Show HN: Coros – A Modern C++ Library for Task Parallelism (github.com)
Hello Hacker News.
I’m Martin, a graduate student from Prague, and I’ve been working on Coros, a C++ library for task-based parallelism.
After spending some time with OpenMP and oneTBB, I wanted to try building a library using modern features from the C++ standard library. I’ve used coroutines for task encapsulation and C++23 expected for exception handling, while trying to maintain good performance.
Additionally, I’ve implemented monadic-like behavior to allow easy chaining of tasks, similar to the monadic operations in std::expected.
You can check out the project here: https://github.com/mtmucha/coros
While this library isn’t fully-fledged or production-ready, I’d really appreciate your feedback!
59 comments
[ 2.2 ms ] story [ 127 ms ] threadAt this point in the life-cycle of the concept of parallel computation, I think it has become somewhat imperative that devs in the area begin to honestly evaluate the practicality and benefits/drawbacks of using the techniques for a given application area and attempt to 'sell' their libraries, techniques, idioms, etc using a more transparent approach. Also, I generally think that people that argue for more prevalence of parallel code, especially those arguing for the default being parallel (or concurrent), have to wrestle with and address these same issues.
Again, I don't dislike the premise of the library, think the usage examples seem very sensible and well designed, and I really like parallel computation as an area of study in general. Further, I really think that setting out a task for one's self
'to try building a library using modern features from the C++ standard library. I’ve used coroutines for task encapsulation and C++23 expected for exception handling, while trying to maintain good performance.'
after taking inspiration from two well respected and frequently utilized libraries in the space is great and the internals of the library I saw look clean and well architected.
1 - https://www.usenix.org/system/files/conference/hotos15/hotos... 2 - https://youtu.be/ztY1YRiaSiE?si=npBREw9vdF5dHcJh&t=350
I've just skimmed through the paper, and it raises interesting and valid point about scalability in parallel computing. I'll definitely look into it more thoroughly, as well as the talk you mentioned.
I'm glad you find the usage examples well-designed and appreciate your positive remarks about the library's architecture. Thank you again for your insights.
The paper is much more on the side of application and system performance. But you couldn't even write such a system without a library like this providing you the tools to do so. This is much more in the domain of "basic tool for ecosystem" than "library for specific tasks". It's on the user of the tool to address the paper's question, not the builder of the tools.
The code seems to rely on atomics for head & tail, but grows the queue without any special provisions I can see.
https://github.com/mtmucha/coros/blob/ee30d3c1d0602c3071aa26...
The idea is that only the owning thread can push tasks into the deque. If the owning thread detects that the deque is full, it creates a new one and copies the original values. Once the copy is ready, the owning thread "publishes" it by storing it in the buffer variable. Pointers to the deque are atomic, as well as the indices. Other threads can manipulate only the indices, and even if a stealing thread has an old pointer, it still points to valid data.
I hope I understood your question correctly and that this answer is helpful. You can find more details in the paper mentioned above.
[1] https://inria.hal.science/hal-00802885/document
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Threading_Building_Blocks
Can anyone recommend a good tutorial or resource for me to read.
I find it so frustrating as I don't think it's necessarily a complex subject but my brain just doesn't get it.
Related perhaps but many (many, many) years ago, when learning BASIC, I assumed GOSUB went off and started executing the code in the subroutine as well as the rest of the inline code. That suggests to me that I should perhaps have a deeper understanding of this but I really don't...
Their design has a common source, and the magic methods for awaitables as well.
- Heap allocated call frame. Instead of being pushed onto the stack, co-routines tend to have their call frame (local variables, arguments, etc.) placed into heap memory (or at least may be place-able into heap memory). This often enables the other features.
- Control can leave co-routines in more ways than standard function calls. Generally this means returning (often called "yield") to the caller without completing the whole function. It can then be later resumed, returning to where the function originally left off. Generators are a common pattern enabled by co-routines that rely on only this part (and so many systems can optimize out the heap usage, for example).
- A co-routine is usually an object with an interface that allows you to move it around and resume it in different places than it was originally called. This can include on different threads, or depending on the sophistication of the system, different processes or machines.
Those are the three big points in my mind. I'd recommend trying lua coroutines, personally (I like minmalist engines like defold to use it in) to really get a feel for how these are on the edge between "language feature" and "library feature".
In a nutshell, C++ coroutines are almost like regular functions, except that they can be "paused" (suspended), and their state is stored on the heap so they can be resumed later. When you resume a coroutine, its state is loaded back, and execution continues from where it left off.
The complicated part comes from the interfaces through which you use coroutines in C++. Each coroutine needs to be associated with a promise object, which defines how the coroutine behaves (for example, what happens when you co_return a value). Then, there are awaiters, which define what happens when you co_await them. For example, C++ provides a built-in awaiter called suspend_always{}, which you can co_await to pause the coroutine.
If you take your time and go thoroughly through the blog and Cppreference, you'll definitely get the hang of it.
Hope this helps.
[1] https://lewissbaker.github.io/ [2] https://en.cppreference.com/w/cpp/language/coroutines
They are a function that can remember where they are in their own execution so when they are called later they continue execution where they left of.
There are many many ways of implementing that functionality, C++ standard coroutines are only one such implementation.
What you do with them is whatever you want, it's pretty common to handle IO using them but generators are also a pretty common example. But that is generally high level.
C++ coroutines are basic building blocks and are very low level, there is no executor ( rust tokio / python asyncio ) so don't be worried if it seems hard to use, it is hard to use.
Look at std::generator for how coroutines are used to implement a generator, cppcoro is also a pretty popular library that builds abstractions on top of coroutines and also has some executors if I remember correctly.
you can even try to run those virtual threads on real threads. much fun to be had.
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/dotnet/csharp/asynchronous...
> they are functions that can suspend themselves, meaning they stop themselves without returning, even in the middle of their body and then can later can be resumed, continuing execution at the point they suspended from earlier.
If you want to use coroutines in C++ specifically you can have a look at this tutorial, if you want: https://theshoemaker.de/posts/yet-another-cpp-coroutine-tuto... I don't know of anyone that read it, but I spent a lot of time on it.
It essentially tries to explain how to build a coroutine support library yourself, but if you don't care about that, skip it and just use libcoro or cppcoro. They have examples too. My little async io library has some examples as well if you want to get an idea.
Notice that this does not necessarily involve parallelism, although it can. For example, Lua has non parallel (cooperative) co-routines. Go had parallel coroutins, called goroutines, but theoretically only if they they use channels to exchange values. Otherwise, if they’re not exchanging information they would not becoroutins in the sense that they work together in solving something.
This video is the best intro I've found. It actually explains what is happening in memory, which is the only way to really understand anything in C++.
https://youtu.be/aibjUHx7vew
Also this is decent:
https://www.scs.stanford.edu/~dm/blog/c++-coroutines.html
But don't try and write a coroutine library yourself. Use something like libcoro.
I've included a link to Lewis Baker's blog (the author of CppCoro) in my repository as an excellent explanation of coroutines. From my understanding, after reviewing his library, it is no longer in active development and hasn’t been updated for a couple of years. CppCoro was an experimental library intended to explore coroutines while they were still an experimental feature. For example, CppCoro uses a custom type for storing values, similar to std::optional from the standard library (if I'm not mistaken).
For my implementation, I've opted to leverage std::expected from C++23 for storing values. I've also implemented monadic-like chaining. CppCoro, however, seems to focus more on asynchronous operations, whereas my library focuses more on task-based parallelism.
I don't have experience with Boost.Cobalt, so I can't provide insights there, but I will definitely look into it now that you've mentioned it.
Hope this helps.
Boost.Cobalt can be found here: https://www.boost.org/doc/libs/1_85_0/libs/cobalt/doc/html/i...
If it works anywhere near as good, I'm definitely giving this a try next time I need to work on a C++ project. Thanks!
Most of the magic methods expected by C++ compilers in awaitable types, are also present in the structured typing used by C# for awaitables.
The preview implementation for VC++ and clang were done by a Microsoft employee, Gor Nishanov, his talks are always quite interesting.
I understand that working with tasks and retrieving values can feel a bit clunky. The main reason I've structured it this way is that individual tasks are RAII objects, and their coroutine state is destroyed once they go out of scope. However, I could modify the awaitable returned from wait_tasks to store tasks, and then return values directly to the user. This could definitely be a more ergonomic overload for the function. I'll look into it!
[1] https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/uwp/cpp-ref-for-winrt/resu...
I don't have experience with WinRT, but it does seem quite similar at first glance. One of the key reasons I focused on modern C++ was to ensure cross-platform compatibility. However, I completely understand that if you're working on Windows and are already familiar with WinRT, sticking with it makes perfect sense. I'll take a closer look at WinRT to see if there are any significant differences.
One thing I'd like to see is the possibility to run the coroutines in the main thread, without spawning any new threads in the thread pool. It might seem strange but sometimes you just need to do I/O stuff concurrently in a place where you're not allowed to spawn other threads.
Other than that congrats on the release, I hope you keep working on it!
During development, I initially tried implementing coroutines in a way that executing them without spawning a new thread would be possible. However, it introduced complications, so I eventually scrapped that approach.
Now, with eye on potential improvements, I can revisit this idea from the perspective of I/O operations.
It's true that coroutines can avoid heap allocation, but I haven't tested when or if that happens in my implementation. From the papers, it's clear that certain conditions must be met for the compiler to optimize this. If you know of any good sources on this, please let me know.
I think it's definitely worth looking into this optimization and possibly using custom allocators for specific cases. I'll also compare performance with the proposal's implementation[1] to see the difference.
Thank you for your feedback.
[1] https://github.com/NVIDIA/stdexec
I've skimmed through Taskflow, and from what I understand, its main focus is on graph parallelism, allowing users to express computations as a graph.
I haven't done extensive benchmarking against 3rd-party libraries yet, which others have also mentioned. I'll definitely do more performance testing in the future to better assess and optimize performance.
Regarding modern features, for example, the return value from the executor in TaskFlow is a custom tf::Future derived from std::future. This means if you want to check for the result, you need to use a try-catch block with the get() method on the future.
Personally, I prefer using std::expected for value/exception handling. It allows checking for errors with a simple if statement, and if you don't want to handle the exception, you can just return an error value from the coroutine.
As for "monadic-chaining," TaskFlow can achieve the same thing with its easy graph construction, you can set up a graph and execute it, which is comparable to and_then chaining in my library.
Another point is related to performance and ease of use. In a simple example like Fibonacci, TaskFlow requires using subflows, which I feel is less "ergonomic".
Overall, for simple task parallelism, if you don't need the graph expressiveness of TaskFlow, I believe my library is a more "ergonomic" choice (though I may be biased here). I also find value handling simpler in my library with std::expected. That said, TaskFlow is a much larger library with more features like GPU integration.
I hope this better addresses your point!
FYI: I guess there is a minor typo in the README example: the argument of the second call to fib() in the non-coros version of the code should be "n-2" and not "n-1".
I tried getting into C++ coroutines in the past and I was put off because of the complexity and the lack of an I/O system that was understandable by a human being.
https://github.com/facebook/folly/tree/main/folly/experiment...
I hadn’t come across folly::Coro until now. It does seem quite similar at first glance, and some of the utility functions they have are ones I’m also planning to implement, as others have also pointed out are currently missing.
One difference is that they use a custom Try<T> type for handling exceptions and values, I’ve opted for std::expected introduced in C++23. I’ve also added "monadic-like" chaining of tasks.
Overall, it’s a very similar library, and I’ll definitely look into it for inspiration and potential improvements.