[concurrency-interest] ForkJoinPool not designed for nested Java 8 streams.parallel().forEach( ... )

Christian Fries email at christian-fries.de
Thu May 8 04:48:20 EDT 2014


Dear All.

With respect to the improvement of the documentation suggested

Am 06.05.2014 um 01:09 schrieb Doug Lea <dl at cs.oswego.edu>:

> Sorry that you and a bunch of people at stackOverflow spent so much time
> on this because you did not did not notice the java.util.stream documentation
> (http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/package-summary.html)
> about the use of independent functions/actions (especially not those including
> synchronization). We should do something about this.

I would like to add two aspects from a user perspective:

First, the linked page ( http://docs.oracle.com/javase/8/docs/api/java/util/stream/package-summary.html ) does not mention the ForkJoinPool or Managed Blocker, etc. at all. The words „pool“, „common“, „fork“, „managed“ do not even occur in the document. It is just a discussion of parallel streams from the stream perspective suggesting that code like the one I have used (thread save, no interference, etc.) works fine. (This is not actually my observation, it was a comment on SO).
So a footnote that the backend of parallel streams is currently the FJP and that corresponding limitations apply (use of managed blockers) should be added (on the other hand - I would prefer to have the streams framework work without too much knowledge of the underlying implementation).

Second, I would like to comment on the idea to „forbid“ nested parallelism at all: From a user perspective I try to (or have to) use parallelism a lot. In my library many parts are functional, stateless, free of interference. If you use parallelism a lot it may be that you have parallelism encapsulated „inside“ many small parts and nested parallelism is a natural thing. It is also a good thing. If I have an outer parallel loop of 5 on our 64 core machine it would be a waste to forbid inner (nested) parallelism. Everyone of the 5 could work on its task with a parallelism of > 10 - so we are talking about a factor of 10. - I have this situation in my lib and it works great.

Of course, one aspect of the issue in my previous post is that we are submitting to a COMMON thread pool. A workaround would be to use a dedicated pool for each inner loop. But a common thread pool is an advantage, since it allows to globally control parallelism!

Best
Christian




More information about the Concurrency-interest mailing list