Sequencing Scala Futures with bounded parallelism (without messing around with ExecutorContexts) - scala

Question

Background: I have a function:
def doWork(symbol: String): Future[Unit]
which initiates some side-effects to fetch data and store it, and completes a Future when its done. However, the back-end infrastructure has usage limits, such that no more than 5 of these requests can be made in parallel. I have a list of N symbols that I need to get through:
var symbols = Array("MSFT",...)
but I want to sequence them such that no more than 5 are executing simultaneously. Given:
val allowableParallelism = 5
my current solution is (assuming I'm working with async/await):
val symbolChunks = symbols.toList.grouped(allowableParallelism).toList
def toThunk(x: List[String]) = () => Future.sequence(x.map(doWork))
val symbolThunks = symbolChunks.map(toThunk)
val done = Promise[Unit]()
def procThunks(x: List[() => Future[List[Unit]]]): Unit = x match {
case Nil => done.success()
case x::xs => x().onComplete(_ => procThunks(xs))
}
procThunks(symbolThunks)
await { done.future }
but, for obvious reasons, I'm not terribly happy with it. I feel like this should be possible with folds, but every time I try, I end up eagerly creating the Futures. I also tried out a version with RxScala Observables, using concatMap, but that also seemed like overkill.
Is there a better way to accomplish this?

Answer 1

I have example how to do it with scalaz-stream. It's quite a lot of code because it's required to convert scala Future to scalaz Task (abstraction for deferred computation). However it's required to add it to project once. Another option is to use Task for defining 'doWork'. I personally prefer task for building async programs.
import scala.concurrent.{Future => SFuture}
import scala.util.Random
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scalaz.stream._
import scalaz.concurrent._
val P = scalaz.stream.Process
val rnd = new Random()
def doWork(symbol: String): SFuture[Unit] = SFuture {
Thread.sleep(rnd.nextInt(1000))
println(s"Symbol: $symbol. Thread: ${Thread.currentThread().getName}")
}
val symbols = Seq("AAPL", "MSFT", "GOOGL", "CVX").
flatMap(s => Seq.fill(5)(s).zipWithIndex.map(t => s"${t._1}${t._2}"))
implicit class Transformer[+T](fut: => SFuture[T]) {
def toTask(implicit ec: scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext): Task[T] = {
import scala.util.{Failure, Success}
import scalaz.syntax.either._
Task.async {
register =>
fut.onComplete {
case Success(v) => register(v.right)
case Failure(ex) => register(ex.left)
}
}
}
}
implicit class ConcurrentProcess[O](val process: Process[Task, O]) {
def concurrently[O2](concurrencyLevel: Int)(f: Channel[Task, O, O2]): Process[Task, O2] = {
val actions =
process.
zipWith(f)((data, f) => f(data))
val nestedActions =
actions.map(P.eval)
merge.mergeN(concurrencyLevel)(nestedActions)
}
}
val workChannel = io.channel((s: String) => doWork(s).toTask)
val process = Process.emitAll(symbols).concurrently(5)(workChannel)
process.run.run
When you'll have all this transformation in scope, basically all you need is:
val workChannel = io.channel((s: String) => doWork(s).toTask)
val process = Process.emitAll(symbols).concurrently(5)(workChannel)
Quite short and self-decribing

Answer 2

Although you've already got an excellent answer, I thought I might still offer an opinion or two about these matters.
I remember seeing somewhere (on someone's blog) "use actors for state and use futures for concurrency".
So my first thought would be to utilize actors somehow. To be precise, I would have a master actor with a router launching multiple worker actors, with number of workers restrained according to allowableParallelism. So, assuming I have
def doWorkInternal (symbol: String): Unit
which does the work from yours doWork taken 'outside of future', I would have something along these lines (very rudimentary, not taking many details into consideration, and practically copying code from akka documentation):
import akka.actor._
case class WorkItem (symbol: String)
case class WorkItemCompleted (symbol: String)
case class WorkLoad (symbols: Array[String])
case class WorkLoadCompleted ()
class Worker extends Actor {
def receive = {
case WorkItem (symbol) =>
doWorkInternal (symbol)
sender () ! WorkItemCompleted (symbol)
}
}
class Master extends Actor {
var pending = Set[String] ()
var originator: Option[ActorRef] = None
var router = {
val routees = Vector.fill (allowableParallelism) {
val r = context.actorOf(Props[Worker])
context watch r
ActorRefRoutee(r)
}
Router (RoundRobinRoutingLogic(), routees)
}
def receive = {
case WorkLoad (symbols) =>
originator = Some (sender ())
context become processing
for (symbol <- symbols) {
router.route (WorkItem (symbol), self)
pending += symbol
}
}
def processing: Receive = {
case Terminated (a) =>
router = router.removeRoutee(a)
val r = context.actorOf(Props[Worker])
context watch r
router = router.addRoutee(r)
case WorkItemCompleted (symbol) =>
pending -= symbol
if (pending.size == 0) {
context become receive
originator.get ! WorkLoadCompleted
}
}
}
You could query the master actor with ask and receive a WorkLoadCompleted in a future.
But thinking more about 'state' (of number of simultaneous requests in processing) to be hidden somewhere, together with implementing necessary code for not exceeding it, here's something of the 'future gateway intermediary' sort, if you don't mind imperative style and mutable (used internally only though) structures:
object Guardian
{
private val incoming = new collection.mutable.HashMap[String, Promise[Unit]]()
private val outgoing = new collection.mutable.HashMap[String, Future[Unit]]()
private val pending = new collection.mutable.Queue[String]
def doWorkGuarded (symbol: String): Future[Unit] = {
synchronized {
val p = Promise[Unit] ()
incoming(symbol) = p
if (incoming.size <= allowableParallelism)
launchWork (symbol)
else
pending.enqueue (symbol)
p.future
}
}
private def completionHandler (t: Try[Unit]): Unit = {
synchronized {
for (symbol <- outgoing.keySet) {
val f = outgoing (symbol)
if (f.isCompleted) {
incoming (symbol).completeWith (f)
incoming.remove (symbol)
outgoing.remove (symbol)
}
}
for (i <- outgoing.size to allowableParallelism) {
if (pending.nonEmpty) {
val symbol = pending.dequeue()
launchWork (symbol)
}
}
}
}
private def launchWork (symbol: String): Unit = {
val f = doWork(symbol)
outgoing(symbol) = f
f.onComplete(completionHandler)
}
}
doWork now is exactly like yours, returning Future[Unit], with the idea that instead of using something like
val futures = symbols.map (doWork (_)).toSeq
val future = Future.sequence(futures)
which would launch futures not regarding allowableParallelism at all, I would instead use
val futures = symbols.map (Guardian.doWorkGuarded (_)).toSeq
val future = Future.sequence(futures)
Think about some hypothetical database access driver with non-blocking interface, i.e. returning futures on requests, which is limited in concurrency by being built over some connection pool for example - you wouldn't want it to return futures not taking parallelism level into account, and require you to juggle with them to keep parallelism under control.
This example is more illustrative than practical since I wouldn't normally expect that 'outgoing' interface would be utilizing futures like this (which is quote ok for 'incoming' interface).

Answer 3

First, obviously some purely functional wrapper around Scala's Future is needed, cause it's side-effective and runs as soon as it can. Let's call it Deferred:
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.util.control.Exception.nonFatalCatch
class Deferred[+T](f: () => Future[T]) {
def run(): Future[T] = f()
}
object Deferred {
def apply[T](future: => Future[T]): Deferred[T] =
new Deferred(() => nonFatalCatch.either(future).fold(Future.failed, identity))
}
And here is the routine:
import java.util.concurrent.CopyOnWriteArrayList
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicInteger
import scala.collection.immutable.Seq
import scala.concurrent.{ExecutionContext, Future, Promise}
import scala.util.control.Exception.nonFatalCatch
import scala.util.{Failure, Success}
trait ConcurrencyUtils {
def runWithBoundedParallelism[T](parallelism: Int = Runtime.getRuntime.availableProcessors())
(operations: Seq[Deferred[T]])
(implicit ec: ExecutionContext): Deferred[Seq[T]] =
if (parallelism > 0) Deferred {
val indexedOps = operations.toIndexedSeq // index for faster access
val promise = Promise[Seq[T]]()
val acc = new CopyOnWriteArrayList[(Int, T)] // concurrent acc
val nextIndex = new AtomicInteger(parallelism) // keep track of the next index atomically
def run(operation: Deferred[T], index: Int): Unit = {
operation.run().onComplete {
case Success(value) =>
acc.add((index, value)) // accumulate result value
if (acc.size == indexedOps.size) { // we've done
import scala.collection.JavaConversions._
// in concurrent setting next line may be called multiple times, that's why trySuccess instead of success
promise.trySuccess(acc.view.sortBy(_._1).map(_._2).toList)
} else {
val next = nextIndex.getAndIncrement() // get and inc atomically
if (next < indexedOps.size) { // run next operation if exists
run(indexedOps(next), next)
}
}
case Failure(t) =>
promise.tryFailure(t) // same here (may be called multiple times, let's prevent stdout pollution)
}
}
if (operations.nonEmpty) {
indexedOps.view.take(parallelism).zipWithIndex.foreach((run _).tupled) // run as much as allowed
promise.future
} else {
Future.successful(Seq.empty)
}
} else {
throw new IllegalArgumentException("Parallelism must be positive")
}
}
In a nutshell, we run as much operations initially as allowed and then on each operation completion we run next operation available, if any. So the only difficulty here is to maintain next operation index and results accumulator in concurrent setting. I'm not an absolute concurrency expert, so make me know if there are some potential problems in the code above. Notice that returned value is also a deferred computation that should be run.
Usage and test:
import org.scalatest.{Matchers, FlatSpec}
import org.scalatest.concurrent.ScalaFutures
import org.scalatest.time.{Seconds, Span}
import scala.collection.immutable.Seq
import scala.concurrent.ExecutionContext.Implicits.global
import scala.concurrent.Future
import scala.concurrent.duration._
class ConcurrencyUtilsSpec extends FlatSpec with Matchers with ScalaFutures with ConcurrencyUtils {
"runWithBoundedParallelism" should "return results in correct order" in {
val comp1 = mkDeferredComputation(1)
val comp2 = mkDeferredComputation(2)
val comp3 = mkDeferredComputation(3)
val comp4 = mkDeferredComputation(4)
val comp5 = mkDeferredComputation(5)
val compountComp = runWithBoundedParallelism(2)(Seq(comp1, comp2, comp3, comp4, comp5))
whenReady(compountComp.run()) { result =>
result should be (Seq(1, 2, 3, 4, 5))
}
}
// increase default ScalaTest patience
implicit val defaultPatience = PatienceConfig(timeout = Span(10, Seconds))
private def mkDeferredComputation[T](result: T, sleepDuration: FiniteDuration = 100.millis): Deferred[T] =
Deferred {
Future {
Thread.sleep(sleepDuration.toMillis)
result
}
}
}

Answer 4

Use Monix Task. An example from Monix document for parallelism=10
val items = 0 until 1000
// The list of all tasks needed for execution
val tasks = items.map(i => Task(i * 2))
// Building batches of 10 tasks to execute in parallel:
val batches = tasks.sliding(10,10).map(b => Task.gather(b))
// Sequencing batches, then flattening the final result
val aggregate = Task.sequence(batches).map(_.flatten.toList)
// Evaluation:
aggregate.foreach(println)
//=> List(0, 2, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 16,...

Answer 5

Akka streams, allow you to do the following:
import akka.NotUsed
import akka.stream.Materializer
import akka.stream.scaladsl.Source
import scala.concurrent.Future
def sequence[A: Manifest, B](items: Seq[A], func: A => Future[B], parallelism: Int)(
implicit mat: Materializer
): Future[Seq[B]] = {
val futures: Source[B, NotUsed] =
Source[A](items.toList).mapAsync(parallelism)(x => func(x))
futures.runFold(Seq.empty[B])(_ :+ _)
}
sequence(symbols, doWork, allowableParallelism)