[Bioc-devel] parallel package generics

Hervé Pagès hpages at fhcrc.org
Thu Oct 25 00:08:59 CEST 2012


With Florian use case, there seems to be a strong/immediate need for
dispatching on the cluster-like object passed as the 1st argument to
parLapply() and all the other functions in the parallel package that
belong to the "snow family" (14 functions in total, all documented in
?parallel::parLapply). So we've just added those 14 generics to
BiocGenerics 0.5.1. We're postponing the "multicore family" (i.e.
mclapply(), mcmapply(), and pvec()) for now.

Note that the 14 new generics dispatch at least on their 1st argument
('cl'), but also on their 2nd argument when this argument is 'x', 'X'
or 'seq' (expected to be a vector-like or matrix-like object). This
opens the door to defining methods that take advantage of the of the
implementation of particular vector-like or matrix-like objects.

Also note that, even if some of the 14 functions in the "snow family"
are simple convenience wrappers to other functions in the family, we've
made all of them generics. For example clusterEvalQ() is a simple
wrapper to clusterCall():

   > clusterEvalQ
   function (cl = NULL, expr)
   clusterCall(cl, eval, substitute(expr), env = .GlobalEnv)
   <environment: namespace:parallel>

And it seems (at least intuitively) that implementing a "clusterCall"
method for my cluster-like objects should be enough to have
clusterEvalQ() work out-of-the-box on those objects. But, sadly enough,
this is not the case:

   setClass("FakeCluster", representation(nnodes="integer"))

   setMethod("clusterCall", "FakeCluster",
       function (cl=NULL, fun, ...) fun(...)


   > mycluster <- new("FakeCluster", nnodes=10L)
   > clusterCall(mycluster, print, 1:6)
   [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6
   > clusterEvalQ(mycluster, print(1:6))
   Error in checkCluster(cl) : not a valid cluster

This is because the "clusterEvalQ" default method is calling
parallel::clusterCall() (which is *not* the generic), instead of
calling BiocGenerics::clusterCall() (which *is* the generic).

This would be avoided if clusterCall() was a generic defined in
the parallel package itself (or in a package that parallel depends
on). And this would of course be a better solution than having those
generics in BiocGenerics. Is someone willing to bring that case to

In the mean time I need to define a "clusterEvalQ" method:

   setMethod("clusterEvalQ", "FakeCluster",
       function (cl=NULL, expr)
           clusterCall(cl, eval, substitute(expr), env=.GlobalEnv)

And then:

   > clusterEvalQ(mycluster, print(1:6))
   [1] 1 2 3 4 5 6

Finally note that this method I defined for my objects could be made the
default "clusterEvalQ" method (i.e. the clusterEvalQ,ANY method) and we
could put it in BiocGenerics. Or, since there is apparently nothing to
win by having clusterEvalQ() being a generic in the first place, we
could redefine clusterEvalQ() as an ordinary function in BiocGenerics.
This function would be implemented *exactly* like
parallel::clusterEvalQ() (and it would mask it), except that now
it would call BiocGenerics::clusterCall() internally.

What should we do?


On 10/24/2012 09:07 AM, Cook, Malcolm wrote:
> On 10/24/12 12:44 AM, "Michael Lawrence" <lawrence.michael at gene.com> wrote:
>> I agree that it would fruitful to have parLapply in BiocGenerics. It looks
>> to be a flexible abstraction and its presence in the parallel package
>> makes
>> it ubiquitous. If it hasn't been done already, mclapply (and mcmapply)
>> would be good candidates, as well. The fork-based parallelism is
>> substantively different in terms of the API from the more general
>> parallelism of parLapply.
>> Someone was working on some more robust and convenient wrappers around
>> mclapply. Did that ever see the light of day?
> If you are referring to
> http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.science.biology.informatics.conductor/43660
> in which I had offered some small changes to parallel::pvec
> 	https://gist.github.com/3757873/
> and after which Martin had provided me with a route I have not (yet?)
> followed toward submitting a patch to R for consideration by R-devel /
> Simon Urbanek in
> http://grokbase.com/t/r/bioc-devel/129rbmxp5b/applying-over-granges-and-oth
> er-vectors-of-ranges#201209248dcn0tpwt7k7g9zsjr4dha6f1c
>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Steve Lianoglou <
>>>> mailinglist.honeypot at gmail.com**> wrote:
>>>>   In response to a question from yesterday, I pointed someone to the
>>>>> ShortRead `srapply` function and I wondered to myself why it had to
>>>>> necessarily by "burried" in the ShortRead package (aside from it
>>>>> having a `sr` prefix).
>>> I don't know that srapply necessarily 'got it right'...
> One thing I like about srapply is its support for a reduce argument.
>>>>> I had thought it might be a good idea to move that (or something like
>>>>> that) to BiocGenerics (unless implementations aren't allowed there)
>>>>> but also realized that it would add more dependencies where someone
>>>>> might not necessarily need them.
>>>>> But, almost surely, a large majority of the people will be happy to do
>>>>> some form of ||-ization, so in my mind it's not such an onerous thing
>>>>> to add -- on the other hand, this large majority is probably enriched
>>>>> for people who are doing NGS analysis, in which case, keeping it in
>>>>> ShortRead can make some sense.
> I remain confused about the need for putting any of this into BiocGenerics
> at all.  It seems to me that properly construed parallization primitives
> ought to 'just work' with any object which supports indexing and length.
> I would appreciate hearing arguments to the contrary.
> Florian, in a similar vein, could we not seek to change
> parallel::makeCluster to be extensible to, say, support SGE cluster?  THis
> seems like the 'right thing to do'.  ???
> Regardless, I think we have raised some considerations that might inform
> improvements to parallel, including points about error handling, reducing
> results, block-level parallization over List/Vector (in addition to
> vector), etc.
> I think perhaps having a google doc that we can collectively edit to
> contain the requirements we are trying to achieve might move us forward
> effectively. Would this help? Or perhaps a page under
> http://wiki.fhcrc.org/bioc/DeveloperPage/#discussions ???
>>>>> Taking one step back, I recall some chatter last week (or two) about
>>>>> some better ||-ization "primitives" -- something about a pvec doo-dad,
>>>>> and there being ideas to wrap different types of ||-ization behind an
>>>>> easy to use interface (I think this was the convo), and then I took a
>>>>> further step back and often wonder why we just don't bite the bullet
>>>>> and take advantage of the `foreach` infrastructure that is already out
>>>>> there -- in which case, I could imagne a "doSGE" package that might
>>>>> handle the particulars of what Florain is referring to. You could then
>>>>> configure it externally via some `registerDoSGE(some.config.**object)`
>>>>> and just have the package code happily run it through `foreach(...)
>>>>> %dopar%` and be done w/ it.
>>>>>   IMHO it is relevant.  I have not looked for other abstractions, and
>>>>> this
>>>> one seems
>>>> to work.  Florian's objectives might be a good test case for adequacy.
>>> The registerDoDah does seem to be a useful abstraction.
> Is this not more-or-less the intention of parallel::setDefaultCluster?
> --Malcolm
>>> I think there's a lot of work to do for some sort of coordinated
>>> parallelization that putting parLapply into BiocGenerics might
>>> encourage;
>>> not good things will happen when everyone in a call stack tries to
>>> parallelize independently. But I'm in favor of parLapply in
>>> BiocGenerics at
>>> least for the moment.
>>> Martin
>>>>   ... at least, I thought this is what was being talked about here (and
>>>>> popped up a week or two ago) -- sorry if I completely missed the mark
>>>>> ...
>>>>> -steve
>>>>> On Tue, Oct 23, 2012 at 10:38 AM, Hahne, Florian
>>>>> <florian.hahne at novartis.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hi Martin,
>>>>>> I could define the generics in my own package, but that would mean
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> those will only be available there, or in the global environment
>>>>>> assuming
>>>>>> that I also export them, or in all additional packages that
>>>>>> explicitly
>>>>>> import them from my name space. Now there already are a whole bunch
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> packages around that all allow for parallelization via a cluster
>>>>>> object.
>>>>>> Obviously those all import the parLapply function from the parallel
>>>>>> package. That means that I can't simply supply my own modified
>>>>>> cluster
>>>>>> object, because the code that calls parLapply will not know about the
>>>>>> generic in my package, even if it is attached. Ideally parLapply
>>>>>> would
>>>>>> be
>>>>>> a generic function already in the parallel package. Not sure who
>>>>>> needs
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> be convinced in order for this to happen, but my gut feeling was
>>>>>> that it
>>>>>> could be easier to have the generic in BiocGenerics.
>>>>>> Maybe I am missing something obvious here, but imo there is no way to
>>>>>> overwrite parLapply globally for my own class unless the generic is
>>>>>> imported by everyone who wants to make use of the special method.
>>>>>> Florian
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> On 10/23/12 2:20 PM, "Martin Morgan" <mtmorgan at fhcrc.org> wrote:
>>>>>>   On 10/17/2012 05:45 AM, Hahne, Florian wrote:
>>>>>>>> Hi all,
>>>>>>>> I was wondering whether it would be possible to have proper
>>>>>>>> generics
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>> some of the functions in the parallel package, e.g. parLapply and
>>>>>>>> clusterCall. The reason I am asking is because I want to build an
>>>>>>>> S4
>>>>>>>> class
>>>>>>>> that essentially looks like an S3 cluster object but knows how to
>>>>>>>> deal
>>>>>>>> with the SGE. That way I can abstract away all the overhead
>>>>>>>> regarding
>>>>>>>> job
>>>>>>>> submission, job status and reducing the results in the parLapply
>>>>>>>> method
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> that class, and would be able to supply this new cluster object to
>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> my existing functions that can be processed in parallel using a
>>>>>>>> cluster
>>>>>>>> object as input. I have played around with the BatchJobs package
>>>>>>>> as an
>>>>>>>> abstraction layer to SGE and that work nicely. As a test case I
>>>>>>>> have
>>>>>>>> created the necessary generics myself in order to supply my own
>>>>>>>> SGEcluster
>>>>>>>> object to a function that normally deals with the "regular"
>>>>>>>> parallel
>>>>>>>> package S3 cluster objects and everything just worked out of the
>>>>>>>> box,
>>>>>>>> but
>>>>>>>> obviously this fails once I am in a name space and my generic is
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> found
>>>>>>>> anymore. Of course what we would really want is some proper
>>>>>>>> abstraction
>>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>> parallelization in R, but for now this seem to be at least a cheap
>>>>>>>> compromise. Any thoughts on this?
>>>>>>> Hi Florian -- we talked about this locally, but I guess we didn't
>>>>>>> actually send
>>>>>>> any email!
>>>>>>> Is there an obstacle to promoting these to generics in your own
>>>>>>> package?
>>>>>>> The
>>>>>>> usual motivation for inclusion in BiocGenerics has been to avoid
>>>>>>> conflicts
>>>>>>> between packages, but I'm not sure whether this is the case (yet)?
>>>>>>> This
>>>>>>> would
>>>>>>> also add a dependency fairly deep in the hierarchy.
>>>>>>> What do you think?
>>>>>>> Martin
>>>>>>>   Florian
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Computational Biology / Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>>>>>>> 1100 Fairview Ave. N.
>>>>>>> PO Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109
>>>>>>> Location: Arnold Building M1 B861
>>>>>>> Phone: (206) 667-2793
>>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/bioc-devel<https://stat.ethz.c
>>>>>> h/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Steve Lianoglou
>>>>> Graduate Student: Computational Systems Biology
>>>>>    | Memorial Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center
>>>>>    | Weill Medical College of Cornell University
>>>>> Contact Info:
>>>>> http://cbio.mskcc.org/~lianos/**contact<http://cbio.mskcc.org/%7Elianos
>>>>> /contact>
>>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/bioc-devel<https://stat.ethz.ch
>>>>> /mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>>>          [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/bioc-devel<https://stat.ethz.ch/
>>>> mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>> --
>>> Computational Biology / Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
>>> 1100 Fairview Ave. N.
>>> PO Box 19024 Seattle, WA 98109
>>> Location: Arnold Building M1 B861
>>> Phone: (206) 667-2793
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/**listinfo/bioc-devel<https://stat.ethz.ch/m
>>> ailman/listinfo/bioc-devel>
>>         [[alternative HTML version deleted]]
>> _______________________________________________
>> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
>> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel
> _______________________________________________
> Bioc-devel at r-project.org mailing list
> https://stat.ethz.ch/mailman/listinfo/bioc-devel

Hervé Pagès

Program in Computational Biology
Division of Public Health Sciences
Fred Hutchinson Cancer Research Center
1100 Fairview Ave. N, M1-B514
P.O. Box 19024
Seattle, WA 98109-1024

E-mail: hpages at fhcrc.org
Phone:  (206) 667-5791
Fax:    (206) 667-1319

More information about the Bioc-devel mailing list