Go is about twice as slow on this benchmark, and doesn't scale past 400k threads. GHC 6.12 goes to >3 million threads (limited by available ram at that point).
I have done a similar benchmark; it is actually the MVars that kill you with respect to memory. If you can omit them, you can do way more than 3 million threads.
(I have not had enough coffee today, so I can't say how useful this setup would be. I have done threads-without-mvars for a TCP server, but my OS refused to give me any more than 300,000 pipes. Disappointing.)
This is as flawed as the stackless python guy's tests, aren't they? The haskell program's threads can block other threads (unless you build with -threaded, which will change the results surely).
This problem is inherently single-threaded. Stackless Python is single-threaded. Go distributes the goroutines over several processors using a thread pool so the performance is naturally lower for a no-op program like this one. Conclusion: inter-processor communication is expensive?
> Go distributes the goroutines over several processors using a thread pool so the performance is naturally lower for a no-op program like this one
Performance is certainly worse with more cores. And you can end up with exponential slowdowns due to thread migration. The best strategy is to pin parts of the thread ring on each core.
Don't forget to take your grain of salt with this article. The timing comparison is between two different computers of unknown hardware, running two different operating system versions.
I decided to do the comparison for him. Using a 386 build of today's tip of Go from the hg repo and stackless python 2.6.4 built from source. Running on Ubuntu 9.04, running the binary 2.6.28-16-generic kernel (32-bit) from Ubuntu. Hardware is a Core 2 Duo at 3Ghz and 4GB of RAM.
~/development/go/dev$ time ./8.out
100000
real 0m0.632s
user 0m0.288s
sys 0m0.344s
~/install/stackless-2.6.4$ time ./python 100k.py
100000
real 0m0.350s
user 0m0.292s
sys 0m0.060s
I would guess contention on sync primitives in the dispatcher. The queues look like they need to be locked before they can be modified:
// Scheduling helpers. Sched must be locked.
static void gput(G*); // put/get on ghead/gtail
This is the comment on the lock:
in the uncontended case,
* as fast as spin locks (just a few user-level instructions),
* but on the contention path they sleep in the kernel.
* a zeroed Lock is unlocked (no need to initialize each lock).
A better approach for multicore would probably be work-stealing queues.
I would tender a guess that since go is compiled to native code, it uses a lot more syscalls to manage its threads. Stackless probably does a lot more of the management inside the vm, and doesn't need to make as many (or any) syscalls to do so.
This is just a guess from someone that knows nothing about either (stackless does run in a vm, right?), so take many large grains of salt.
This is silly, stacklets and goroutines are not comparable, stackless can't even read/write on multiple channels (ie., 'select' or in Limbo parlance 'alt'), nor can it do any blocking calls.
In short, you are comparing apples with bazookas. (Also, for a test that runs in such a short time, and running it only once, it is likely most of the time it is taken by things unrelated to what is intended.)
Sure it can. I mocked up an example solution for the Stackless list, here: http://www.stackless.com/pipermail/stackless/2009-November/0... with a followup using the channel itself as the dispatcher and not some text string name. It's not as nice as syntactical support, but it gets the job done.
Thing is - it doesn't seem to have been missed from Stackless, which makes me wonder when it's needed.
TFA (or MFA for My FA?) asks why Pike emphasized Go's concurrency performance when it was almost certainly worse than Stackless Python's, then showed why I inferred that it was worse.
On speed: Rob Pike's video demo compiled 120kloc RTL in 8 seconds (~15kloc/sec). Your C compile took 7 seconds for 25kloc (3.6kloc/sec) or 2.75 (9.1kloc/sec).
On concurrency: you compared a parallelized CSP implementation, with a single-threaded one, where the test was dominated by communication costs. Single-threaded communication is much faster than potentially contended parallel communication.
On benchmark hygiene: there are a plethora of different machines, different performance profiles and different numbers flying around here. The kloc/sec numbers don't mean anything unless they're on the same machine; similarly, the performance numbers are dependent on degrees of hardware parallelism and the kind of workload (proportion of per-task vs communication vs task startup, all the different variables in cost). Several different benchmarks would need to be run to actually tease out these different variables, to really figure out which one is better.
Hmm. I think I may have gotten the compile numbers from another video about Go, and as I'm reaching the end of my stamina for this topic, I'll just assume I got that wrong.
On concurrency, I thought Go right now was configured by default for only a single kernel thread running goroutines, which would make both of them single-threaded implementations.
A few people now have reported benchmark numbers on their machines, with both Stackless and Go. In every case so far, Go has been slower than Stackless for the 100,000 tasklet/goroutine case. Of course, if Pike had a MacBook Air with an SDD then the compile times are absolutely not comparable.
Agreed also about how to tease out the different variables. Still, recall that I mostly want to know why Pike, for example, stressed that there were no tricks going on underneath the covers to make the performance fast, with the implication that people wouldn't quite believe how fast it was, when the performance does not seem exceptional compared to other similar languages.
"Go is stackless where Stackless is not. Its goroutines use allocated
stacks (starting at 4k in size) and can continue running on different
threads where Stackless tasklets cannot. In fact, when a goroutine
blocks on a system call, the other goroutines in its scheduler are
migrated to another thread."
So stakcless is not really concurrent at all, given that, it is no wonder performance is different given that the functionality provided by stackless 'microthreads' is in no way comparable to goroutines.
At least a grain. Would be nice if someone contributed actual timing numbers from the same box, since I was unable to compile Go.
The point is that Go is a compiled language designed for concurrent processing and Stackless Python is a byte-code language which also had to parse the input program as part of the timing. Even then the raw numbers put Stackless as twice as fast as Go. Assuming my machine is 4 times faster than Pike's, that still not enough to justify what I interpreted as praise for Go's concurrent processing performance.
This is all about how cheap threads are.
Go is about twice as slow on this benchmark, and doesn't scale past 400k threads. GHC 6.12 goes to >3 million threads (limited by available ram at that point).