Is Matcher threadsafe? about barefoot HOT 3 CLOSED

Matcher and RoadMap are thread-safe in such a way that both are accessed read-only during map matching. However, Matcher is already running shortest path searches in parallel (data parallelism), i.e. for n candidates (sources) in t-1 and m candidates (targets) in t, it runs n SSMT shortest path searches in parallel (SSMT - single source multiple target); see line 246 and 295 in the Matcher class. The only non-thread-safe objects relevant during map matching are KState and MatcherKState, respectively.
To the best of my knowledge, 'more' parallelization of map matching of a single track requires non-trivial task parallelism, e.g., a parallel implementation of Dijkstra algorithm. However, processing multiple tracks in parallel is just data parallelism which is already implemented if you use the stand-alone server, see lines 252-261 in the Server class.
All in all, I don't see that much potential for trivial parallelization. You could check the speed-up of your application, if you set matcherNumThreads to one and to the number of virtual cores, respectively. If you use Barefoot as a library, run StaticScheduler.reset(1) and StaticScheduler.reset(p) where p is again the number of virtual cores before the map matching.
Finally, I would recommand to not use threads for further parallelization because it may conflict with Barefoot's internal work-stealing scheduler (planned to be extracted in a separate library in future), that provides (user-level) task parallelism with spawnand syncoperations as presented in Leiserson et al., Introduction to Algorithms, MIT Press, 3rd edition (see chapter 27).

from barefoot.

Thanks for such a thorough answer. The parallelism in my case is indeed needed to load separate traces in parallel and then match them, with a code something like so in the implementation of Runnable#run() method:

while (loader.next()){
    List<List<MatcherSample>> samples = loader.loadCurrentBatch();

    for (List<MatcherSample> trace : samples) {
        MatcherKState candidate_state = mapTrace(trace);
        saveRoadSpeeds(candidate_state.samples(), candidate_state.sequence());
    }
}

thanks for the reference to the Server class, will check that code and see if it can improve the design I currently have.

Cheers!

from barefoot.

In that case (batch processing), I would just start as many threads as you have cores available and run that code.

If you're having a Spark cluster available, you could check out this to run it on the cluster: scalable map matching.

from barefoot.