GeezerVison is showing github.com — gh-104144: Optimize gather to finish eagerly when all futures complete eagerly by itamaro · Pull Request #104138 · python/cpython
Conversation
itamaro
commented
May 3, 2023
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
gh-97696 introduced eager tasks factory, which speeds up some async-heavy workloads by up to 50% when opted in.
installing the eager tasks factory applies out-of-the-box when gathering futures (asyncio.gather(...)), e.g.:
asyncio.get_event_loop().set_task_factory(asyncio.eager_task_factory)
await asyncio.gather(coro1, coro2, coro3)
coro{1,2,3} will eagerly execute the first step, and potentially complete without scheduling to the event loop if the coros don't block.
the implementation of eager uses callbacks internally that end up getting scheduled to the event loop even if all the futures were able to finish synchronously, and blocking the coroutine in which gather() was awaited, preventing the task from completing eagerly even if otherwise it could.
applications that use multiple levels of nested gathers can benefit significantly from eagerly completing multiple levels without blocking, as implemented in this PR by skipping scheduling done callbacks for futures that are already done (e.g. finished eagerly).
Benchmarks
this makes the async pyperformance benchmarks up to 3x faster (!!), using a patch to pyperformance that adds "eager" flavors
3.12-base.20230503.async.4.json
===============================
Performance version: 1.0.7
Python version: 3.12.0a7+ (64-bit) revision da1980afcb
Report on Linux-5.15.0-1033-aws-x86_64-with-glibc2.31
Number of logical CPUs: 72
Start date: 2023-05-03 23:27:23.329046
End date: 2023-05-03 23:46:37.706326
3.12-nogf.20230503.async.2.json
===============================
Performance version: 1.0.7
Python version: 3.12.0a7+ (64-bit) revision 5397cd9f62
Report on Linux-5.15.0-1033-aws-x86_64-with-glibc2.31
Number of logical CPUs: 72
Start date: 2023-05-03 23:05:45.011427
End date: 2023-05-03 23:22:44.908094
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| Benchmark | 3.12-base.20230503.async.4.json | 3.12-nogf.20230503.async.2.json | Change | Significance |
+===============================+=================================+=================================+==============+========================+
| async_tree_cpu_io_mixed | 868 ms | 859 ms | 1.01x faster | Not significant |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_eager | 391 ms | 129 ms | 3.03x faster | Significant (t=209.74) |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_eager_cpu_io_mixed | 756 ms | 490 ms | 1.54x faster | Significant (t=167.41) |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_eager_io | 1.51 sec | 1.50 sec | 1.00x faster | Not significant |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_eager_memoization | 595 ms | 314 ms | 1.89x faster | Significant (t=70.25) |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_io | 1.39 sec | 1.40 sec | 1.00x slower | Not significant |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_memoization | 677 ms | 683 ms | 1.01x slower | Not significant |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
| async_tree_none | 575 ms | 574 ms | 1.00x faster | Not significant |
+-------------------------------+---------------------------------+---------------------------------+--------------+------------------------+
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
itamaro
changed the title
gh-NNNN: Skip creating GatheringFuture if all futures finished eagerly
gh-104144: Skip creating GatheringFuture if all futures finished eagerly
May 3, 2023
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
This looks pretty straightforward and reasonable to me, but would prefer for asyncio experts to take a look.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
itamaro reacted with thumbs up emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
jbower-fb
left a comment
•
edited
Loading
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
If you look at gather._done_callback() you'll see it has a bunch of logic which gets executed at the moment all the futures have finished (starting from if nfinished == nfuts: on line 781). If all args can complete eagerly then this will be executed eagerly too.
This might have a few issues:
- At this point
outer will be None and this will cause trouble on line 803. (Maybe I missed something because I'm surprised this hasn't come up yet).
- Handling for futures that were cancelled during eager execution is processed but the results discarded.
- We inefficiently create a result list which we discard and then repeat when creating the eagerly completed future result.
Fortunately, I think an easy fix is to move creation of the eager result future to before the argument processing loop. See my in-line comments for specifics.
I'm not 100% sure how this will affect the issue described in bpo-46672, but it has a test so we'll see.
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
itamaro reacted with thumbs up emoji
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
|
outer = futures.Future(loop=loop)
|
|
|
outer.set_result([c.result for c in children])
|
|
|
else:
|
|
|
outer = _GatheringFuture(children, loop=loop)
|
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
|
outer = _GatheringFuture(children, loop=loop) |
|
outer.__self_log_traceback = False |
|
outer = _GatheringFuture(children, loop=loop) |
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
…e loop, after the GatheringFuture (outer) is created
|
The title no longer accurately describes the updated PR, since the _GatheringFuture is always created.
|
itamaro reacted with thumbs up emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
thanks for the review @jbower-fb !
I pushed a new version of the PR based on your suggestions, but not identical.
summary of my changes:
- instead of immediately calling the done callbacks for eagerly completed futures in the loop, I add them to a list and call their callbacks only at the end, after creating the outer future
- this helps because now outer is defined the same way, and the children list is fully populated, which is also important because the done callback uses the children list
- I always create a GatheringFuture so I get the same cancellation treatment, but it will still finish eagerly if all futures completed eagerly thanks to the last done callback right before returning
- there shouldn't be any issues with bpo-46672 since outer looks the same as before
|
jbower-fb reacted with thumbs up emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
itamaro
changed the title
gh-104144: Skip creating GatheringFuture if all futures finished eagerly
gh-104144: Optimize gather to finish eagerly when all futures complete eagerly
May 5, 2023
The title no longer accurately describes the updated PR, since the _GatheringFuture is always created.
thanks, I updated the title!
|
carljm reacted with thumbs up emoji
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
LGTM, will fix the typo. Maybe @carljm can merge when you all are agreed on this. Nice fix!
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
|
PS. In general there's no need to click the "Update branch" button (or otherwise merge main back into the PR) unless there are fixes/changes that might affect the PR (e.g. if touching the same file).
|
Sorry, something went wrong.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Assignees
No one assigned
Milestone
No milestone
Development
Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.
Uh oh!
There was an error while loading. Please reload this page.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
|
gvanrossum
left a comment