Use crossbeam-channel instead of std::sync::mpsc#335
Merged
frankmcsherry merged 1 commit intoTimelyDataflow:masterfrom Aug 6, 2020
Merged
Use crossbeam-channel instead of std::sync::mpsc#335frankmcsherry merged 1 commit intoTimelyDataflow:masterfrom
frankmcsherry merged 1 commit intoTimelyDataflow:masterfrom
Conversation
There are two reasons motivating this change:
* Crossbeam senders implement the `Sync` trait. This is particularly
useful for the `SyncActivator`. It is much more ergonomic if the
`SyncActivator` implements the `Sync` trait, which is only possible if
the contained channel transmitter itself implements `Sync`.
* Crossbeam channels seem faster. A very simple benchmark via
$ cargo run --example exchange --release -- 10000 10000 -w2
decreases from 604ms to 568ms.
frankmcsherry
approved these changes
Aug 6, 2020
Member
frankmcsherry
left a comment
frankmcsherry
left a comment
There was a problem hiding this comment.
This all seems good to me. If we get any word back about crossbeam shortcomings we can re-evaluate, but in their absence this seems like a strict improvement.
Merged
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
2 participants
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
See MaterializeInc/materialize#3870 for the context. I admit this might be scary and a totally bad idea!
There are two reasons motivating this change:
Crossbeam senders implement the
Synctrait. This is particularlyuseful for the
SyncActivator. It is much more ergonomic if theSyncActivatorimplements theSynctrait, which is only possible ifthe contained channel transmitter itself implements
Sync.Crossbeam channels seem faster. A very simple benchmark via
decreases from 604ms to 568ms.