I am trying to get a better understanding of the definition preemptive and cooperative in the context of Go. Wiki states for preemptive multitasking
In computing, preemption is the act of temporarily interrupting an executing task, with the intention of resuming it at a later time. This interrupt is done by an external scheduler with no assistance or cooperation from the task.
Wiki states "external scheduler". I guess it means dispatcher to be more specific since afaik the scheduler only is responsible for choosing the next process in line.
Go is often referred to as partially preemptive since sync-points/preemption-points are only at function calls and not at any given instruction. That makes sense. But as the wiki definition states, preemptive is done by an external scheduler.
But isn't every process or task preemptive since the CPU can stop executing any process mid-execution in order to switch to another process? Any clarification is appreciated!
Addendum
The only explanation I could come up with is that we talk about different preemption levels. One for processes, and one for kernel/user-threads. In that case the CPU scheduler selects the next process but the Go scheduler is responsible for the goroutines/threads.
Your addendum is correct. There are different schedulers working here. One is the OS scheduler and one on the application level. Check out this article. It's exactly what you are looking for:
As we discussed in the first post, the OS scheduler is a preemptive scheduler. [...] The kernel is making decisions and everything is non-deterministic.
And this:
The Go scheduler is part of the Go runtime, and the Go runtime is built into your application. This means the Go scheduler runs in user space, above the kernel. The current implementation of the Go scheduler is not a preemptive scheduler but a cooperating scheduler. Being a cooperating scheduler means the scheduler needs well-defined user space events that happen at safe points in the code to make scheduling decisions.
Conlusion, there are two different schedulers. One for the process, one for Goroutines.
There are a few things here. First the Wikipedia article is talking about operating system level preemption which may not exactly apply. Go-routine scheduling is not handled by the OS but by the Go runtime.
In essence processes/threads are handled by the OS/hardware and are preemptive. The Go runtime can run different "go routines" on the same thread. (In fact this is one thing that makes Go unique - easily allowing you to create an application with millions of concurrent go-routines.)
Originally go-routines were not preemptive but surprisingly this caused few problems but a long-running loop that did not encounter preemption points could hog a thread. But thanks to some great work by Austin Clements this was addressed a couple of years ago (Go 1.15?). So I believe go-routines are fully preemptable at least on the more popular architectures, but you may encounter old comments that state otherwise.
I hope this helps but to answer your specific questions:
But isn't every process or task preemptive...?
Yes, but they are not go-routines.
the CPU scheduler selects the next process but
the Go scheduler is responsible for the goroutines/threads.
No, the OS (using CPU/MMU hardware facilities) schedules processes and threads. The Go scheduler only decides which go-routine runs next on the specific thread(s) it controls, and it never controls more than GOMAXPROCS (non-blocked) threads.
My answer is built on top of Andrew and Daniel's answers, and entirely based on this talk.
Since go 1.14, the go scheduler is non-cooperative pre-emptive. Each go routine is pre-empted after a certain time slice. It's 10ms in go 1.19.1.
In the talk I mentioned earlier, starting 20:35, you can find the history about how the scheduler used purely co-operative pre-emption in 1.0, then compiler baked in pre-emption with go 1.2, and finally the current nature - non-coperative pre-emption.
Related
Some web searching results told me that the only deficiency of kernel-level thread is the slow speed of its management(create, switch, terminate, etc.). It seems that if the operation on the kernel-level thread is all through system calls, the answer to my question will be true. However, I've searched a lot to find whether the management of kernel-level thread is all through system call but find nothing. And I always have an instinct that such management should be done by the OS automatically because only OS knows which thread would be suitable to run at a specific time. So it seems impossible for programmers to write some explicit system calls to manage threads. I'm appreciative of any ideas.
Some web searching results told me that the only deficiency of kernel-level thread is the slow speed of its management(create, switch, terminate, etc.).
It's not that simple. To understand, think about what causes task switches. Here's a (partial) list:
a device told a device driver that an operation completed (some data arrived, etc) causing a thread that was waiting for the operation to unblock and then preempt the currently running thread. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
enough time passed; either causing an "end of time slice" task switch, or causing a sleeping thread to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the thread accessed virtual memory that isn't currently accessible, triggering the kernel's page fault handler which finds out that the current task has to wait while the kernel fetches data from from swap space or from a file (if the virtual memory is part of a memory mapped file), or has to wait for kernel to free up RAM by sending other pages to swap space (if virtual memory was involved in some kind of "copy on write"); causing a task switch because the currently running task can't continue. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
a new process is being created, and its initial thread preempts the currently running thread. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread asked kernel to do something with a file and kernel got "VFS cache miss" that prevents the request from being performed without any task switches. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread releases a mutex or sends some data (e.g. using a pipe or socket); causing a thread that belongs to a different process to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running kernel code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so kernel task switching is faster.
the currently running thread releases a mutex or sends some data (e.g. using a pipe or socket); causing a thread that belongs to the same process to unblock and preempt. For this case you're running user-space code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so in theory user-space task switching is faster, but in practice it can just as easily be an indicator of poor design (using too many threads and/or far too much lock contention).
a new thread is being created for the same process; and the new thread preempts the currently running thread. For this case you're running user-space code when you find out that a task switch is needed, so in user-space task switching is faster; but only if kernel isn't informed (e.g. so that utilities like "top" can properly display details for threads) - if kernel is informed anyway then it doesn't make much difference where the task switch happens.
For most software (which doesn't use very many threads); doing task switches in the kernel is faster. Of course it's also (hopefully) fairly irrelevant for performance (because time spent switching tasks should be tiny compared to time spend doing other work).
And I always have an instinct that such management should be done by the OS automatically because only OS knows which thread would be suitable to run at a specific time.
Yes; but possibly not for the reason you think.
Another problem with user-space threading (besides making most task switches slower) is that it can't support global thread priorities without becoming a severe security disaster. Specifically; a process can't know if its own thread is higher or lower priority than a thread belonging to a different process (unless it has information about all threads for the entire OS, which is information that normal processes shouldn't be trusted to have); so user-space threading leads to wasting CPU time doing unimportant work (for one process) when there's important work to do (for a different process).
Another problem with user-space threading is that (for some CPUs - e.g. most 80x86 CPUs) the CPUs are not independent, and there may be power management decisions involved with scheduling. For examples; most 80x86 CPUs have hyper-threading (where a core is shared by 2 logical processors), where a smart scheduler may say "one logical processor in the core is running a high priority/important thread, so the other logical processor in the same core should not run a low priority/unimportant thread because that would make the important work slower"; most 80x86 CPUs have "turbo boost" (with similar "don't let low priority threads ruin the turbo-boost/performance of high priority thread" possibilities); and most CPUs have thermal management (where scheduler might say "Hey, these threads are all low priority, so let's underclock the CPU so that it cools down and can go faster later (has more thermal headroom) when there's high priority/more important work to do!").
Would it makes the kernel level thread clearly preferable to user level thread if system calls is as fast as procedure calls?
If system calls were as fast as normal procedure calls, then the performance differences between user-space threading and kernel threading would disappear (but all the other problems with user-space threading would remain). However, the reason why system calls are slower than normal procedure calls is that they pass through a kind of "isolation barrier" (that isolates kernel's code and data from malicious user-space code); so to make system calls as fast as normal procedure calls you'd have to get rid of the isolation (effectively turning the kernel into a kind of "global shared library" that can be dynamically linked) but without that isolation you'll have an extreme security disaster. In other words; to have any hope of achieving acceptable security, system calls must be slower than normal procedure calls.
Your basic premise is wrong. System calls are much slower than procedure calls in almost every interesting architecture.
The perceived cpu throughput is based on pipelining, speculative execution and fetching. The syscall stops the pipeline, invalidates the speculative execution and halts the speculative fetching, is a store and instruction barrier, and may flush the write fifo.
So, the processor slows down to its ‘spec’ speed around the syscall, accelerating back up until the syscall return, whereupon it does about the exact same thing.
Attempts to optimise this area have given rise to lots of papers named after fictional James Bond organizations, and not conciliatory enough apologies from not embarrassed enough cpu product managers. Google spectre as an example, then follow the associated links.
The other cost of syscall
A bit over 30 years ago, some smart guys wrote a paper about least privilege. Conceptually, it is a stunner. The basic premise is that whatever your program is doing, it should do it with the least privilege possible.
If your program is inverting arrays, according to the notion of least privilege, it should not be able to disable interrupts. Disabling interrupts can cause a very difficult to diagnose system failure. Simple user code should not have this ability.
The notion of user and kernel modes of execution evolved from early computer systems, and (with the possible exception of the iax32 / 80286 ) are increasingly showing their inadequacy in the connected computer environment. At one point in time you could say "this is a single user system"; but the IoT dweebs have made everything multi-user.
Least privilege insists that all code should execute with the minimum privilege required to complete the task at hand. Thus, nothing should be in the kernel that absolutely doesn't need to be. If you think that is a radical thought, in Ken Thompson's 1977(?) paper on the UNIX kernel he states exactly the same thing.
So no, putting your junk in the kernel just means you have increased the attack surface for no valid reason. Try to think in terms of exposing minimum risk, it leads to better software and better sleep.
I'm looking for some background explanations about context switch in modern personal computers with mainstream architecture (say x64).
While context switch is mainly done by the hardware, I wonder what in the computer decides of task scheduling and context switch when running multiple threads and/or multiple processes. Is it the CPU itself, the operating system, the compiler/virtual machine... ?
I'd like to have an idea of what strategies are used to decide when to switch. For example, if I start a hundred threads doing independent dummy additions in endless loops, when will the context switches happen?
This is a complex subject that I can't do justice in a simple response here. But let me hit some high-points. I further am going to assume modern OS's like Windows or the various Unix derivatives and ignore embedded real-time systems.
The context switch is not performed in hardware. It is critical to understand this. It is performed in software via a OS subsystem known as the scheduler. The scheduler is a glorified interrupt controller that will fire many times a microsecond and decide what thread will execute next. The algorithms for doing so are numerous and the subject of many a PHD thesis. A good overview I found quickly is here: http://www.studytonight.com/operating-system/cpu-scheduling
Good Operating Systems books will go over this in detail. There are too many to note so pick your poison.
One last point, to grasp at a complete level how scheduling is performed it really helps to understand how virtual addressing schemes work as that is truly what differentiates processes from threads. Threads are what is critical in terms of the Scheduler put processes encapsulate threads and the virtual memory space.
I'm not sure this helps but I was at least able to correct one misconception and point you at a simple article on OS thread scheduling.
I was looking at the differences between user-level threads and kernel-level threads, which I basically understood.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
An answer to a previously asked question (similar to mine) was something like:
No modern operating system actually maps n user-level threads to 1
kernel-level thread.
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
Could you help me understand this, please?
I strongly recommend Modern Operating Systems 4th Edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum (starring in shows such as the debate about Linux; also participating: Linus Torvalds). Costs a whole lot of bucks but it's definitely worth it if you really want to know stuff. For eager students and desperate enthusiasts it's great.
Your questions answered
[...] what's not clear to me is the point of implementing User-level threads
at all.
Read my post. It is comprehensive, I daresay.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a
single process, then which benefits could I experience?
Read the section "Disadvantages" below.
I have read a couple of articles that stated that user-level
implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not
perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to
block).
Read the subsection "No coordination with system calls" in "Disadvantages."
All citations are from the book I recommended in the top of this answer, Chapter 2.2.4, "Implementing Threads in User Space."
Advantages
Enables threads on systems without threads
The first advantage is that user-level threads are a way to work with threads on a system without threads.
The first, and most obvious, advantage is that
a user-level threads package can be implemented on an operating system that does not support threads. All operating systems used to
fall into this category, and even now some still do.
No kernel interaction required
A further benefit is the light overhead when switching threads, as opposed to switching to the kernel mode, doing stuff, switching back, etc. The lighter thread switching is described like this in the book:
When a thread does something that may cause it to become blocked
locally, for example, waiting for another thread in its process to
complete some work, it calls a run-time system procedure. This
procedure checks to see if the thread must be put into blocked state.
If, so it stores the thread’s registers (i.e., its own) [...] and
reloads the machine registers with the new thread’s saved values. As soon as the stack
pointer and program counter have been switched, the new thread comes
to life again automatically. If the machine happens to have an
instruction to store all the registers and another one to load them
all, the entire thread switch can be done in just a handful of in-
structions. Doing thread switching like this is at least an order of
magnitude—maybe more—faster than trapping to the kernel and is a
strong argument in favor of user-level threads packages.
This efficiency is also nice because it spares us from incredibly heavy context switches and all that stuff.
Individually adjusted scheduling algorithms
Also, hence there is no central scheduling algorithm, every process can have its own scheduling algorithm and is way more flexible in its variety of choices. In addition, the "private" scheduling algorithm is way more flexible concerning the information it gets from the threads. The number of information can be adjusted manually and per-process, so it's very finely-grained. This is because, again, there is no central scheduling algorithm needing to fit the needs of every process; it has to be very general and all and must deliver adequate performance in every case. User-level threads allow an extremely specialized scheduling algorithm.
This is only restricted by the disadvantage "No automatic switching to the scheduler."
They [user-level threads] allow each process to have its own
customized scheduling algorithm. For some applications, for example,
those with a garbage-collector thread, not having to worry about a
thread being stopped at an inconvenient moment is a plus. They also
scale better, since kernel threads invariably require some table space
and stack space in the kernel, which can be a problem if there are a
very large number of threads.
Disadvantages
No coordination with system calls
The user-level scheduling algorithm has no idea if some thread has called a blocking read system call. OTOH, a kernel-level scheduling algorithm would've known because it can be notified by the system call; both belong to the kernel code base.
Suppose that a thread reads from the keyboard before any keys have
been hit. Letting the thread actually make the system call is
unacceptable, since this will stop all the threads. One of the main
goals of having threads in the first place was to allow each one to
use blocking calls, but to prevent one blocked thread from affecting
the others. With blocking system calls, it is hard to see how this
goal can be achieved readily.
He goes on that system calls could be made non-blocking but that would be very inconvenient and compatibility to existing OSes would be drastically hurt.
Mr Tanenbaum also says that the library wrappers around the system calls (as found in glibc, for example) could be modified to predict when a system cal blocks using select but he utters that this is inelegant.
Building upon that, he says that threads do block often. Often blocking requires many system calls. And many system calls are bad. And without blocking, threads become less useful:
For applications that are essentially entirely CPU bound and rarely
block, what is the point of having threads at all? No one would
seriously propose computing the first n prime numbers or playing chess
using threads because there is nothing to be gained by doing it that
way.
Page faults block per-process if unaware of threads
The OS has no notion of threads. Therefore, if a page fault occurs, the whole process will be blocked, effectively blocking all user-level threads.
Somewhat analogous to the problem of blocking system calls is the
problem of page faults. [...] If the program calls or jumps to an
instruction that is not in memory, a page fault occurs and the
operating system will go and get the missing instruction (and its
neighbors) from disk. [...] The process is blocked while the necessary
instruction is being located and read in. If a thread causes a page
fault, the kernel, unaware of even the existence of threads, naturally
blocks the entire process until the disk I/O is complete, even though
other threads might be runnable.
I think this can be generalized to all interrupts.
No automatic switching to the scheduler
Since there is no per-process clock interrupt, a thread acquires the CPU forever unless some OS-dependent mechanism (such as a context switch) occurs or it voluntarily releases the CPU.
This prevents usual scheduling algorithms from working, including the Round-Robin algorithm.
[...] if a thread starts running, no other thread in that process
will ever run unless the first thread voluntarily gives up the CPU.
Within a single process, there are no clock interrupts, making it
impossible to schedule processes round-robin fashion (taking turns).
Unless a thread enters the run-time system of its own free will, the scheduler will never get a chance.
He says that a possible solution would be
[...] to have the run-time system request a clock signal (interrupt) once a
second to give it control, but this, too, is crude and messy to
program.
I would even go on further and say that such a "request" would require some system call to happen, whose drawback is already explained in "No coordination with system calls." If no system call then the program would need free access to the timer, which is a security hole and unacceptable in modern OSes.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
User-level threads largely came into the mainstream due to Ada and its requirement for threads (tasks in Ada terminology). At the time, there were few multiprocessor systems and most multiprocessors were of the master/slave variety. Kernel threads simply did not exist. User threads had to be created to implement languages like Ada.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
If you have kernel threads, threads multiple threads within a single process can run simultaneously. In user threads, the threads always execute interleaved.
Using threads can simplify some types of programming.
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
That is true on Unix and maybe not all unix implementations. User threads on many operating systems function perfectly fine with blocking I/O.
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
In user threads. there is never parallel execution. In kernel threads, the can be parallel execution IF there are multiple processors. On a single processor system, there is not much advantage to using kernel threads over single threads (contra: note the blocking I/O issue on Unix and user threads).
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
In user threads, the process manages its own "threads" by interleaving execution within itself. The process can only have a thread run in the processor that the process is running in.
If the operating system provides system services to schedule code to run on a different processor, user threads could run on multiple processors.
I conclude by saying that for practicable purposes there are no advantages to user threads over kernel threads. There are those that will assert that there are performance advantages, but for there to be such an advantage it would be system dependent.
I'm trying to implement "three level scheduling" with using threads. In short, I want to make a simulation of three level scheduling. Programming language does not matter, any suggestions are welcomed.
Inside the kernel - any thread or process - is interrupted by a typical timer input or interruption during I/O call. This brings transfer of control back to kernel's scheduler.
Switching thread is done by scheduler which decides which thread is next runable.
Now, if you want to simulate almost this - you need to make thread do some finite tasks and hook themselves up waiting against some semaphores/mutex. There is some kind of master thread that keeps these mutex/semaphores under control. The master thread somehow runs the desired algorithm to decide which thread should be granted access.
The only real difference is that since your master thread itself is in user space not inside kernel - so it cannot really overrule and/or preempt the running threads. It can only control the simulation of how effectively the task allocation can done efficiently (between well behaved threads).
This is a very basic first step on how to think about the problem. Please add more details to work about the subject. Amend your question to evolve your answer.
Not really programming related this question, but I still hope it fits somehow here :).
I wrote the following sentence in my work:
Mulitthreading refers to the ability of an OS to subdivide an application into
threads, where each of the them are capable to execute independently.
I was told, that this definition of thread is too narrow. I am not really sure why this is the case, could somebody be so kind to explain me what I missed?
Thank you
Usually, it is the application that decides when to create threads, not the OS. Also, you may want to mention that threads share address space, while each process has its own.
A thread fundamentally, is a saved execution context - a set of saved registers and a stack, that you can resume and continue execution of. This thread can be executed on a processor (these days, many machines of course can execute multiple threads at the same time).
The critical aspect of "multi-threading" is, that an operating system can emulate execution of many threads at the same time, by preempting (stopping) a thread once it has run for a certain amount of time (a "quantum"), then scheduling another thread to run, based on a certain algorithm that is OS-specific.