5.9 KiB
Parallelism
CPython has the infamous Global Interpreter Lock, which prevents several threads from executing Python bytecode in parallel. This makes threading in Python a bad fit for CPU-bound tasks and often forces developers to accept the overhead of multiprocessing.
In PyO3 parallelism can be easily achieved in Rust-only code. Let's take a look at our word-count example, where we have a search function that utilizes the rayon crate to count words in parallel.
# #![allow(dead_code)]
use pyo3::prelude::*;
// These traits let us use `par_lines` and `map`.
use rayon::str::ParallelString;
use rayon::iter::ParallelIterator;
/// Count the occurrences of needle in line, case insensitive
fn count_line(line: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
let mut total = 0;
for word in line.split(' ') {
if word == needle {
total += 1;
}
}
total
}
#[pyfunction]
fn search(contents: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
contents
.par_lines()
.map(|line| count_line(line, needle))
.sum()
}
But let's assume you have a long running Rust function which you would like to execute several times in parallel. For the sake of example let's take a sequential version of the word count:
# #![allow(dead_code)]
# fn count_line(line: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
# let mut total = 0;
# for word in line.split(' ') {
# if word == needle {
# total += 1;
# }
# }
# total
# }
#
fn search_sequential(contents: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
contents.lines().map(|line| count_line(line, needle)).sum()
}
To enable parallel execution of this function, the Python::allow_threads method can be used to temporarily release the GIL, thus allowing other Python threads to run. We then have a function exposed to the Python runtime which calls search_sequential inside a closure passed to Python::allow_threads to enable true parallelism:
# #![allow(dead_code)]
# use pyo3::prelude::*;
#
# fn count_line(line: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
# let mut total = 0;
# for word in line.split(' ') {
# if word == needle {
# total += 1;
# }
# }
# total
# }
#
# fn search_sequential(contents: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
# contents.lines().map(|line| count_line(line, needle)).sum()
# }
#[pyfunction]
fn search_sequential_allow_threads(py: Python<'_>, contents: &str, needle: &str) -> usize {
py.allow_threads(|| search_sequential(contents, needle))
}
Now Python threads can use more than one CPU core, resolving the limitation which usually makes multi-threading in Python only good for IO-bound tasks:
from concurrent.futures import ThreadPoolExecutor
from word_count import search_sequential_allow_threads
executor = ThreadPoolExecutor(max_workers=2)
future_1 = executor.submit(
word_count.search_sequential_allow_threads, contents, needle
)
future_2 = executor.submit(
word_count.search_sequential_allow_threads, contents, needle
)
result_1 = future_1.result()
result_2 = future_2.result()
Benchmark
Let's benchmark the word-count example to verify that we really did unlock parallelism with PyO3.
We are using pytest-benchmark to benchmark four word count functions:
- Pure Python version
- Rust parallel version
- Rust sequential version
- Rust sequential version executed twice with two Python threads
The benchmark script can be found here, and we can run nox in the word-count folder to benchmark these functions.
While the results of the benchmark of course depend on your machine, the relative results should be similar to this (mid 2020):
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- benchmark: 4 tests -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Name (time in ms) Min Max Mean StdDev Median IQR Outliers OPS Rounds Iterations
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
test_word_count_rust_parallel 1.7315 (1.0) 4.6495 (1.0) 1.9972 (1.0) 0.4299 (1.0) 1.8142 (1.0) 0.2049 (1.0) 40;46 500.6943 (1.0) 375 1
test_word_count_rust_sequential 7.3348 (4.24) 10.3556 (2.23) 8.0035 (4.01) 0.7785 (1.81) 7.5597 (4.17) 0.8641 (4.22) 26;5 124.9457 (0.25) 121 1
test_word_count_rust_sequential_twice_with_threads 7.9839 (4.61) 10.3065 (2.22) 8.4511 (4.23) 0.4709 (1.10) 8.2457 (4.55) 0.3927 (1.92) 17;17 118.3274 (0.24) 114 1
test_word_count_python_sequential 27.3985 (15.82) 45.4527 (9.78) 28.9604 (14.50) 4.1449 (9.64) 27.5781 (15.20) 0.4638 (2.26) 3;5 34.5299 (0.07) 35 1
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You can see that the Python threaded version is not much slower than the Rust sequential version, which means compared to an execution on a single CPU core the speed has doubled.