a deadlock. Additionally, this doesn't seem to be a clean solution to me.
This is where I realized that it would be easier to use some sort of queue instead of a channel, where elements can be added and removed without blocking and where the size of the queue isn't fixed. Do such queues exist in the Go standard library?
If you want to wait for an arbitrary number of workers to finish, the standard library includes sync.WaitGroup for exactly this purpose.
There are other concurrency issues as well:
You're using channel closure signalling, but you have multiple goroutines sending on the same channel. This is generally bad practice: since each routine can never know when the other routines are done with the channel, you can never correctly close the channel.
Closing one channel waits on the other to be closed first, but it will never be closed, so it deadlocks.
The only reason it doesn't deadlock immediately is your example happens to have more workers than directories under "/". Add two more directories under "/" and it deadlocks immediately.
There are some solutions:
Dump the worker pool and just spin a goroutine for every subdirectory, and let the scheduler worry about the rest: https://play.golang.org/p/ck2DkNFnyF
Use one worker per root-level directory, and have each worker process its directory recursively rather than queuing subdirectories it finds to a channel.
Related
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
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
}
I'm here to find out the most idiomatic way to do the follow task.
Task:
Write data from a channel to a file.
Problem:
I have a channel ch := make(chan int, 100)
I need to read from the channel and write the values I read from the channel to a file. My question is basically how do I do so given that
If channel ch is full, write the values immediately
If channel ch is not full, write every 5s.
So essentially, data needs to be written to the file at least every 5s (assuming that data will be filled into the channel at least every 5s)
Whats the best way to use select, for and range to do my above task?
Thanks!
There is no such "event" as "buffer of channel is full", so you can't detect that [*]. This means you can't idiomatically solve your problem with language primitives using only 1 channel.
[*] Not entirely true: you could detect if the buffer of a channel is full by using select with default case when sending on the channel, but that requires logic from the senders, and repetitive attempts to send.
I would use another channel from which I would receive as values are sent on it, and "redirect", store the values in another channel which has a buffer of 100 as you mentioned. At each redirection you may check if the internal channel's buffer is full, and if so, do an immediate write. If not, continue to monitor the "incoming" channel and a timer channel with a select statement, and if the timer fires, do a "regular" write.
You may use len(chInternal) to check how many elements are in the chInternal channel, and cap(chInternal) to check its capacity. Note that this is "safe" as we are the only goroutine handling the chInternal channel. If there would be multiple goroutines, value returned by len(chInternal) could be outdated by the time we use it to something (e.g. comparing it).
In this solution chInternal (as its name says) is for internal use only. Others should only send values on ch. Note that ch may or may not be a buffered channel, solution works in both cases. However, you may improve efficiency if you also give some buffer to ch (so chances that senders get blocked will be lower).
var (
chInternal = make(chan int, 100)
ch = make(chan int) // You may (should) make this a buffered channel too
)
func main() {
delay := time.Second * 5
timer := time.NewTimer(delay)
for {
select {
case v := <-ch:
chInternal <- v
if len(chInternal) == cap(chInternal) {
doWrite() // Buffer is full, we need to write immediately
timer.Reset(delay)
}
case <-timer.C:
doWrite() // "Regular" write: 5 seconds have passed since last write
timer.Reset(delay)
}
}
}
If an immediate write happens (due to a "buffer full" situation), this solution will time the next "regular" write 5 seconds after this. If you don't want this and you want the 5-second regular writes be independent from the immediate writes, simply do not reset the timer following the immediate write.
An implementation of doWrite() may be as follows:
var f *os.File // Make sure to open file for writing
func doWrite() {
for {
select {
case v := <-chInternal:
fmt.Fprintf(f, "%d ", v) // Write v to the file
default: // Stop when no more values in chInternal
return
}
}
}
We can't use for ... range as that only returns when the channel is closed, but our chInternal channel is not closed. So we use a select with a default case so when no more values are in the buffer of chInternal, we return.
Improvements
Using a slice instead of 2nd channel
Since the chInternal channel is only used by us, and only on a single goroutine, we may also choose to use a single []int slice instead of a channel (reading/writing a slice is much faster than a channel).
Showing only the different / changed parts, it could look something like this:
var (
buf = make([]int, 0, 100)
)
func main() {
// ...
for {
select {
case v := <-ch:
buf = append(buf, v)
if len(buf) == cap(buf) {
// ...
}
}
func doWrite() {
for _, v := range buf {
fmt.Fprintf(f, "%d ", v) // Write v to the file
}
buf = buf[:0] // "Clear" the buffer
}
With multiple goroutines
If we stick to leave chInternal a channel, the doWrite() function may be called on another goroutine to not block the other one, e.g. go doWrite(). Since data to write is read from a channel (chInternal), this requires no further synchronization.
if you just use 5 seconds write, to increase the file write performance,
you may fill the channel any time you need,
then writer goroutine writes that data to the buffered file,
see this very simple and idiomatic sample without using timer
with just using for...range:
package main
import (
"bufio"
"fmt"
"os"
"sync"
)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
func WriteToFile(filename string, ch chan int) {
f, e := os.Create(filename)
if e != nil {
panic(e)
}
w := bufio.NewWriterSize(f, 4*1024*1024)
defer wg.Done()
defer f.Close()
defer w.Flush()
for v := range ch {
fmt.Fprintf(w, "%d ", v)
}
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int, 100)
wg.Add(1)
go WriteToFile("file.txt", ch)
for i := 0; i < 500000; i++ {
ch <- i // do the job
}
close(ch) // Finish the job and close output file
wg.Wait()
}
and notice the defers order.
and in case of 5 seconds write, you may add one interval timer just to flush the buffer of this file to the disk, like this:
package main
import (
"bufio"
"fmt"
"os"
"sync"
"time"
)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
func WriteToFile(filename string, ch chan int) {
f, e := os.Create(filename)
if e != nil {
panic(e)
}
w := bufio.NewWriterSize(f, 4*1024*1024)
ticker := time.NewTicker(5 * time.Second)
quit := make(chan struct{})
go func() {
for {
select {
case <-ticker.C:
if w.Buffered() > 0 {
fmt.Println(w.Buffered())
w.Flush()
}
case <-quit:
ticker.Stop()
return
}
}
}()
defer wg.Done()
defer f.Close()
defer w.Flush()
defer close(quit)
for v := range ch {
fmt.Fprintf(w, "%d ", v)
}
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int, 100)
wg.Add(1)
go WriteToFile("file.txt", ch)
for i := 0; i < 25; i++ {
ch <- i // do the job
time.Sleep(500 * time.Millisecond)
}
close(ch) // Finish the job and close output file
wg.Wait()
}
here I used time.NewTicker(5 * time.Second) for interval timer with quit channel, you may use time.AfterFunc() or time.Tick() or time.Sleep().
with some optimizations ( removing quit channel):
package main
import (
"bufio"
"fmt"
"os"
"sync"
"time"
)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
func WriteToFile(filename string, ch chan int) {
f, e := os.Create(filename)
if e != nil {
panic(e)
}
w := bufio.NewWriterSize(f, 4*1024*1024)
ticker := time.NewTicker(5 * time.Second)
defer wg.Done()
defer f.Close()
defer w.Flush()
for {
select {
case v, ok := <-ch:
if ok {
fmt.Fprintf(w, "%d ", v)
} else {
fmt.Println("done.")
ticker.Stop()
return
}
case <-ticker.C:
if w.Buffered() > 0 {
fmt.Println(w.Buffered())
w.Flush()
}
}
}
}
func main() {
ch := make(chan int, 100)
wg.Add(1)
go WriteToFile("file.txt", ch)
for i := 0; i < 25; i++ {
ch <- i // do the job
time.Sleep(500 * time.Millisecond)
}
close(ch) // Finish the job and close output file
wg.Wait()
}
I hope this helps.
Given a (partially) filled buffered channel in Go
ch := make(chan *MassiveStruct, n)
for i := 0; i < n; i++ {
ch <- NewMassiveStruct()
}
is it advisable to also drain the channel when closing it (by the writer) in case it is unknown when readers are going read from it (e.g. there is a limited number of those and they are currently busy)? That is
close(ch)
for range ch {}
Is such a loop guaranteed to end if there are other concurrent readers on the channel?
Context: a queue service with a fixed number of workers, which should drop processing anything queued when the service is going down (but not necessarily being GCed right after). So I am closing to indicate to the workers that the service is being terminated. I could drain the remaining "queue" immediately letting the GC free the resources allocated, I could read and ignore the values in the workers and I could leave the channel as is running down the readers and setting the channel to nil in the writer so that the GC cleans up everything. I am not sure which is the cleanest way.
It depends on your program, but generally speaking I would tend to say no (you don't need to clear the channel before closing it): if there is items in your channel when you close it, any reader still reading from the channel will receive the items until the channel is emtpy.
Here is an example:
package main
import (
"sync"
"time"
)
func main() {
var ch = make(chan int, 5)
var wg sync.WaitGroup
wg.Add(1)
for range make([]struct{}, 2) {
go func() {
for i := range ch {
wg.Wait()
println(i)
}
}()
}
for i := 0; i < 5; i++ {
ch <- i
}
close(ch)
wg.Done()
time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
}
Here, the program will output all the items, despite the fact that the channel is closed strictly before any reader can even read from the channel.
There are better ways to achieve what you're trying to achieve. Your current approach can just lead to throwing away some records, and processing other records randomly (since the draining loop is racing all the consumers). That doesn't really address the goal.
What you want is cancellation. Here's an example from Go Concurrency Patterns: Pipelines and cancellation
func sq(done <-chan struct{}, in <-chan int) <-chan int {
out := make(chan int)
go func() {
defer close(out)
for n := range in {
select {
case out <- n * n:
case <-done:
return
}
}
}()
return out
}
You pass a done channel to all the goroutines, and you close it when you want them all to stop processing. If you do this a lot, you may find the golang.org/x/net/context package useful, which formalizes this pattern, and adds some extra features (like timeout).
I feel that the supplied answers actually do not clarify much apart from the hints that neither drain nor closing is needed. As such the following solution for the described context looks clean to me that terminates the workers and removes all references to them or the channel in question, thus, letting the GC to clean up the channel and its content:
type worker struct {
submitted chan Task
stop chan bool
p *Processor
}
// executed in a goroutine
func (w *worker) run() {
for {
select {
case task := <-w.submitted:
if err := task.Execute(w.p); err != nil {
logger.Error(err.Error())
}
case <-w.stop:
logger.Warn("Worker stopped")
return
}
}
}
func (p *Processor) Stop() {
if atomic.CompareAndSwapInt32(&p.status, running, stopped) {
for _, w := range p.workers {
w.stop <- true
}
// GC all workers as soon as goroutines stop
p.workers = nil
// GC all published data when workers terminate
p.submitted = nil
// no need to do the following above:
// close(p.submitted)
// for range p.submitted {}
}
}
I see lots of tutorials and examples on how to make Go wait for x number of goroutines to finish, but what I'm trying to do is have ensure there are always x number running, so a new goroutine is launched as soon as one ends.
Specifically I have a few hundred thousand 'things to do' which is processing some stuff that is coming out of MySQL. So it works like this:
db, err := sql.Open("mysql", connection_string)
checkErr(err)
defer db.Close()
rows,err := db.Query(`SELECT id FROM table`)
checkErr(err)
defer rows.Close()
var id uint
for rows.Next() {
err := rows.Scan(&id)
checkErr(err)
go processTheThing(id)
}
checkErr(err)
rows.Close()
Currently that will launch several hundred thousand threads of processTheThing(). What I need is that a maximum of x number (we'll call it 20) goroutines are launched. So it starts by launching 20 for the first 20 rows, and from then on it will launch a new goroutine for the next id the moment that one of the current goroutines has finished. So at any point in time there are always 20 running.
I'm sure this is quite simple/standard, but I can't seem to find a good explanation on any of the tutorials or examples or how this is done.
You may find Go Concurrency Patterns article interesting, especially Bounded parallelism section, it explains the exact pattern you need.
You can use channel of empty structs as a limiting guard to control number of concurrent worker goroutines:
package main
import "fmt"
func main() {
maxGoroutines := 10
guard := make(chan struct{}, maxGoroutines)
for i := 0; i < 30; i++ {
guard <- struct{}{} // would block if guard channel is already filled
go func(n int) {
worker(n)
<-guard
}(i)
}
}
func worker(i int) { fmt.Println("doing work on", i) }
Here I think something simple like this will work :
package main
import "fmt"
const MAX = 20
func main() {
sem := make(chan int, MAX)
for {
sem <- 1 // will block if there is MAX ints in sem
go func() {
fmt.Println("hello again, world")
<-sem // removes an int from sem, allowing another to proceed
}()
}
}
Thanks to everyone for helping me out with this. However, I don't feel that anyone really provided something that both worked and was simple/understandable, although you did all help me understand the technique.
What I have done in the end is I think much more understandable and practical as an answer to my specific question, so I will post it here in case anyone else has the same question.
Somehow this ended up looking a lot like what OneOfOne posted, which is great because now I understand that. But OneOfOne's code I found very difficult to understand at first because of the passing functions to functions made it quite confusing to understand what bit was for what. I think this way makes a lot more sense:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
const xthreads = 5 // Total number of threads to use, excluding the main() thread
func doSomething(a int) {
fmt.Println("My job is",a)
return
}
func main() {
var ch = make(chan int, 50) // This number 50 can be anything as long as it's larger than xthreads
var wg sync.WaitGroup
// This starts xthreads number of goroutines that wait for something to do
wg.Add(xthreads)
for i:=0; i<xthreads; i++ {
go func() {
for {
a, ok := <-ch
if !ok { // if there is nothing to do and the channel has been closed then end the goroutine
wg.Done()
return
}
doSomething(a) // do the thing
}
}()
}
// Now the jobs can be added to the channel, which is used as a queue
for i:=0; i<50; i++ {
ch <- i // add i to the queue
}
close(ch) // This tells the goroutines there's nothing else to do
wg.Wait() // Wait for the threads to finish
}
Create channel for passing data to goroutines.
Start 20 goroutines that processes the data from channel in a loop.
Send the data to the channel instead of starting a new goroutine.
Grzegorz Żur's answer is the most efficient way to do it, but for a newcomer it could be hard to implement without reading code, so here's a very simple implementation:
type idProcessor func(id uint)
func SpawnStuff(limit uint, proc idProcessor) chan<- uint {
ch := make(chan uint)
for i := uint(0); i < limit; i++ {
go func() {
for {
id, ok := <-ch
if !ok {
return
}
proc(id)
}
}()
}
return ch
}
func main() {
runtime.GOMAXPROCS(4)
var wg sync.WaitGroup //this is just for the demo, otherwise main will return
fn := func(id uint) {
fmt.Println(id)
wg.Done()
}
wg.Add(1000)
ch := SpawnStuff(10, fn)
for i := uint(0); i < 1000; i++ {
ch <- i
}
close(ch) //should do this to make all the goroutines exit gracefully
wg.Wait()
}
playground
This is a simple producer-consumer problem, which in Go can be easily solved using channels to buffer the paquets.
To put it simple: create a channel that accept your IDs. Run a number of routines which will read from the channel in a loop then process the ID. Then run your loop that will feed IDs to the channel.
Example:
func producer() {
var buffer = make(chan uint)
for i := 0; i < 20; i++ {
go consumer(buffer)
}
for _, id := range IDs {
buffer <- id
}
}
func consumer(buffer chan uint) {
for {
id := <- buffer
// Do your things here
}
}
Things to know:
Unbuffered channels are blocking: if the item wrote into the channel isn't accepted, the routine feeding the item will block until it is
My example lack a closing mechanism: you must find a way to make the producer to wait for all consumers to end their loop before returning. The simplest way to do this is with another channel. I let you think about it.
I've wrote a simple package to handle concurrency for Golang. This package will help you limit the number of goroutines that are allowed to run concurrently:
https://github.com/zenthangplus/goccm
Example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"goccm"
"time"
)
func main() {
// Limit 3 goroutines to run concurrently.
c := goccm.New(3)
for i := 1; i <= 10; i++ {
// This function have to call before any goroutine
c.Wait()
go func(i int) {
fmt.Printf("Job %d is running\n", i)
time.Sleep(2 * time.Second)
// This function have to when a goroutine has finished
// Or you can use `defer c.Done()` at the top of goroutine.
c.Done()
}(i)
}
// This function have to call to ensure all goroutines have finished
// after close the main program.
c.WaitAllDone()
}
Also can take a look here: https://github.com/LiangfengChen/goutil/blob/main/concurrent.go
The example can refer the test case.
func TestParallelCall(t *testing.T) {
format := "test:%d"
data := make(map[int]bool)
mutex := sync.Mutex{}
val, err := ParallelCall(1000, 10, func(pos int) (interface{}, error) {
mutex.Lock()
defer mutex.Unlock()
data[pos] = true
return pos, errors.New(fmt.Sprintf(format, pos))
})
for i := 0; i < 1000; i++ {
if _, ok := data[i]; !ok {
t.Errorf("TestParallelCall pos not found: %d", i)
}
if val[i] != i {
t.Errorf("TestParallelCall return value is not right (%d,%v)", i, val[i])
}
if err[i].Error() != fmt.Sprintf(format, i) {
t.Errorf("TestParallelCall error msg is not correct (%d,%v)", i, err[i])
}
}
}