pmap-chunking-862.diff
[CLJ-862] pmap level of parallelism inconsistent for chunked vs non-chunked input Created: 23/Oct/11 Updated: 20/Oct/12 |
|
| Status: | Open |
| Project: | Clojure |
| Component/s: | None |
| Affects Version/s: | Release 1.1, Release 1.2, Release 1.3, Release 1.4 |
| Fix Version/s: | Reviewed Backlog |
| Type: | Defect | Priority: | Minor |
| Reporter: | Marshall T. Vandegrift | Assignee: | Jim Blomo |
| Resolution: | Unresolved | Votes: | 0 |
| Labels: | None | ||
| Attachments: |
pmap-chunking-862.diff
|
| Patch: | Code and Test |
| Description |
|
The code of pmap creates futures for the set of map operations it needs to perform with (map #(future %) coll), then acts on that sequence in a fashion obviously intended to keep only #CPUs+2 unfinished futures realized at any given time. It works exactly this way for non-chunked input seqs, but when pmap is passed a chunked seq, the seq of futures also becomes chunked. This causes an arbitrary number of futures to be realized as the #CPUs+2 window and chunk-size window interact. The doc-string for pmap doesn't promise any particular level of parallelism, but I think the inconsistent parallelism for chunked vs non-chunked input comprises a bug. |
| Comments |
| Comment by Stuart Halloway [ 25/Oct/11 6:51 PM ] |
|
Next person to take a deep look at pmap should probably also think through fork/join. |
| Comment by Jim Blomo [ 19/May/12 12:31 AM ] |
|
fork/join is a Java 7 feature. Would a proposed patch need to be able to fall back to Java 5 features? |
| Comment by Andy Fingerhut [ 19/May/12 1:06 AM ] |
|
Clojure/core folks can say more authoritatively, but I believe with the recent reduce enhancements that rely on jsr166 code, Clojure 1.5 will most likely require Java 6 or later, and Java 5 will no longer be supported. |
| Comment by Jim Blomo [ 28/May/12 5:29 PM ] |
|
Spinning up more threads than CPU cores is not a good idea when the work is CPU bound. Currently (1.4) pmap uses an unbounded thread pool, so chunked sequences will create more threads than intended. The least invasive change is to use a fixed sized thread pool (ForkJoinPool being one example). pmap is differentiated from core.reducers by the fact that it is lazy. This implies a one-at-a-time ThreadPool.submit model, instead of the recursive fork/join model. Tradeoffs include: Enforce look-ahead even on chunked sequences:
Move to a fixed size thread pool:
Use ForkJoinPool for fixed thread pool (instead of newFixedThreadPool):
I think using a traditional fixed size thread pool is the right option. Most of the time all of pmap's results will be realized, so I don't think it's worth saving work by being strict about the look-ahead size. This is also the decision map has made. Since we're not using ForkJoin's main strength (recursive work queuing), I don't think it is worth setting it up in clojure.core. I'll use Agent/pooledExecutor as the fixed size thread. Let me know if I forgot or misunderstood anything. |
| Comment by Jim Blomo [ 28/May/12 7:59 PM ] |
|
2012-05-28 pmap-chunking-862.diff uses a fixed size thread pool for pmap functions. |