I have spent a while learning the topic of Scala execution contexts, underlying threading models and concurrency. Can you explain in what ways does scala.concurrent.blocking
"adjust the runtime behavior" and "may improve performance or avoid deadlocks" as described in the scaladoc?
In the documentation, it is presented as a means to await api that doesn't implement Awaitable. (Perhaps also just long running computation should be wrapped?).
What is it that it actually does?
Following through the source doesn't easily betray its secrets.
blocking
is meant to act as a hint to the ExecutionContext
that the contained code is blocking and could lead to thread starvation. This will give the thread pool a chance to spawn new threads in order to prevent starvation. This is what is meant by "adjust the runtime behavior". It's not magic though, and won't work with every ExecutionContext
.
Consider this example:
import scala.concurrent._
val ec = scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
(0 to 100) foreach { n =>
Future {
println("starting Future: " + n)
blocking { Thread.sleep(3000) }
println("ending Future: " + n)
}(ec)
}
This is using the default global ExecutionContext
. Running the code as-is, you will notice that the 100 Future
s are all executed immediately, but if you remove blocking
, they only execute a few at a time. The default ExecutionContext
will react to blocking calls (marked as such) by spawning new threads, and thus doesn't get overloaded with running Future
s.
Now look at this example with a fixed pool of 4 threads:
import java.util.concurrent.Executors
val executorService = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4)
val ec = ExecutionContext.fromExecutorService(executorService)
(0 to 100) foreach { n =>
Future {
println("starting Future: " + n)
blocking { Thread.sleep(3000) }
println("ending Future: " + n)
}(ec)
}
This ExecutionContext
isn't built to handle spawning new threads, and so even with my blocking code surrounded with blocking
, you can see that it will still only execute at most 4 Future
s at a time. And so that's why we say it "may improve performance or avoid deadlocks"--it's not guaranteed. As we see in the latter ExecutionContext
, it's not guaranteed at all.
How does it work? As linked, blocking
executes this code:
BlockContext.current.blockOn(body)(scala.concurrent.AwaitPermission)
BlockContext.current
retrieves the BlockContext
from the current thread, seen here. A BlockContext
is usually just a Thread
with the BlockContext
trait mixed in. As seen in the source, it is either stored in a ThreadLocal
, or if it's not found there, it is pattern matched out of the current thread. If the current thread is not a BlockContext
, then the DefaultBlockContext
is used instead.
Next, blockOn
is called on the current BlockContext
. blockOn
is an abstract method in BlockContext
, so it's implementation is dependent on how the ExecutionContext
handles it. If we look at the implementation for DefaultBlockContext
(when the current thread is not a BlockContext
), we see that blockOn
actually does nothing there. So using blocking
in a non-BlockContext
means that nothing special is done at all, and the code is run as-is, with no side-effects.
What about threads that are BlockContext
s? For instance, in the global
context, seen here, blockOn
does quite a bit more. Digging deeper, you can see that it's using a ForkJoinPool
under the hood, with the DefaultThreadFactory
defined in the same snippet being used for spawning new threads in the ForkJoinPool
. Without the implementation of blockOn
from the BlockContext
(thread), the ForkJoinPool
doesn't know you're blocking, and won't try to spawn more threads in response.
Scala's Await
too, uses blocking
for its implementation.