Async Rust never left the MVP state
tweedegolf.nl
Async Rust never left the MVP state
1–10 of 273 posts
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#2Great article! Love these types of deep dives into optimizations. Hope the project goal works out!
I've felt before that compilers often don't put much effort into optimizing the "trivial" cases.
Overly dramatic title for the content, though. I would have clicked "Async Rust Optimizations the Compiler Still Misses" too you know
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#3Great article! Love these types of deep dives into optimizations. Hope the project goal works out! I've felt before that compilers often don't put much effort into optimizing the "trivial" cases. Overly dramatic title for the content, though. I would have clicked "Async Rust Optimizations the Compiler Still Misses" too you know
Agree on title. Too dramatic.
The author seems to be obsessing about the overhead for trivial functions. He's bothered by overhead for states for "panicked" and "returned". That's not a big problem. Most useful async blocks are big enough that the overhead for the error cases disappears.
He may have a point about lack of inlining. But what tends to limit capacity for large numbers of activities is the state space required per activity.
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#4Async seems like an underbaked idea across the board. Regular code was already async. When you need to wait for an async operation, the thread sleeps until ready and the kernel abstracts it away. But We didn’t like structuring code into logical threads, so we added callback systems for events. Then realized callbacks are very hard to reason about and that sequential control is better.
So threads was the right programming model.
Now language runtimes prefer “green threads” for portability and performance but most languages don’t provide that properly. Instead we have awkward coloring of async/non-async and all these problems around scheduling, priority, and no-preemption. It’s a worse scheduling and process model than 1970.
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#5Great article! Love these types of deep dives into optimizations. Hope the project goal works out! I've felt before that compilers often don't put much effort into optimizing the "trivial" cases. Overly dramatic title for the content, though. I would have clicked "Async Rust Optimizations the Compiler Still Misses" too you know
Agree on title. Too dramatic. The author seems to be obsessing about the overhead for trivial functions. He's bothered by overhead for states for "panicked" and "returned". That's not a big problem. Most useful async blocks are big enough that the overhead for the error cases disappears. He may have a point about lack of inlining. But what tends to limit capacity for large numbers of activities is the state space req…
> Most useful async blocks are big enough that the overhead for the error cases disappears.
Is it really though?
In my experience many Rust applications/libraries can be quite heavy on the indirection. One of the points from the article is that contrary to sync Rust, in async Rust each indirection has a runtime cost. Example from the article:
async fn bar(blah: SomeType) -> OtherType {
foo(blah).await
}
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#6Async seems like an underbaked idea across the board. Regular code was already async. When you need to wait for an async operation, the thread sleeps until ready and the kernel abstracts it away. But We didn’t like structuring code into logical threads, so we added callback systems for events. Then realized callbacks are very hard to reason about and that sequential control is better. So threads was the right program…
> So threads was the right programming model.
For problems that aren't overly concerned with performance/memory, yes. You should probably reach for threads as a default, unless you know a priori that your problem is not in this common bucket.
Unfortunately there is quite a lot of bookkeeping overhead in the kernel for threads, and context switches are fairly expensive, so in a number of high performance scenarios we may not be able to afford kernel threading
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#7Great article! Love these types of deep dives into optimizations. Hope the project goal works out! I've felt before that compilers often don't put much effort into optimizing the "trivial" cases. Overly dramatic title for the content, though. I would have clicked "Async Rust Optimizations the Compiler Still Misses" too you know
Agree on title. Too dramatic. The author seems to be obsessing about the overhead for trivial functions. He's bothered by overhead for states for "panicked" and "returned". That's not a big problem. Most useful async blocks are big enough that the overhead for the error cases disappears. He may have a point about lack of inlining. But what tends to limit capacity for large numbers of activities is the state space req…
> Most useful async blocks are big enough that the overhead for the error cases disappears.
Most useful async blocks are deeply nested, so the overhead compounds rapidly. Check the size of futures in a decently large Tokio codebase sometime
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#8Async seems like an underbaked idea across the board. Regular code was already async. When you need to wait for an async operation, the thread sleeps until ready and the kernel abstracts it away. But We didn’t like structuring code into logical threads, so we added callback systems for events. Then realized callbacks are very hard to reason about and that sequential control is better. So threads was the right program…
> So threads was the right programming model. For problems that aren't overly concerned with performance/memory, yes. You should probably reach for threads as a default, unless you know a priori that your problem is not in this common bucket. Unfortunately there is quite a lot of bookkeeping overhead in the kernel for threads, and context switches are fairly expensive, so in a number of high performance scenarios we…
In that sentence I’m referring to the abstract idea of a thread of execution as a model of programming, not OS threads. A green thread implementation could do it too.
But what you said about kernel implementation is true. But are we really saying that the primary motivation for async/await is performance? How many programmers would give that answer? How many programs are actually hitting that bottleneck?
Doesn’t that buck the trend of every other language development in the past 20 years, emphasizing correctness and expressively over raw performance?
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#9It's so funny that people will do anything to hate on Rust, including nitpicking a few bytes of overhead for a future while they reach for an entire thread or runtime to handle async in their favourite language.
Re: Async Rust never left the MVP state
#10Async seems like an underbaked idea across the board. Regular code was already async. When you need to wait for an async operation, the thread sleeps until ready and the kernel abstracts it away. But We didn’t like structuring code into logical threads, so we added callback systems for events. Then realized callbacks are very hard to reason about and that sequential control is better. So threads was the right program…
Threads are neither better or worse than async+callbacks. They are different. There are problems which map nicely to threads and there are problems which are much nicer to express with async.