Reputation: 24179
I'm working on a complicated function that calls several subfunctions (within the same file). To pass data around, the setappdata
/getappdata
mechanism is used occasionally. Moreover, some subfunctions contain persistent
variables (initialized once in order to save computations later).
I've been considering whether this function can be executed on several workers in a parallel pool, but became worried that there might be some unintended data sharing (which would otherwise be unique to each worker).
My question is - how can I tell if the data in global
and/or persistent
and/or appdata
is shared between the workers or unique to each one?
Several possibly-relevant things:
persistent
and appdata-stored variables are created/assigned within subfunction of the parfor
.I know that each worker corresponds to a new process with its own memory space (and presumably, global
/persistent
/appdata
workspace). Based on that and on this official comment, I'd say it's probable that such sharing does not occur... But how do we ascertain it?
Upvotes: 3
Views: 208
Reputation: 1390
There is another not-sharing-of-data that bit me.
Persistent variables are not even copied from the current workspace to the workers.
To demonstrate, a simple function with a persistent variable is created (MATLAB 2017a):
function [ output_args ] = testPersist( input_args )
%TESTPERSIST Simple persistent variable test.
persistent var
if (isempty(var))
var = 0;
end
if (nargin == 1)
var = input_args;
end
output_args = var;
end
And a short script is executed:
testPersist(123); % Set persistent variable to 123.
tpData = zeros(100,1);
parfor i = 1 : 100
tpData(i) = testPersist;
testPersist(i);
end
any(tpData == 0) % This implies the worker started from 0 instead of 123 as specified in the first row.
Output is 1
- workers disregarded the 123 from the parent workspace and started anew.
Checking the values in tpData
additionally shows how each worker did its job by noting say "tpData(14) = 15 - this means worker that completed 15 continued with 14 next"
So, creating a worker = creating completely new instance of MATLAB completely unrelated to the instance of MATLAB you have open in front of you. For every worker separately.
Lesson I gained from that = don't use simple persistent variables as the simulation config file. It worked fine and looked elegant as long as no parfor was used... but broke horribly afterwards. Use objects.
Upvotes: 3
Reputation: 24179
This is quite straightforward to test, and we shall do it in two stages.
First, create these 3 functions:
%% Worker 1:
function q52623266_W1
global a; a = 5;
setappdata(0, 'a', a);
someFuncInSameFolder();
end
%% Worker 2:
function q52623266_W2
global a; disp(a);
disp(getappdata(0,'a'));
someFuncInSameFolder();
end
function someFuncInSameFolder()
persistent b;
if isempty(b)
b = 10;
disp('b is now set!');
else
disp(b);
end
end
Next we boot up 2 MATLAB instances (representing two different workers of a parallel pool), then run q52623266_W1
on one of them, wait for it to finish, and run q52623266_W2
on the other. If data is shared, the 2nd instance will print something. This results (on R2018b) in:
>> q52623266_W1
b is now set!
>> q52623266_W2
b is now set!
Which means that data is not shared. So far so good, but one might wonder whether this represents an actual parallel pool. So we can adjust our functions a bit and move on to next step.
function q52623266_Host
spmd(2)
if labindex == 1
setupData();
end
labBarrier; % make sure that the setup stage was executed.
if labindex == 2
readData();
end
end
end
function setupData
global a; a = 5;
setappdata(0, 'a', a);
someFunc();
end
function readData
global a; disp(a);
disp(getappdata(0,'a'));
someFunc();
end
function someFunc()
persistent b;
if isempty(b)
b = 10;
disp('b is now set!');
else
disp(b);
end
end
Running the above we get:
>> q52623266_Host
Starting parallel pool (parpool) using the 'local' profile ...
connected to 2 workers.
Lab 1:
b is now set!
Lab 2:
b is now set!
Which again means that data is not shared. Note that in the second step we used spmd
, which should function similarly to parfor
for the purposes of this test.
Upvotes: 3