I find myself frequently using channels to get things to stop. In these cases the channel is being used solely as a means of signaling, and none of the data is actually used.
For example:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func routine(stopChan chan bool) {
fmt.Println("goroutine: I've started!")
<-stopChan
fmt.Println("goroutine: Cya'round pal")
}
func main() {
fmt.Println("main: Sample program run started")
stopChan := make(chan bool)
go routine(stopChan)
fmt.Println("main: Fired up the goroutine")
stopChan <- true
time.Sleep(1 * time.Second)
fmt.Println("main: Sample program run finished")
}
// Sample output:
//
// main: Sample program run started
// main: Fired up the goroutine
// goroutine: I've started!
// goroutine: Cya'round pal
// main: Sample program run finished
Run/view it if you please on the golang playground.
My question is:
Which channel type has the lightest memory footprint in Go?
e.g. Is a bool chan going to require any less overhead than an empty struct{} chan?
chan bool
chan byte
chan interface{}
chan struct{}
...
something else?
Looking at the latest implementation of the channel, it's not a trivial structure:
type hchan struct {
qcount uint // total data in the queue
dataqsiz uint // size of the circular queue
buf unsafe.Pointer // points to an array of dataqsiz elements
elemsize uint16
closed uint32
elemtype *_type // element type
sendx uint // send index
recvx uint // receive index
recvq waitq // list of recv waiters
sendq waitq // list of send waiters
lock mutex
}
Elements of waiter queues are also quite heavy:
type sudog struct {
g *g
selectdone *uint32
next *sudog
prev *sudog
elem unsafe.Pointer // data element
releasetime int64
nrelease int32 // -1 for acquire
waitlink *sudog // g.waiting list
}
You see, many bytes. Even if any element would be created for an empty channel, this would be negligible.
However, I expect all empty channels to take the same amount of space, regardless of underlying type, so if you intend to only close the channel, there'll be no difference (an actual element seems to be hold by a pointer). A quick test backs it up:
package main
import (
"fmt"
"time"
)
func main() {
// channel type
type xchan chan [64000]byte
a := make([]xchan, 10000000) // 10 million
for n := range a {
a[n] = make(xchan)
}
fmt.Println("done")
time.Sleep(time.Minute)
}
I see no difference between chan struct{}
and chan [64000]byte
, both leads to ~1GB of usage on my 64-bit machine, which makes me believe that overhead of creating a single channel in somewhere around 100 bytes.
In conclusion, it doesn't really matter. Personally I would use struct{}
as it's the only really empty type (of size 0 indeed), clearly indicating there is no intention of any payload being sent.
If you love us? You can donate to us via Paypal or buy me a coffee so we can maintain and grow! Thank you!
Donate Us With