Remove Rayon-based Scheduler #6169
Merged
Conversation
This file contains bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
tustvold
force-pushed
the
remove-scheduler
branch
from
930452e
to
6095159
Compare
alamb
approved these changes
Apr 30, 2023
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Which issue does this PR close?
Closes #2504
Rationale for this change
Partly inspired by #6164, but the rayon-based scheduler in its current incomplete incarnation provides minimal benefits over the current tokio-based approach, and is a non-trivial amount of fairly complex code. Given this and the fact I am unlikely to be able to find time to work on it in the next few months, I think we should just remove it. We can always bring it or something based on it back in the future should we wish to.
Whilst I still think the long-term vision of the scheduler of moving to a push-based execution model would have been pretty compelling, at this stage it is probably too difficult and intrusive to make such a change. Additionally, whilst perhaps less architecturally elegant, we can likely get many of the advantages by introducing interior parallelism to the existing operators (e.g. #6162).
What changes are included in this PR?
Are these changes tested?
Are there any user-facing changes?