parallel-stream
— 2020-03-17
- comparing to other libraries
- configuring parallelism limits
- configuring ordering
- future directions
- conclusion
Last weekend I released parallel-stream, a data parallelism library for async std. It's to streams, the way rayon is to iterators. This is an implementation of a design I wrote about earlier.
The way parallel-stream
works is that instead of calling
into_stream
to create a sequential stream
you can call
into_par_stream
to create a "parallel" stream instead. This means that each item in the
stream will be operated on in a new
task,
which enables multi-core processing of items backed by a thread pool.
For example:
use parallel_stream::prelude::*;
#[async_std::main]
async fn main() {
// Create a vec of numbers to square.
let v = vec![1, 2, 3, 4];
// Convert the vec into a parallel stream and collect each item into a vector.
let mut res: Vec<usize> = v
.into_par_stream()
.map(|n| async move { n * n })
.collect()
.await;
// Items are stored as soon as they're ready so we need to sort them.
res.sort();
assert_eq!(res, vec![1, 4, 9, 16]);
}
This model should make it easy to quickly process streams in parallel where previously it would've required significant effort to setup.
parallel-stream
today only provides the basics: map
, for_each
, next
,
and collect
. This was enough to prove it works, and should cover the 90%
use case for most people.
Comparing to other libraries
parallel-stream
does not inherently enable anything that couldn't be done
before. Instead it makes existing capabilities much more accessible, which
increases the likelyhood they'll be used, which in turn is good for
performance.
Rayon
Rayon is a data parallelism library built for synchronous Rust, powered by an underlying thread pool. async-std manages a thread pool as well, but the key difference with Rayon is that async-std (and futures) are optimized for latency, while Rayon is optimized for throughput.
As a rule of thumb: if you want to speed up doing heavy calculations you
probably want to use Rayon. If you want to parallelize network requests
consider using parallel-stream
.
// rayon(parallel): convert a vec into a parallel iterator.
// Map each item in the iterator, and collect into a vec.
let res: Vec<usize> = vec![1, 2, 3, 4]
.into_par_iter()
.map(|n| n * n )
.map(|n| n + n )
.collect();
// parallel-stream(parallel): convert a vec into a parallel stream.
// Map each item in the stream, and collect into a vec.
let res: Vec<usize> = vec![1, 2, 3, 4]
.into_par_stream()
.map(|n| async move { n * n })
.map(|n| async move { n + n })
.collect()
.await;
Futures
futures
provides several abstractions for
parallelizing streams. These include:
stream::futures_unordered
: aSet
of futures that can resolve in any order..StreamExt::for_each_concurrent
: a concurrent version ofStream::for_each
.StreamExt::buffer_unordered
: buffer up ton
futures from a stream simulatenously.
These methods provide the ability to process multiple items from a stream at
the same time. But by themselves they don't schedule work on multiple cores:
they need to be combined with task::spawn
in order to do that.
// futures-rs(parallel): convert a vec into a stream. Then map the
// stream to a stream of futures (tasks). Then process
// all of them in parallel, and collect into a vec.
let res: Vec<usize> = stream::iter(vec![1, 2, 3, 4])
.map(|n| task::spawn(async move { n * n })
.map(|fut| fut.and_then(|n| n + n))
.buffer_unordered(usize::MAX)
.collect()
.await;
// parallel-stream(parallel): convert a vec into a parallel stream.
// Map each item in the stream, and collect into a vec.
let res: Vec<usize> = vec![1, 2, 3, 4]
.into_par_stream()
.map(|n| async move { n * n })
.map(|n| async move { n + n })
.collect()
.await;
As you can see both approaches are about the same length, yet they are quite
different. The core difference lies in how tasks are spawned: futures-rs
has a two-step process of converting values into tasks, taking their handles,
and then awaiting those handles in parallel.
While parallel-stream
only requires to be initialized once, and then all
future operations on it can be assumed to be parallel. This is especially
noticable when chaining multiple stream adapters.
Configuring parallelism limits
Currently parallel-stream
assumes all tasks in the stream will be spawned
in parallel, and doesn't impose any limit on how many are running at the same
time. However in practice systems have very real limits, and being able to
configure maximum concurrency is useful.
To that extent we've introduced the limit
method as part of the trait,
which governs concurrency 1. The idea is that setting a maximum
concurrency would be matter of calling limit
on the stream chain:
let res: Vec<usize> = vec![1, 2, 3, 4]
.into_par_stream()
.limit(2) // Process up to 2 items at the same time.
.map(|n| async move { n * n })
.collect()
.await;
This method exists, but the implementation inside the stream adapters is still a work in progress.
This rougly corresponds to the limit
param in
futures::stream::Stream::for_each_concurrent
and the n
parameter in
futures::stream::Stream::buffer_unordered
.
Configuring ordering
Like its name implies buffer_unordered
has a counterpart: buffer_ordered
.
Instead of returning items as soon as they're ready, it returns items in
order (but still processes them in parallel).
As you've seen in the examples so far, we've been calling Vec::order
after
having finished collect
ing items. This generally only works for finite
streams where all items can fit in memory. If a stream is infinite, or the
full contents of the stream can't fit in memory, this doesn't work. Instead
it'd be better if items could be sorted on the spot, which would result in
much more efficient use of memory.
parallel-stream
doesn't support this yet. It's somewhat involved to
implement, and would require resolving
issue #4 first. But
the API would likely end up looking something like this:
let res: Vec<usize> = vec![1, 2, 3, 4]
.into_par_stream()
.order(true) // Return items from the stream in order.
.map(|n| async move { n * n })
.collect()
.await;
Another reason why ordering is not enabled by default is because it uses more
memory for cases when ordering is not important. And since items are now
returned in order, it increases overall latency. Which is often not what you
want when using async/await
.
Together with the limit
method this functionality would provide careful
control of how much work can be done at the same time, and whether to trade
ordering for latency and memory use.
Future Directions
As I mentioned in the "language support" section of my "streams concurrency" post, it'd be fantastic if the Rust language itself could eventually provide support for parallel iteration. For example writing a parallel async TCP listener shouldn't be more lines than writing a synchronous sequential one:
let mut listener = TcpListener::bind("127.0.0.1:8080").await?;
println!("Listening on {}", listener.local_addr()?);
for par stream.await? in listener.incoming() {
println!("Accepting from: {}", stream.peer_addr()?);
io::copy(&stream, &stream).await?;
}
But that's quite a bit further out. Though now that parallel-stream
exists
we can probably start prototyping what this would look like through the use
of proc macros. After all, language support for async/await
was also first
implemented as a proc macro.
There are some limitations around what proc macros can currently do, but I
believe the following should be feasible:
let mut listener = TcpListener::bind("127.0.0.1:8080").await?;
println!("Listening on {}", listener.local_addr()?);
#[for_par] { stream.await? in listener.incoming() {
println!("Accepting from: {}", stream.peer_addr()?);
io::copy(&stream, &stream).await?;
}}
In addition to that there are quite a few more APIs to add. parallel-stream
currently only covers the basics, but we've setup a comprehensive list of all
methods to add in #2.
Contributions would be most welcome!
Conclusion
In this post we've introduced parallel-stream
, a data parallelism library
for async-std
. It provides a familiar interface powering non-blocking
parallel processing of work.
Work on this library started a few months after async-std
was kicked off.
However I had some trouble prototyping it, and it wasn't until last week that
I figured out how to simplify internals enough to get it to work well.
Personally I'm happy that we've proven this exists, but probably don't have much time to maintain it going forward. If someone would like to help maintain this and move it foward, please do get it touch!
For me it's probably time to work on Tide again, and finish the migration to
http-types
. Probably more on that in a later post. That's all for now. Have
a good week, and stay safe!