Is F# really faster than Erlang at spawning and killing processes?

Tristan picture Tristan · Feb 6, 2010 · Viewed 7.8k times · Source

Updated: This question contains an error which makes the benchmark meaningless. I will attempt a better benchmark comparing F# and Erlang's basic concurrency functionality and inquire about the results in another question.

I am trying do understand the performance characteristics of Erlang and F#. I find Erlang's concurrency model very appealing but am inclined to use F# for interoperability reasons. While out of the box F# doesn't offer anything like Erlang's concurrency primitives -- from what I can tell async and MailboxProcessor only cover a small portion of what Erlang does well -- I've been trying to understand what is possible in F# performance wise.

In Joe Armstrong's Programming Erlang book, he makes the point that processes are very cheap in Erlang. He uses the (roughly) the following code to demonstrate this fact:

-module(processes).
-export([max/1]).

%% max(N) 
%%   Create N processes then destroy them
%%   See how much time this takes

max(N) ->
    statistics(runtime),
    statistics(wall_clock),
    L = for(1, N, fun() -> spawn(fun() -> wait() end) end),
    {_, Time1} = statistics(runtime),
    {_, Time2} = statistics(wall_clock),
    lists:foreach(fun(Pid) -> Pid ! die end, L),
    U1 = Time1 * 1000 / N,
    U2 = Time2 * 1000 / N,
    io:format("Process spawn time=~p (~p) microseconds~n",
          [U1, U2]).

wait() ->
    receive
        die -> void
    end.

for(N, N, F) -> [F()];
for(I, N, F) -> [F()|for(I+1, N, F)].

On my Macbook Pro, spawning and killing 100 thousand processes (processes:max(100000)) takes about 8 microseconds per processes. I can raise the number of processes a bit further, but a million seems to break things pretty consistently.

Knowing very little F#, I tried to implement this example using async and MailBoxProcessor. My attempt, which may be wrong, is as follows:

#r "System.dll"
open System.Diagnostics

type waitMsg =
    | Die

let wait =
    MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox ->
        let rec loop =
            async { let! msg = inbox.Receive()
                    match msg with 
                    | Die -> return() }
        loop)

let max N =
    printfn "Started!"
    let stopwatch = new Stopwatch()
    stopwatch.Start()
    let actors = [for i in 1 .. N do yield wait]
    for actor in actors do
        actor.Post(Die)
    stopwatch.Stop()
    printfn "Process spawn time=%f microseconds." (stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds * 1000.0 / float(N))
    printfn "Done."

Using F# on Mono, starting and killing 100,000 actors/processors takes under 2 microseconds per process, roughly 4 times faster than Erlang. More importantly, perhaps, is that I can scale up to millions of processes without any apparent problems. Starting 1 or 2 million processes still takes about 2 microseconds per process. Starting 20 million processors is still feasible, but slows to about 6 microseconds per process.

I have not yet taken the time to fully understand how F# implements async and MailBoxProcessor, but these results are encouraging. Is there something I'm doing horribly wrong?

If not, is there some place Erlang will likely outperform F#? Is there any reason Erlang's concurrency primitives can't be brought to F# through a library?

EDIT: The above numbers are wrong, due to the error Brian pointed out. I will update the entire question when I fix it.

Answer

Brian picture Brian · Feb 7, 2010

In your original code, you only started one MailboxProcessor. Make wait() a function, and call it with each yield. Also you are not waiting for them to spin up or receive the messages, which I think invalidates the timing info; see my code below.

That said, I have some success; on my box I can do 100,000 at about 25us each. After too much more, I think possibly you start fighting the allocator/GC as much as anything, but I was able to do a million too (at about 27us each, but at this point was using like 1.5G of memory).

Basically each 'suspended async' (which is the state when a mailbox is waiting on a line like

let! msg = inbox.Receive()

) only takes some number of bytes while it's blocked. That's why you can have way, way, way more asyncs than threads; a thread typically takes like a megabyte of memory or more.

Ok, here's the code I'm using. You can use a small number like 10, and --define DEBUG to ensure the program semantics are what is desired (printf outputs may be interleaved, but you'll get the idea).

open System.Diagnostics 

let MAX = 100000

type waitMsg = 
    | Die 

let mutable countDown = MAX
let mre = new System.Threading.ManualResetEvent(false)

let wait(i) = 
    MailboxProcessor.Start(fun inbox -> 
        let rec loop = 
            async { 
#if DEBUG
                printfn "I am mbox #%d" i
#endif                
                if System.Threading.Interlocked.Decrement(&countDown) = 0 then
                    mre.Set() |> ignore
                let! msg = inbox.Receive() 
                match msg with  
                | Die -> 
#if DEBUG
                    printfn "mbox #%d died" i
#endif                
                    if System.Threading.Interlocked.Decrement(&countDown) = 0 then
                        mre.Set() |> ignore
                    return() } 
        loop) 

let max N = 
    printfn "Started!" 
    let stopwatch = new Stopwatch() 
    stopwatch.Start() 
    let actors = [for i in 1 .. N do yield wait(i)] 
    mre.WaitOne() |> ignore // ensure they have all spun up
    mre.Reset() |> ignore
    countDown <- MAX
    for actor in actors do 
        actor.Post(Die) 
    mre.WaitOne() |> ignore // ensure they have all got the message
    stopwatch.Stop() 
    printfn "Process spawn time=%f microseconds." (stopwatch.Elapsed.TotalMilliseconds * 1000.0 / float(N)) 
    printfn "Done." 

max MAX

All this said, I don't know Erlang, and I have not thought deeply about whether there's a way to trim down the F# any more (though it's pretty idiomatic as-is).