Skip to content
Comparison of Rust async and Linux thread context switch time.
Branch: master
Clone or download
Fetching latest commit…
Cannot retrieve the latest commit at this time.
Type Name Latest commit message Commit time
Failed to load latest commit information.
async-brigade async-brigade, thread-brigade: Report the number of tasks used. Nov 30, 2019
thread-brigade async-brigade, thread-brigade: Report the number of tasks used. Nov 30, 2019
.gitignore Produces some numbers. Nov 30, 2019

Comparison of Rust async and Linux thread context switch time

These are two programs that create 500 tasks connected by pipes (like a “bucket brigade”) and measure how long it takes to propagate a single byte from the first to the last. One is implemented with threads, and the other is implemented with the Tokio crate's async I/O.

$ cd async-brigade
$ time cargo run --release
   Compiling async-brigade v0.1.0 (/home/jimb/rust/async/context-switch/async-brigade)
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 0.56s
     Running `/home/jimb/rust/async/context-switch/target/release/async-brigade`
10000 iterations, 500 tasks, mean 1.858ms per iteration, stddev 129.544µs
12.49user 8.39system 0:19.37elapsed 107%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 152832maxresident)k

$ cd ../thread-brigade
$ time cargo run --release
   Compiling thread-brigade v0.1.0 (/home/jimb/rust/async/context-switch/thread-brigade)
    Finished release [optimized] target(s) in 0.26s
     Running `/home/jimb/rust/async/context-switch/target/release/thread-brigade`
10000 iterations, 500 tasks, mean 2.763ms per iteration, stddev 537.584µs
10.16user 27.47system 0:28.26elapsed 133%CPU (0avgtext+0avgdata 133520maxresident)k
0inputs+5568outputs (13major+23830minor)pagefaults 0swaps

In these runs, I'm seeing 1.8 / 2.7 ≅ 0.67 or a 30% speedup from going async. The thread-brigade version has a resident set size of about 6.1MiB, whereas async-brigade runs in about 2.2MiB.

There are differences in the system calls performed by the two versions:

  • In thread-brigade, each task does a single recvfrom and a write per iteration, taking 5.5µs.

  • In async-brigade, each task does one recvfrom and one write, neither of which block, and then one more recvfrom, which returns EAGAIN and suspends the task. Then control returns to the executor, which calls epoll to see which task to wake up next. All this takes 3.6µs.

The async-brigade performance isn't affected much if we switch from Tokio's default multi-thread executor to a single-threaded executor, so it's not spending much time in kernel context switches. thread-brigade does a kernel context switch from each task to the next. I think this means that context switches are more expensive than a recvfrom and epoll system call.

If we run the test with 50000 tasks (and reduce the number of iterations to 100), the speedup doesn't change much, but thread-brigade requires a 466MiB resident set, whereas async-brigade runs in around 21MiB. That's 10kiB of memory being actively touched by each task, versus 0.4kiB, about a twentieth. This isn't just the effect of pessimistically-sized thread stacks: we're looking at the resident set size, which shouldn't include pages allocated to the stack that the thread never actually touches. So the way Rust right-sizes futures seems really effective.

This microbenchmark doesn't do much, but a real application would add to each task's working set, and that difference might become less significant. But I was able to run async-brigade with 250,000 tasks; I wasn't able to get my laptop to run 250,000 threads at all.

Running tests with large numbers of threads

It's interesting to play with the number of tasks to see how that affects the relative speed of the async and threaded bucket brigades. But in order to test large numbers of threads, you may need to lift some system-imposed limits.

On Linux:

  • You will run out of file descriptors. Each task needs two file descriptors, one for the reading end of the upstream pipe, and one for the writing end of the downstream pipe. The process also needs a few file descriptors for miscellaneous purposes. For 50000 tasks, say:

    $ ulimit -n 100010
  • You will run out of process id numbers. Each thread needs its own pid. For 50000 tasks, say:

    $ sudo sysctl kernel.pid_max=1000000

    This is overkill, but why worry about this?

  • You will run out of memory map areas. Each thread has its own stack, with an unmapped guard page at the low end to catch stack overflows. There seem to be other constraints as well. In practice, this seems to work for 50000 tasks:

    $ sudo sysctl vm.max_map_count=200000

With these changes made, I was able to run thread-brigade with 50000 tasks.

You can’t perform that action at this time.