I was trying to use sync.Cond - Wait and Broadcast. I could not understand some parts of it:
The comment for Wait calls says:
41 // Because c.L is not locked when Wait first resumes, the caller
42 // typically cannot assume that the condition is true when
43 // Wait returns. Instead, the caller should Wait in a loop:
44 //
45 // c.L.Lock()
46 // for !condition() {
47 // c.Wait()
48 // }
49 // ... make use of condition ...
50 // c.L.Unlock()
What is the reason this is required?
So this means the following program may not be correct (all though it works):
package main
import (
"bufio"
"fmt"
"os"
"sync"
)
type processor struct {
n int
c *sync.Cond
started chan int
}
func newProcessor(n int) *processor {
p := new(processor)
p.n = n
p.c = sync.NewCond(&sync.Mutex{})
p.started = make(chan int, n)
return p
}
func (p *processor) start() {
for i := 0; i < p.n; i++ {
go p.process(i)
}
for i := 0; i < p.n; i++ {
<-p.started
}
p.c.L.Lock()
p.c.Broadcast()
p.c.L.Unlock()
}
func (p *processor) process(f int) {
fmt.Printf("fork : %d\n", f)
p.c.L.Lock()
p.started <- f
p.c.Wait()
p.c.L.Unlock()
fmt.Printf("process: %d - out of wait\n", f)
}
func main() {
p := newProcessor(5)
p.start()
reader := bufio.NewReader(os.Stdin)
_,_ =reader.ReadString('\n')
}
Condition variables doesn't stay signaled, they only wake up other go routines that are blocking in .Wait(). So this presents a race condition unless you have a predicate where you check if you even need to wait, or if the thing you want to wait for has already happened.
In your particular case, you have added synchronization between the go routines calling .Wait() and the one calling .BroadCast() by using your p.started channel, in a manner that as far as I can tell should not present the race condition I'm describing further on in this post. Though I wouldn't bet on it, and personally I would just do it the idiomatic way like the documentation describes.
Consider your start() function is executing the broadcast in these lines:
p.c.L.Lock()
p.c.Broadcast()
At that specific point in time consider that one of your other go routines have come to this point in your process() function
fmt.Printf("fork : %d\n", f)
The next thing that go routine will do is lock the mutex (which it isn't going to own at least until the go routine in start() releases that mutex) and wait on the condition variable.
p.c.L.Lock()
p.started <- f
p.c.Wait()
But Wait is never going to return, since at this point there's noone that will signal/broadcast it - the signal has already happened.
So you need another condition that you can test yourself so you don't need to call Wait() when you already know the condition has happened, e.g.
type processor struct {
n int
c *sync.Cond
started chan int
done bool //added
}
...
func (p *processor) start() {
for i := 0; i < p.n; i++ {
go p.process(i)
}
for i := 0; i < p.n; i++ {
<-p.started
}
p.c.L.Lock()
p.done = true //added
p.c.Broadcast()
p.c.L.Unlock()
}
func (p *processor) process(f int) {
fmt.Printf("fork : %d\n", f)
p.c.L.Lock()
p.started <- f
for !p.done { //added
p.c.Wait()
}
p.c.L.Unlock()
fmt.Printf("process: %d - out of wait\n", f)
}
Related
I find myself in a situation where I have a queue of jobs where workers can add new jobs when they are done processing one.
For illustration, in the code below, a job consists in counting up to JOB_COUNTING_TO and, randomly, 1/5 of the time a worker will add a new job to the queue.
Because my workers can add jobs to the queue, it is my understanding that I was not able to use a channel as my job queue. This is because sending to the channel is blocking and, even with a buffered channel, this code, due to its recursive nature (jobs adding jobs) could easily reach a situation where all the workers are sending to the channel and no worker is available to receive.
This is why I decided to use a shared queue protected by a mutex.
Now, I would like the program to halt when all the workers are idle. Unfortunately this cannot be spotted just by looking for when len(jobQueue) == 0 as the queue could be empty but some worker still doing their job and maybe adding a new job after that.
The solution I came up with is, I feel a bit clunky, it makes use of variables var idleWorkerCount int and var isIdle [NB_WORKERS]bool to keep track of idle workers and the code stops when idleWorkerCount == NB_WORKERS.
My question is if there is a concurrency pattern that I could use to make this logic more elegant?
Also, for some reason I don't understand the technique that I currently use (code below) becomes really inefficient when the number of Workers becomes quite big (such as 300000 workers): for the same number of jobs, the code will be > 10x slower for NB_WORKERS = 300000 vs NB_WORKERS = 3000.
Thank you very much in advance!
package main
import (
"math/rand"
"sync"
)
const NB_WORKERS = 3000
const NB_INITIAL_JOBS = 300
const JOB_COUNTING_TO = 10000000
var jobQueue []int
var mu sync.Mutex
var idleWorkerCount int
var isIdle [NB_WORKERS]bool
func doJob(workerId int) {
mu.Lock()
if len(jobQueue) == 0 {
if !isIdle[workerId] {
idleWorkerCount += 1
}
isIdle[workerId] = true
mu.Unlock()
return
}
if isIdle[workerId] {
idleWorkerCount -= 1
}
isIdle[workerId] = false
var job int
job, jobQueue = jobQueue[0], jobQueue[1:]
mu.Unlock()
for i := 0; i < job; i += 1 {
}
if rand.Intn(5) == 0 {
mu.Lock()
jobQueue = append(jobQueue, JOB_COUNTING_TO)
mu.Unlock()
}
}
func main() {
// Filling up the queue with initial jobs
for i := 0; i < NB_INITIAL_JOBS; i += 1 {
jobQueue = append(jobQueue, JOB_COUNTING_TO)
}
var wg sync.WaitGroup
for i := 0; i < NB_WORKERS; i += 1 {
wg.Add(1)
go func(workerId int) {
for idleWorkerCount != NB_WORKERS {
doJob(workerId)
}
wg.Done()
}(i)
}
wg.Wait()
}
Because my workers can add jobs to the queue
A re entrant channel always deadlock. This is easy to demonstrate using this code
package main
import (
"fmt"
)
func main() {
out := make(chan string)
c := make(chan string)
go func() {
for v := range c {
c <- v + " 2"
out <- v
}
}()
go func() {
c <- "hello world!" // pass OK
c <- "hello world!" // no pass, the routine is blocking at pushing to itself
}()
for v := range out {
fmt.Println(v)
}
}
While the program
tries to push at c <- v + " 2"
it can not
read at for v := range c {,
push at c <- "hello world!"
read at for v := range out {
thus, it deadlocks.
If you want to pass that situation you must overflow somewhere.
On the routines, or somewhere else.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func main() {
out := make(chan string)
c := make(chan string)
go func() {
for v := range c {
go func() { // use routines on the stack as a bank for the required overflow.
<-time.After(time.Second) // simulate slowliness.
c <- v + " 2"
}()
out <- v
}
}()
go func() {
for {
c <- "hello world!"
}
}()
exit := time.After(time.Second * 60)
for v := range out {
fmt.Println(v)
select {
case <-exit:
return
default:
}
}
}
But now you have a new problem.
You created a memory bomb by overflowing without limits on the stack. Technically, this is dependent on the time needed to finish a job, the memory available, the speed of your cpus and the shape of the data (they might or might not generate a new job). So there is a upper limit, but it is so hard to make sense of it, that in practice this ends up to be a bomb.
Consider not overflowing without limits on the stack.
If you dont have any arbitrary limit on hand, you can use a semaphore to cap the overflow.
https://play.golang.org/p/5JWPQiqOYKz
my bombs did not explode with a work timeout of 1s and 2s, but they took a large chunk of memory.
In another round with a modified code, it exploded
Of course, because you use if rand.Intn(5) == 0 { in your code, the problem is largely mitigated. Though, when you meet such pattern, think twice to the code.
Also, for some reason I don't understand the technique that I currently use (code below) becomes really inefficient when the number of Workers becomes quite big (such as 300000 workers): for the same number of jobs, the code will be > 10x slower for NB_WORKERS = 300000 vs NB_WORKERS = 3000.
In the big picture, you have a limited amount of cpu cycles. All those allocations and instructions, to spawn and synchronize, has to be executed too. Concurrency is not free.
Now, I would like the program to halt when all the workers are idle.
I came up with that but i find it very difficult to reason about and convince myself it wont end up in a write on closed channel panic.
The idea is to use a sync.WaitGroup to count in flight items and rely on it to properly close the input channel and finish the job.
package main
import (
"log"
"math/rand"
"sync"
"time"
)
func main() {
rand.Seed(time.Now().UnixNano())
var wg sync.WaitGroup
var wgr sync.WaitGroup
out := make(chan string)
c := make(chan string)
go func() {
for v := range c {
if rand.Intn(5) == 0 {
wgr.Add(1)
go func(v string) {
<-time.After(time.Microsecond)
c <- v + " 2"
}(v)
}
wgr.Done()
out <- v
}
close(out)
}()
var sent int
wg.Add(1)
go func() {
for i := 0; i < 300; i++ {
wgr.Add(1)
c <- "hello world!"
sent++
}
wg.Done()
}()
go func() {
wg.Wait()
wgr.Wait()
close(c)
}()
var rcv int
for v := range out {
// fmt.Println(v)
_ = v
rcv++
}
log.Println("sent", sent)
log.Println("rcv", rcv)
}
I ran it with while go run -race .; do :; done it worked fine for a reasonable amount of iterations.
Im studying Golang now on my freetime and I am trying sample exams online to test what i learned,
I came about this coding exam task but I cant seem to make it work/run without a crash,
im getting fatal error: all goroutines are asleep - deadlock! error, can anybody help what I am doing wrong here?
func executeParallel(ch chan<- int, done chan<- bool, functions ...func() int) {
ch <- functions[1]()
done <- true
}
func exampleFunction(counter int) int {
sum := 0
for i := 0; i < counter; i++ {
sum += 1
}
return sum
}
func main() {
expensiveFunction := func() int {
return exampleFunction(200000000)
}
cheapFunction := func() int {return exampleFunction(10000000)}
ch := make(chan int)
done := make(chan bool)
go executeParallel(ch, done, expensiveFunction, cheapFunction)
var isDone = <-done
for result := range ch {
fmt.Printf("Result: %d\n", result)
if isDone {
break;
}
}
}
Your executeParallel function will panic if less than 2 functions are provided - and will only run the 2nd function:
ch <- functions[1]() // runtime panic if less then 2 functions
I think it should look more like this: running all input functions in parallel and grabbing the first result.
for _, fn := range functions {
fn := fn // so each iteration/goroutine gets the proper value
go func() {
select {
case ch <- fn():
// first (fastest worker) wins
default:
// other workers results are discarded (if reader has not read results yet)
// this ensure we don't leak goroutines - since reader only reads one result from channel
}
}()
}
As such there's no need for a done channel - as we just need to read the one and only (quickest) result:
ch := make(chan int, 1) // big enough to capture one result - even if reader is not reading yet
executeParallel(ch, expensiveFunction, cheapFunction)
fmt.Printf("Result: %d\n", <-ch)
https://play.golang.org/p/skXc3gZZmRn
package main
import "fmt"
func executeParallel(ch chan<- int, done chan<- struct{}, functions ...func() int) {
// Only execute the second function [1], if available.
if len(functions) > 1 {
ch <- functions[1]()
}
// Close the done channel to signal the for-select to break and the main returns.
close(done)
}
// example returns the number of iterations for [0..counter-1]
func example(counter int) int {
sum := 0
for i := 0; i < counter; i++ {
sum += 1
}
return sum
// NOTE(SS): This function could just return "counter-1"
// to avoid the unnecessary calculation done above.
}
func main() {
var (
cheap = func() int { return example(10000000) }
expensive = func() int { return example(200000000) }
ch = make(chan int)
done = make(chan struct{})
)
// executeParallel takes ch, done channel followed by variable
// number of functions where on the second i.e., indexed 1
// function is executed on a separated goroutine which is then
// sent to ch channel which is then received by the for-select
// reciever below i.e., <-ch is the receiver.
go executeParallel(ch, done, expensive, cheap)
for {
select {
// Wait for something to be sent to done or the done channel
// to be closed.
case <-done:
return
// Keep receiving from ch (if something is sent to it)
case result := <-ch:
fmt.Println("Result:", result)
}
}
}
I have commented on the code so that it's understandable. As you didn't the actual question the logic could be still wrong.
I'm creating global counter, which can be shared between goroutines.
Referring to this question, following code may satisfy my needs.
However if there ware lots of concurrent requests, could it happen that the same number is assigned to more than two goroutines?
If so how can I avoid this?
This question is different from the link I pasted, as what I want to know about is how I can avoid duplication using channel counter. if the only possible solution is other implementation like sync.Mutex or atomic, I'll use it. however, according to the link (again), channel seems to be the best option. Any comment or answer really helpful. thanks in advance.
I'm new to multithread coding and also go, might be silly question. sorry for that.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
var counter int
var counter_chan chan int
func main() {
counter_chan = make(chan int, 100)
counter = 0
go func() {
for {
select {
case chanc := <-counter_chan:
counter += chanc
fmt.Printf("%d \n", counter)
}
}
}()
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
go AddCounter(counter_chan)
}
time.Sleep(time.Second)
fmt.Printf("Total Count is ... %d \n", GetCount())
}
func AddCounter(ch chan int) {
ch <- 1
}
func GetCount() int {
return counter
}
func ResetCount() {
if counter > 8190 {
counter = 0
}
}
-- Edit 05/14 2018
Assume following code is thread-safe for getting and resetting value. Am I right?
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
var counter int
var addCounterChan chan int
var readCounterChan chan int
func main() {
addCounterChan = make(chan int, 100)
readCounterChan = make(chan int, 100)
counter = 0
go func() {
for {
select {
case val := <-addCounterChan:
counter += val
if counter > 5 {
counter = 0
}
readCounterChan <- counter
fmt.Printf("%d \n", counter)
}
}
}()
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
go AddCounter(addCounterChan)
}
time.Sleep(time.Second)
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
fmt.Printf("Total Count #%d is ... %d \n", (i + 1), GetCount(readCounterChan))
}
}
// Following two functions will be implemented in another package in real case.
func AddCounter(ch chan int) {
ch <- 1
}
func GetCount(ch chan int) int {
r := <-ch
return r
}
The direct answer to your question is: The code you've pasted updates the counter safely, but doesn't read or reset it safely.
Contrary to the accepted answer in the question you linked to, however, the easiest, most efficient way to implement a shared counter is with the atomic package. It can be used to atomically increment several common types. Example:
var globalCounter *int32 = new(int32)
// .. later in your code
currentCount := atomic.AddInt32(globalCounter, 1)
Use a sync.Mutex to create a counter with add, get and reset operations as shown in the question.
type counter struct {
mu sync.Mutex
n int
}
func (c *counter) Add() {
c.mu.Lock()
c.n++
c.mu.Unlock()
}
func (c *counter) Get() int {
c.mu.Lock()
n := c.n
c.mu.Unlock()
return n
}
func (c *counter) Reset() {
c.mu.Lock()
if c.n > 8190 {
c.n = 0
}
c.mu.Unlock()
}
If the reset function is not needed, then use the sync/atomic.
type counter struct {
n int32
}
func (c *counter) Add() {
atomic.AddInt32(&c.n, 1)
}
func (c *counter) Get() int {
return int(atomic.LoadInt32(&c.n))
}
Go 1.19
The sync/atomic package now includes atomic types, such as atomic.Int32, which you can use to manage a value that can only be accessed atomically.
This basically accomplishes the same thing as having a custom struct with a mutex, or using top-level atomic functions to read and write a "naked" numerical type. Instead of rolling your own, you can simply rely on the standard library.
A simple example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
"sync/atomic"
)
// zero value is 0
var counter = atomic.Int32{}
func main() {
wg := &sync.WaitGroup{}
wg.Add(100)
for i := 0; i < 100; i++ {
go func() {
counter.Add(1)
wg.Done()
}()
}
wg.Wait()
fmt.Println(counter.Load())
}
Playground: https://go.dev/play/p/76xM3xXTAM5?v=gotip
I'll use a hacky inefficient prime number finder to make this question a little more concrete.
Let's say our main function fires off a bunch of "worker" goroutines. They will report their results to a single channnel which prints them. But not every worker will report something so we can't use a counter to know when the last job is finished. Or is there a way?
For the concrete example, here, main fires off goroutines to check whether the values 2...1000 are prime (yeah I know it is inefficient).
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func main() {
c := make(chan int)
go func () {
for {
fmt.Print(" ", <- c)
}
}()
for n := 2; n < 1000; n++ {
go printIfPrime(n, c)
}
time.Sleep(2 * time.Second) // <---- THIS FEELS WRONG
}
func printIfPrime(n int, channel chan int) {
for d := 2; d * d <= n; d++ {
if n % d == 0 {
return
}
}
channel <- n
}
My problem is that I don't know how to reliably stop it at the right time. I tried adding a sleep at the end of main and it works (but it might take too long, and this is no way to write concurrent code!). I would like to know if there was a way to send a stop signal through a channel or something so main can stop at the right time.
The trick here is that I don't know how many worker responses there will be.
Is this impossible or is there a cool trick?
(If there's an answer for this prime example, great. I can probably generalize. Or maybe not. Maybe this is app specific?)
Use a WaitGroup.
The following code uses two WaitGroups. The main function uses wgTest to wait for print_if_prime functions to complete. Once they are done, it closes the channel to break the for loop in the printing goroutine. The main function uses wgPrint to wait for printing to complete.
package main
import (
"fmt"
"sync"
)
func main() {
c := make(chan int)
var wgPrint, wgTest sync.WaitGroup
wgPrint.Add(1)
go func(wg *sync.WaitGroup) {
defer wg.Done()
for n := range c {
fmt.Print(" ", n)
}
}(&wgPrint)
for n := 2; n < 1000; n++ {
wgTest.Add(1)
go print_if_prime(&wgTest, n, c)
}
wgTest.Wait()
close(c)
wgPrint.Wait()
}
func print_if_prime(wg *sync.WaitGroup, n int, channel chan int) {
defer wg.Done()
for d := 2; d*d <= n; d++ {
if n%d == 0 {
return
}
}
channel <- n
}
playground example
Given the following code:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"math/rand"
"time"
)
func main() {
for i := 0; i < 3; i++ {
go f(i)
}
// prevent main from exiting immediately
var input string
fmt.Scanln(&input)
}
func f(n int) {
for i := 0; i < 10; i++ {
dowork(n, i)
amt := time.Duration(rand.Intn(250))
time.Sleep(time.Millisecond * amt)
}
}
func dowork(goroutine, loopindex int) {
// simulate work
time.Sleep(time.Second * time.Duration(5))
fmt.Printf("gr[%d]: i=%d\n", goroutine, loopindex)
}
Can i assume that the 'dowork' function will be executed in parallel?
Is this a correct way of achieving parallelism or is it better to use channels and separate 'dowork' workers for each goroutine?
Regarding GOMAXPROCS, you can find this in Go 1.5's release docs:
By default, Go programs run with GOMAXPROCS set to the number of cores available; in prior releases it defaulted to 1.
Regarding preventing the main function from exiting immediately, you could leverage WaitGroup's Wait function.
I wrote this utility function to help parallelize a group of functions:
import "sync"
// Parallelize parallelizes the function calls
func Parallelize(functions ...func()) {
var waitGroup sync.WaitGroup
waitGroup.Add(len(functions))
defer waitGroup.Wait()
for _, function := range functions {
go func(copy func()) {
defer waitGroup.Done()
copy()
}(function)
}
}
So in your case, we could do this
func1 := func() {
f(0)
}
func2 = func() {
f(1)
}
func3 = func() {
f(2)
}
Parallelize(func1, func2, func3)
If you wanted to use the Parallelize function, you can find it here https://github.com/shomali11/util
This answer is outdated. Please see this answer instead.
Your code will run concurrently, but not in parallel. You can make it run in parallel by setting GOMAXPROCS.
It's not clear exactly what you're trying to accomplish here, but it looks like a perfectly valid way of achieving concurrency to me.
f() will be executed concurrently but many dowork() will be executed sequentially within each f(). Waiting on stdin is also not the right way to ensure that your routines finished execution. You must spin up a channel that each f() pushes a true on when the f() finishes.
At the end of the main() you must wait for n number of true's on the channel. n being the number of f() that you have spun up.
This helped me when I was starting out.
package main
import "fmt"
func put(number chan<- int, count int) {
i := 0
for ; i <= (5 * count); i++ {
number <- i
}
number <- -1
}
func subs(number chan<- int) {
i := 10
for ; i <= 19; i++ {
number <- i
}
}
func main() {
channel1 := make(chan int)
channel2 := make(chan int)
done := 0
sum := 0
go subs(channel2)
go put(channel1, 1)
go put(channel1, 2)
go put(channel1, 3)
go put(channel1, 4)
go put(channel1, 5)
for done != 5 {
select {
case elem := <-channel1:
if elem < 0 {
done++
} else {
sum += elem
fmt.Println(sum)
}
case sub := <-channel2:
sum -= sub
fmt.Printf("atimta : %d\n", sub)
fmt.Println(sum)
}
}
close(channel1)
close(channel2)
}
"Conventional cluster-based systems (such as supercomputers) employ parallel execution between processors using MPI. MPI is a communication interface between processes that execute in operating system instances on different processors; it doesn't support other process operations such as scheduling. (At the risk of complicating things further, because MPI processes are executed by operating systems, a single processor can run multiple MPI processes and/or a single MPI process can also execute multiple threads!)"
You can add a loop at the end, to block until the jobs are done:
package main
import "time"
func f(n int, b chan bool) {
println(n)
time.Sleep(time.Second)
b <- true
}
func main() {
b := make(chan bool, 9)
for n := cap(b); n > 0; n-- {
go f(n, b)
}
for <-b {
if len(b) == 0 { break }
}
}