I would like to have a shared struct between threads. The struct has many fields that are never modified and a HashMap, which is. I don't want to lock the whole HashMap for a single update/remove, so my HashMap looks something like HashMap<u8, Mutex<u8>>. This works, but it makes no sense since the thread will lock the whole map anyways.
Here's this working version, without threads; I don't think that's necessary for the example.
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::sync::{Arc, Mutex};
fn main() {
let s = Arc::new(Mutex::new(S::new()));
let z = s.clone();
let _ = z.lock().unwrap();
}
struct S {
x: HashMap<u8, Mutex<u8>>, // other non-mutable fields
}
impl S {
pub fn new() -> S {
S {
x: HashMap::default(),
}
}
}
Playground
Is this possible in any way? Is there something obvious I missed in the documentation?
I've been trying to get this working, but I'm not sure how. Basically every example I see there's always a Mutex (or RwLock, or something like that) guarding the inner value.
I don't see how your request is possible, at least not without some exceedingly clever lock-free data structures; what should happen if multiple threads need to insert new values that hash to the same location?
In previous work, I've used a RwLock<HashMap<K, Mutex<V>>>. When inserting a value into the hash, you get an exclusive lock for a short period. The rest of the time, you can have multiple threads with reader locks to the HashMap and thus to a given element. If they need to mutate the data, they can get exclusive access to the Mutex.
Here's an example:
use std::collections::HashMap;
use std::sync::{Mutex, RwLock, Arc};
use std::thread;
use std::time::Duration;
fn main() {
let data = Arc::new(RwLock::new(HashMap::new()));
let threads: Vec<_> = (0..10)
.map(|i| {
let data = Arc::clone(&data);
thread::spawn(move || worker_thread(i, data))
})
.collect();
for t in threads {
t.join().expect("Thread panicked");
}
println!("{:?}", data);
}
fn worker_thread(id: u8, data: Arc<RwLock<HashMap<u8, Mutex<i32>>>>) {
loop {
// Assume that the element already exists
let map = data.read().expect("RwLock poisoned");
if let Some(element) = map.get(&id) {
let mut element = element.lock().expect("Mutex poisoned");
// Perform our normal work updating a specific element.
// The entire HashMap only has a read lock, which
// means that other threads can access it.
*element += 1;
thread::sleep(Duration::from_secs(1));
return;
}
// If we got this far, the element doesn't exist
// Get rid of our read lock and switch to a write lock
// You want to minimize the time we hold the writer lock
drop(map);
let mut map = data.write().expect("RwLock poisoned");
// Assume that no other thread will be inserting the same key,
// otherwise we need to recheck to see if it exists
thread::sleep(Duration::from_millis(50));
map.insert(id, Mutex::new(0));
// Let the loop start us over to try again
}
}
This takes about 5.5 seconds to run on my machine, even though it starts 10 threads that each wait for 1 second while holding the exclusive lock to the element's data.
This solution isn't without issues, however. When there's a huge amount of contention for that one master lock, getting a write lock can take a while and completely kills parallelism.
I often advocate for performing some kind of smarter algorithm. For example, you could spin up N threads each with their own HashMap. You then shard work among them. For the simple example above, you could use id % N_THREADS, for example. There are also complicated sharding schemes that depend on your data.
As Go has done a good job of evangelizing: do not communicate by sharing memory; instead, share memory by communicating.
Maybe you want to consider rust-evmap:
A lock-free, eventually consistent, concurrent multi-value map.
The trade-off is eventual-consistency: Readers do not see changes until the writer refreshes the map. A refresh is atomic and the writer decides when to do it and expose new data to the readers.
