Go-flavored concurrency in C
Go's concurrency is one of the main reasons people like the language. You write , send values through channels, and the runtime scheduler runs thousands of goroutines on just a few OS threads. It feels effortless. None of that machinery exists in C. Which made me wonder: how close can you get to Go's concurrency model using only POSIX threads? Obviously, native OS threads can't match the efficiency of lightweight goroutines, but what is the actual cost, when does it become a problem, and is there any way to at least partially avoid it? I ran into these questions while adding concurrency to Solod (So), a strict subset of Go that translates to plain C, with no runtime and no garbage collector. In the end, I came to the conclusion that you can do quite a lot with pthreads — as long as you're honest about the tradeoffs. This post is about the POSIX threads-based concurrency model I chose, the benefits it offers, and its limitations. Mutex/Cond • Atomics • Pool • Channel • Performance • Design • Wrapping up Everything in So's concurrency stack is built on two basic POSIX primitives: the mutex and the condition variable. is a thin wrapper around : Since So translates to C, this is basically a struct that holds a and a function that calls . Here's the transpiler output: That is the whole translation — the generated C is a near-mechanical mirror of the So code, only noisier. From here on, I'll mainly show the So version, but I'll also provide the C code for those who are interested. There's nothing exciting here: is a pthread mutex wrapper that panics if something goes wrong (which is rare). The companion primitive is , a wrapper around . It's the standard "wait until a condition holds" tool, associated with a mutex: These two types — and — are the foundation. Other concurrency tools — , the thread pool, channels — are built using a mutex and one or more condition variables. This has several effects on performance, as we'll see later. Not everything needs a lock. So's mirrors Go's: , , , , , and a generic , all with , , , and methods. The nice thing is that these don't need pthreads at all. They map directly to the C compiler's builtins — the same hardware instructions that Go's compiler emits. So there's no reason for them to be any slower, and they're not: Each number is the cost of one operation on a single thread. is a good example of using atomics effectively. Its fast path only needs a single atomic load — after the given function runs, every future call to checks a flag and returns: To actually run code concurrently, you need threads. The type wraps and its related functions: Consider this function: Usage example: It might look like , but that's just on the surface. starts an actual OS thread, not a goroutine. You have to eventually call to join or it, or else its resources will leak. Also, OS threads are expensive to create — they're nothing like Go's goroutines, which only need a few kilobytes of stack and start up in nanoseconds. That's exactly why you usually don't want to call inside a loop. For tasks that are short-lived or happen often, it's better to use a pool of long-lived worker threads and send tasks to them. to the rescue: Usage example: The first argument to , , is a memory allocator. Solod avoids hidden allocations, so anything that needs memory takes an allocator explicitly — here it backs the pool's task queue. Under the hood, a is a fixed group of worker threads that pull tasks from a shared queue (a ring buffer). It uses one mutex and a few condition variables: wakes up a worker when there are tasks to do, applies back-pressure when the queue is full, and lets know when everything is finished. It's a classic producer-consumer setup, about 200 lines of code , and there's nothing fancy about it. The heart of the pool is the worker loop. Each thread blocks until a task appears, runs it outside the lock so workers execute in parallel, then records that it finished: This is what separates a pool from a plain queue. bumps as it enqueues; each worker decrements it after running a task, and the last one out broadcasts . sleeps until the count hits zero: The tradeoff is that the number of worker threads is fixed. In Go, a program can handle thousands of concurrent I/O waits because blocked goroutines use very little memory. A So pool can't do this — if all N workers are parked on a blocking syscall, the pool is stalled until one returns. You have to set the pool size based on the workload, instead of letting the runtime manage it for you. Channels are an important part of Go's concurrency model, and So's gives you something quite similar. Just like in Go, it passes values by copy and comes in buffered and unbuffered flavors: is a thin generic shell over one of two engines, picked at creation time: Buffered ( ) is a mutex-guarded ring buffer with and condition variables — like the queue. Senders block when it's full, receivers block when it's empty. The full implementation also checks for , but I left it out for brevity. is the mirror method: block while empty, pop the next value, signal to wake a sender. It also handles the closed channel, returning once the buffer is closed and drained. The rest is this lock-wait-signal core. Buffer source code Unbuffered ( ) is a rendezvous: each send blocks until a receiver takes the value, copying bytes directly from the sender's stack to the receiver's destination without using an intermediate buffer. is the other half: it waits for a published, unclaimed value, copies bytes straight from the sender's stack into (no intermediate buffer), marks it as claimed, and broadcasts to wake the sender back, creating wakeup #2. One hand-off, two wakeups. Copying directly from the sender's stack is safe because of that second wakeup. is a pointer to , which lives on the sender's stack. While the receiver is reading it, the sender is parked in , so its stack frame stays alive. The sender only returns (and reclaims that memory) after the receiver sets and wakes it up. There's no need to copy into a shared buffer because the source is guaranteed to outlive the read. Rendezvous source code As you can see, the API is pretty similar to Go. Now let's look at the numbers. Here's the main tradeoff: pthread-based concurrency primitives are fast when no one has to block, but they get slow when someone does. And it's always for the same reason. Go schedules goroutines in userspace. When one goroutine blocks on a channel and another wakes it up, the runtime moves them between its own queues — no kernel involved. POSIX threads, on the other hand, don't provide a userland scheduler. When a thread blocks on a condition variable, it parks in the kernel, and waking it up requires a syscall. Every hand-off between threads that actually parks pays the cost of a syscall on both ends. You can clearly see the difference in the mutex benchmarks. With 8 competing threads, it all comes down to whether the waiting threads have to park or not: Each number is the average time for a single / pair. The uncontended benchmark runs on one thread, while the contended benchmarks have multiple threads fighting over the same mutex. Notice that So actually wins the first two benchmarks, and for good reason. So's is a plain call with nothing extra, while Go's adds more overhead — like starvation-mode tracking and a runtime that stays involved because a goroutine can be preempted in the middle of a critical section. When nobody parks, that overhead is the main cost, and the thinner wrapper is closer to the hardware. With an empty critical section (the spin benchmark), a waiting thread grabs the lock while still spinning and almost never parks — So wins by 2.8x. The uncontended benchmark (a single thread, no contention) shows the same thing: less code between the call and the lock, so 9ns versus 14ns. The picture flips the moment threads have to park. Give the critical section about a microsecond of real work (the work benchmark) and waiters exhaust their spin budget and park. Now every hand-off costs a wakeup syscall, and So drops to half of Go's throughput. The work is identical in both cases — the difference comes from the parking cost. Condition variables demonstrate this clearly because they always park: Each number is the cost of one rendezvous round: a single broadcast that wakes every waiter and hands control back, with N waiters plus one broadcaster. Pthread-based condition variable is consistently 7-10 times slower. There's no trick to close this gap — it's just the cost of waking up a real OS thread instead of a goroutine. Channels have the same issue because they're built using mutexes and condition variables: Each number is the cost of moving one value through the channel (send plus its matching receive). The number in parentheses is the buffer capacity. The uncontended case fills and drains a buffer from a single thread, so nothing ever blocks — it's just a lock plus a copy, which gives So a slight advantage. But the moment a producer and consumer actually start handing off work, So has to wake up a thread for every transfer that gets parked. It's worst for the unbuffered channel, where every value is a rendezvous with two wakeups: 23x slower. A larger buffer helps a lot — with room for 100 items, most sends go through without waking anyone, and the gap narrows to about 2x. The consequence is that the larger your tasks are, the better pthread-based concurrency works. If you use a channel for fine-grained, value-at-a-time streaming between threads, performance will suffer. But if you use a channel to pass whole work items to a pool, where each item takes tens of microseconds to process, the wakeup cost becomes negligible. The pool benchmarks on realistic workloads confirms this: Each number is the wall-clock time for 8 workers to process the whole batch. Here, So is within 1.1x of Go. The per-task dispatch cost is still present, but it's spread out over real work, and the performance penalty is pretty small. Benchmarking All benchmarks were run on an Apple M1 CPU running macOS. The C code was compiled with Clang 16 using these CFLAGS and mimalloc as the system allocator: The results shown are the medians from several benchmark runs. Each benchmark ran many iterations, following the same logic as Go's own benchmarking. The Go benchmarks used Go 1.26 and . Source code for both So's and Go's benchmarks: conc • sync Here's a summary of the strengths and weaknesses of the pthread-based approach: If you're looking for "thousands of cheap goroutines", the pthread-based approach will let you down. But if you're fine with "a few worker threads handling lots of tasks", it holds up well. Three decisions influenced the way I implemented concurrency in Solod. Pthreads, not fibers . I know there are coroutine/fiber libraries for C that avoid the kernel wakeup cost — single-threaded ones like neco , and multi-threaded ones like libfiber . A userspace scheduler is exactly what would help to match Go in the benchmarks above. I decided not to use one. I wanted something dead simple — an approach I could explain in a paragraph, using tools every C programmer already knows. The trade-off is that you lose some performance with fine-grained blocking, but in many real-world situations, pthreads work fine if you use a worker pool. For me, keeping things simple is more important than saving a few microseconds during task hand-offs. For now, at least. Standard library, not language . Go bakes goroutines, channels, and select right into the language. I decided to keep everything in the stdlib for two reasons. ➀ It follows So's "no hidden allocations" rule. In Go, quietly allocates a goroutine stack, and allocates a buffer. In So, all allocations are explicit: you pass an allocator to and , and you always know exactly where the memory comes from — whether it's the system allocator, an arena, or something else. ➁ A library is more flexible. Since a pool is a regular value, you can have as many as you need, each sized for its specific purpose. In a multi-stage pipeline where each stage needs a different capacity, you can start one pool per stage, each with its own and , instead of being given a single global scheduler. The language stays simple, and the flexibility is in code you can easily read. Timeouts, not select . Go's waits on several channel operations at once and proceeds with whichever is ready first. Implementing it would require a lot of work — a thread has to register interest on multiple channels, block once, and then wake up when any of them is ready — so I left it out. Instead, offers and , which cover two common uses of with a single channel: What's missing is the ability to block on multiple channels at once and continue with whichever one is ready first, as well as the option to mix sends and receives in the same selection. How close can you get to Go's concurrency using only pthreads? Close enough to be useful, but not enough to really match Go. You can wrap real OS threads with familiar APIs — mutexes, condition variables, pools, channels — and the code will look and act a lot like Go, at least until a thread needs to block. But there's no scheduler underneath, so when a thread blocks, it's an actual thread waiting in the kernel, not a goroutine that's paused for free. That's the main limitation of this approach. What you get in return is brutal simplicity. Every primitive is a thin wrapper with no runtime hiding behind it, so the performance is exactly what the OS gives you: fast atomics, fast uncontended locks, and pooled throughput within ~10% of Go on coarse-grained work. But as soon as you switch to fine-grained, one-value-at-a-time hand-offs, the cost of kernel wakeups becomes the main factor, and you'll notice the slowdown. If you think the pthread approach might work for you, I invite you to try Solod . It includes the and packages, along with many others ported from Go's standard library. ➕ Coarse-grained pooled workloads are within about 10% of Go's performance. ➕ Uncontended locks and spin-friendly critical sections perform quite well. ➕ Atomic operations are as fast as in Go. ➕ The implementation is 100x simpler. ➖ Anything that needs to park and wake an OS thread is much slower than Go's userspace scheduler. ➖ The pool can't handle thousands of blocked waiters like goroutines can. "Do this, but give up after a while" (Go's idiom). "Do this only if it won't block" (Go's non-blocking branch).
Go
Programming
Career
Design
HTML
Frontend
Backend
Tutorial
Security
AI
Business
Hardware
Writing
Media
Gaming
JavaScript
Web Development
C
Shell
Performance
Rust
C++
Books
Entertainment
Culture
Music