CODEWITHSUNDEEP
go
FPGA
FPGA

Reputation: 3875

Simple concurrent queue

Could someone please mention the flaws and performance drawbacks in the Queue like implementation?

type Queue struct {
    sync.Mutex
    Items []interface{}
}

func (q *Queue) Push(item interface{}) {
    q.Lock()
    defer q.Unlock()
    q.Items = append(q.Items, item)
}

func (q *Queue) Pop() interface{} {
    q.Lock()
    defer q.Unlock()
    if len(q.Items) == 0 {
        return nil
    }
    item := q.Items[0]
    q.Items = q.Items[1:]
    return item
}

I also have methods like PopMany and PushMany, and what I am concerned about is: Is too much re-slicing that bad?

Upvotes: 2

Views: 11690

Answers (4)

Been A Long While
Been A Long While

Reputation: 56

The answer marked correct says re-slicing is not an issue. That is not correct, it is an issue. What Dave is suggesting is right, we should mark that element as nil. Refer more about slices here: https://go.dev/blog/slices-intro

Upvotes: 0

jimt
jimt

Reputation: 26437

The re-slicing is not an issue here. It will also make no difference whether you have a thread-safe or unsafe version as this is pretty much how the re-sizing is meant to be done.

You can alleviate some of the re-sizing overhead by initializing the queue with a capacity:

func NewQueue(capacity int) *Queue {
    return &Queue {
        Items: make([]interface{}, 0, capacity),
    }
}

This will initialize the queue. It can still grow beyond the capacity, but you will not be having any unnecessary copying/re-allocation until that capacity is reached.

What may potentially cause problems with many concurrent accesses, is the mutex lock. At some point, you will be spending more time waiting for locks to be released than you are actually doing work. This is a general problem with lock contention and can be solved by implementing the queue as a lock-free data structure.

There are a few third-party packages out there which provide lock free implementations of basic data structures.

Whether this will actually be useful to you can only be determined with some benchmarking. Lock-free structures can have a higher base cost, but they scale much better when you get many concurrent users. There is a cutoff point at which mutex locks become more expensive than the lock-free approach.

Upvotes: 4

Rick-777
Rick-777

Reputation: 10268

You could simply use a buffered channel.

var queue = make(chan interface{}, 100)

The size of the buffer could to be determined empirically to be large enough for the high-water mark for the rate of pushes vs rate of pops. It should ideally not be much larger than this, to avoid wasting memory.

Indeed, a smaller buffer size will also work, provided the interacting goroutines don't deadlock for other reasons. If you use a smaller buffer size, you are effectively getting queueing via the run-queue of the goroutine time-slice engine, part of the Go runtime. (Quite possible, a buffer size of zero could work in many circumstances.)

Channels allow many reader goroutines and many writer goroutines. The concurrency of their access is handled automatically by the Go runtime. All writes into the channel are interleaved so as to be a sequential stream. All the reads are also interleaved to extract values sequentially in the same order they were enqueued. Here's further discussion on this topic.

Upvotes: 11

kruczy
kruczy

Reputation: 791

I think the best way to approach this is to use a linked list, there is already one available for you in standard package here

Upvotes: 1

Related Questions