Code change:
One issue that came up in the discussion is that the type implements . This might have been introduced accidentally. probably does not matter at all, given that users will only observe a by reference. However has the impliciation that we will not be able to add non thread-safe methods to - e.g. in order to optimize thread-local wake-ups again. It might be interesting to see whether and support could be removed from the type. Unfortunately that is however a breaking change - even though it is not likely that any code currently uses out of the direct path. In a similar fashion it had been observed in the implementation of () that the type is also and . While it had been expected for - given that s are used to wake-up tasks from different threads, it might not have been for . One downside of s being is that it prevents optimizations. E.g. in linked ticket the original implementation contained an optimization that while a was not d (and thereby equipped with a different vtable) it could wake-up the local eventloop again by just setting a non-synchronized boolean flag in the current thread. However given that could be transferred to another thread, and called from there even within the context - this optmization is invalid. Here it would also be interesting if the requirement could be removed. I expect the amount of real-world usages to be in the same ballpark as sending across threads - hopefully 0. But it's again a breaking change cc , , ,
Even if this weren't a breaking change, I'd want to see some really good evidence these optimizations would matter for real world code before choosing to make these types non-. I don't think getting rid of an atomic update in is a compelling example. Basically, in my view the current API is intentional and correct.
was introduced to leave room for future unforeseen requirements, and being restricts its usefulness as such, which is unfortunate. I can see a case for since we have , but it's difficult to imagine a case where it makes sense to be accessing a single from multiple threads concurrently.
I have an example of where the current API is resulting in performance issues: I am trying to implement a combined Executor/Reactor around a winit event loop. To wake up the event loop from a different thread we have to post a message to the event loop which can be a non-trivial operation. But on the same thread, we know that we don't need to wake up the eventloop, so we can use much cheaper mechanisms like an atomic bool.
But that would be true if wakers were just also, which was an intentional part of the simplification from the previous design.
I think the point is that being precludes the otherwise noninvasive restoration of a more efficient through an additional method on .
I don't think it should be the judgement of the libs team (or any of us) to determine whether something is good enough and not needs to be further optimized for any use-case. Rusts goal as a language is to enable zero cost abstractions. This requires in my opinion to not be opinionated on any design choices which have a performance/footprint impact. I think some of the decisions that have been taken in the async/await world however are opinionated, and will have an impact on use-cases that currently are still better implemented with different mechanisms. I do not really want to elaborate on anything more particular, because I fear this would bring the discussion back to a arguing whether any X% performance degradation is still good enough. That is an OK decision to have for a software project whichs needs to decide whether Rusts async/await support is good enough for them, and whether they have to apply workarounds or not. But it's not a discussion which will move the issue here any more forward, because for yet another project the outcoming of the discussion might be different. PS: I do think it's okay and good if libraries like tokio or async-std are being more opinionated about what threading models they support, and they might sacrifice performance gains in rare usage scenarios for easy of use. But and language features are different, and we expect people to use them also for niche use-cases (e.g. there is certainly a lot of cool evaluation going on with the use of async/await in embedded contexts or kernels - where requirements might be very different than for a webserver based on tokio).
This is a trade off: Context is either Sync or it isn't, some users benefit from one choice (they can use references to Context as threadsafe) and some users benefit from the other choice (they can have nonthreadsafe constructs inside the Context construct). Ultimately the libs team has to decide one way or the other on these points in the API where there is a trade off between thread safety and not. However, this decision has already been made and it would be a breaking change to change it, so this discussion is moot.
Do you have an example where this is actually done within the ecosystem, or a use-case for it? As far as I can tell, this would require spawning a thread using something like and capturing the from within a ?
A common way a user could depend on a type being is to store it in an and send it across threads. This isn't very likely for Context but it is a very reasonable pattern for .
I think its a fair point that we didnt intentionally make context send and sync, and that this precludes adding more fields to context that are not send and sync, and that since context is just a buffer for future changes, it would probably have been better to make it non-threadsafe. But now its a breaking change. If crater showed no regressions and there's no known patterns it nullifies, I would be open to changing this about Context personally, but I am somewhat doubtful the libs team as a whole would approve making a breaking change to support hypothetical future extensions. If anyone on the thread wants to pursue a change to context (not waker), they should get crater results as the next step of the conversation.
There is no discussion about being or not - it obviously has to be. The question is purely about . And in order to do what you describe you have to store an and send it somewhere. Which is very doubtful to happen, due to the not very useful lifetime and due to already being an like thing internally. As mentioned, the most likely way to see this behavior is some scoped thread API being used inside - or people doing some very advanced synchronization against an IO driver running in another thread. For all those there are certainly better ways than to rely on being . E.g. to return a flag from the synchronized section and call from the original thread when done. Or to and send the if there is doubt whether it needs to be persisted somewhere else. And yes, the impact on is even bigger. It was meant as an extension point. But we can not add any functions to it which are not thread-safe. E.g. if we want to add methods which spawn another task on the same thread as the current executor thread, and which allows for spawning futures (like Tokios ) - we would have an issue.
Why would these be "certainly better" than just calling from the scoped threads?
To be a little more expansive: the scoped threadpool you're talking about could very well not be scoped inside a poll method - rather, the waker could be cloned once and then owned by one thread and referenced by many other scoped threads in some sort of threadpool construct for CPU bound tasks. This seems like a perfectly valid implementation which allows you to divide up the work among many threads without cloning the waker many times. This is potentially an optimization. I don't think this optimization is very important, but I don't think the optimizations allowed by making waker are very important either. The point is that there's a trade off between the optimizations allowed by assuming references to wakers can be shared across threads and the optimizations allowed by assuming they can't be, its not the case that one side is inherently the "zero cost" side.
We discussed this at the recent Libs meeting and felt that deferring to would make sense here.
Though I don't have the bandwidth to carry this, this definitely seems interesting. Seeing projects such as and closed-source initiatives lead me to believe that there may actually be a decent case to enable some form of -to avoid the synchronization overhead on single-threaded runtimes. I don't know if we should make this a priority, but at least we probably shouldn't close it just yet.
I think bringing back would be a nice additional improvement. But for the moment it would be nice to just fix the general sync-ness, which blocks all other fixes and improvements.
As the person who originally introduced , it was very much a conscious decision to get rid of it and to make and . This was called out explicitly .
The cited discussion in the RFC justifies making Send, and predates the decision to (re)introduce . Making doesn't defeat the objectives discussed there. In particular, it does not impact ergonomics for the common case at all.
This was recently closed, however the issue mentions both and . The recent change only affects . There is good reason that is , however after reading this issue I'm unsure that there are good reasons why is .
(NOT A CONTRIBUTION) Waker supports wakebyref, and so it is possible to pass to another thread and wake it from that thread. This functionality would not be possible without Waker being Sync. Supporting wakers that are either not Send or not Sync will best be done by adding new APIs to Context and a new LocalWaker type.
Forgive me the naive question, but how does a type work with ? As I understand, requires , as a concrete type not a trait, so this would also require a trait? At this point we have two completely incompatible async systems... Which is only useful if is not cheap to clone, and has the burden of another lifetime bound. It surprises me that the docs don't say anything about the intended cost of .
(NOT A CONTRIBUTION) Future::poll does not take Waker as an argument, Future::poll takes Context. Context could have the ability to set a LocalWaker, so that an executor could set this. Reactors which operate on the same thread as the future that polls them could migrate to using the LocalWaker argument instead of Waker. Here is a pre-RFC that someone wrote with a possible API: Commentary like this is both factually wrong and not helpful for the mood of the thread.

Related discussion:
text: #[must_use] #[inline] pub const fn from_waker(waker: &'a Waker) -> Self { <del> Context { waker, _marker: PhantomData } </del> <ins> Context { waker, _marker: PhantomData, _marker2: PhantomData } </ins> } /// Returns a reference to the [`Waker`] for the current task.