Related
I'm studying thread and multithreading concepts and I ran into different kinds of thread:
User thread: supported above the kernel and are managed without the kernel.
Kernel thread: supported and managed directly by the operating system.
Software thread: threads of execution managed by the operating system.
Hardware thread: a feature of some processors that allow better utilization of the processor under some circumstances.
Can anyone clarify the difference between these types of threads (I'm confused)?
Thanks
Hardware thread is what allows you to actually run things in parallel (which is not the same as concurrently). These corresspond to number of your CPU cores (with nuances like hyperthreading, which can double the number of cores).
On top of that are OS (kernel) threads. Its an abstraction provided by your OS. The OS will map them to hardware threads. It does this via internal scheduler, and we have little to no control over that. Note that in theory there may be arbitrarily many OS threads (if there are not enough cores to handle them they simply wait for CPU), although the price for so called context switch limits it to few thousands, maybe more.
User threads (a.k.a. green threads, coroutines, etc. they have many names) is an abstraction provided by your software (e.g. programming language and its runtime). They run on top of OS threads, and are mapped to them via internal (but in user space) scheduler. They tend to perform better than OS threads (especially with i/o bound tasks) because they have lower context switch overhead, plus they can take advantage of async apis (e.g. nonblocking sockets) without spawning OS threads (which is costly as well). Since they are lightweight, you can spawn lots of them. Some people claim to run millions of such threads at a time. I've seen tens of thousands without issues.
I've never seen the term "software thread" though. But depending on context it means either user or kernel thread. Unlikely it means anything else.
Btw no real code can run without some OS support. It can be limited, if for example you don't want things to run in parallel. But as soon as you want true parallelism there is no escape from OS threads. The internal scheduler for user threads have to spawn OS threads and map user threads to them in some way. Although typically it is an invisible implemention detail.
"Hardware thread" is a bad name. It was chosen as a term of art by CPU designers, without much regard for what software developers think "thread" means.
When an operating system interrupts a running thread so that some other thread may be allowed to use the CPU, it must save enough of the state of the CPU so that the thread can be resumed again later on. Mostly that saved state consists of the program counter, the stack pointer, and other CPU registers that are part of the programmer's model of the CPU.
A so-called "hyperthreaded CPU" has two or more complete sets of those registers. That allows it to execute instructions on behalf of two or more program threads without any need for the operating system to intervene.
Experts in the field like nice, short names for things. Instead of talking about "complete sets of context registers," they just call them "hardware threads."
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.
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 in the thread table, looks in the table for a ready thread to run, 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 instructions. 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.
Source: Modern Operating Systems (Andrew S. Tanenbaum | Herbert Bos)
The above argument is made in favor of user-level threads. The user-level thread implementation is depicted as kernel managing all the processes, where individual processes can have their own run-time (made available by a library package) that manages all the threads in that process.
Of course, merely calling a function in the run-time than trapping to kernel might have a few less instructions to execute but why the difference is so huge?
For example, if threads are implemented in kernel space, every time a thread has to be created the program is required to make a system call. Yes. But the call only involves adding an entry to the thread table with certain attributes (which is also the case in user space threads). When a thread switch has to happen, kernel can simply do what the run-time (at user-space) would do. The only real difference I can see here is that the kernel is being involved in all this. How can the performance difference be so significant?
Threads implemented as a library package in user space perform significantly better. Why?
They're not.
The fact is that most task switches are caused by threads blocking (having to wait for IO from disk or network, or from user, or for time to pass, or for some kind of semaphore/mutex shared with a different process, or some kind of pipe/message/packet from a different process) or caused by threads unblocking (because whatever they were waiting for happened); and most reasons to block and unblock involve the kernel in some way (e.g. device drivers, networking stack, ...); so doing task switches in kernel when you're already in the kernel is faster (because it avoids the overhead of switching to user-space and back for no sane reason).
Where user-space task switching "works" is when kernel isn't involved at all. This mostly only happens when someone failed to do threads properly (e.g. they've got thousands of threads and coarse-grained locking and are constantly switching between threads due to lock contention, instead of something sensible like a "worker thread pool"). It also only works when all threads are the same priority - you don't want a situation where very important threads belonging to one process don't get CPU time because very unimportant threads belonging to a different process are hogging the CPU (but that's exactly what happens with user-space threading because one process has no idea about threads belonging to a different process).
Mostly; user-space threading is a silly broken mess. It's not faster or "significantly better"; it's worse.
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 in the thread table, looks in the table for a ready thread to run, 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 instructions. 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 is talking about a situation where the CPU itself does the actual task switch (and either the kernel or a user-space library tells the CPU when to do a task switch to what). This has some relatively interesting history behind it...
In the 1980s Intel designed a CPU ("iAPX" - see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_iAPX_432 ) for "secure object oriented programming"; where each object has its own isolated memory segments and its own privilege level, and can transfer control directly to other objects. The general idea being that you'd have a single-tasking system consisting of global objects using cooperating flow control. This failed for multiple reasons, partly because all the protection checks ruined performance, and partly because the majority of software at the time was designed for "multi-process preemptive time sharing, with procedural programming".
When Intel designed protected mode (80286, 80386) they still had hopes for "single-tasking system consisting of global objects using cooperating flow control". They included hardware task/object switching, local descriptor table (so each task/object can have its own isolated segments), call gates (so tasks/objects can transfer control to each other directly), and modified a few control flow instructions (call far and jmp far) to support the new control flow. Of course this failed for the same reason iAPX failed; and (as far as I know) nobody has ever used these things for the "global objects using cooperative flow control" they were originally designed for. Some people (e.g. very early Linux) did try to use the hardware task switching for more traditional "multi-process preemptive time sharing, with procedural programming" systems; but found that it was slow because the hardware task switch did too many protection checks that could be avoided by software task switching and saved/reloaded too much state that could be avoided by a software task switching;p and didn't do any of the other stuff needed for a task switch (e.g. keeping statistics of CPU time used, saving/restoring debug registers, etc).
Now.. Andrew S. Tanenbaum is a micro-kernel advocate. His ideal system consists of isolated pieces in user-space (processes, services, drivers, ...) communicating via. synchronous messaging. In practice (ignoring superficial differences in terminology) this "isolated pieces in user-space communicating via. synchronous messaging" is almost entirely identical to Intel's twice failed "global objects using cooperative flow control".
Mostly; in theory (if you ignore all the practical problems, like CPU not saving all of the state, and wanting to do extra work on task switches like tracking statistics), for a specific type of OS that Andrew S. Tanenbaum prefers (micro-kernel with synchronous message passing, without any thread priorities), it's plausible that the paragraph quoted above is more than just wishful thinking.
I think the answer to this can use a lot of OS and parallel distributive computing knowledge (And I am not sure about the answer but I will try my best)
So if you think about it. The library package will have a greater amount of performance than you write in the kernel itself. In the package thing, interrupt given by this code will be held at once and al the execution will be done. While when you write in kernel different other interrupts can come before. Plus accessing threads again and again is harsh on the kernel since everytime there will be an interrupt. I hope it will be a better view.
it's not correct to say the user-space threads are better that the kernel-space threads since each one has its own pros and cons.
in terms of user-space threads, as the application is responsible for managing thread, its easier to implement such threads and that kind of threads have not much reliance on OS. however, you are not able to use the advantages of multi processing.
In contrary, the kernel space modules are handled by OS, so you need to implement them according to the OS that you use, and it would be a more complicated task. However, you have more control over your threads.
for more comprehensive tutorial, take a look here.
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've been looking through a few notes based on this topic, and although I have an understanding of threads in general, I'm not really to sure about the differences between user-level and kernel-level threads.
I know that processes are basically made up of multiple threads or a single thread, but are these thread of the two prior mentioned types?
From what I understand, kernel-supported threads have access to the kernel for system calls and other uses not available to user-level threads.
So, are user-level threads simply threads created by the programmer when then utilise kernel-supported threads to perform operations that couldn't be normally performed due to its state?
Edit: The question was a little confusing, so I'm answering it two different ways.
OS-level threads vs Green Threads
For clarity, I usually say "OS-level threads" or "native threads" instead of "Kernel-level threads" (which I confused with "kernel threads" in my original answer below.) OS-level threads are created and managed by the OS. Most languages have support for them. (C, recent Java, etc) They are extremely hard to use because you are 100% responsible for preventing problems. In some languages, even the native data structures (such as Hashes or Dictionaries) will break without extra locking code.
The opposite of an OS-thread is a green thread that is managed by your language. These threads are given various names depending on the language (coroutines in C, goroutines in Go, fibers in Ruby, etc). These threads only exist inside your language and not in your OS. Because the language chooses context switches (i.e. at the end of a statement), it prevents TONS of subtle race conditions (such as seeing a partially-copied structure, or needing to lock most data structures). The programmer sees "blocking" calls (i.e. data = file.read() ), but the language translates it into async calls to the OS. The language then allows other green threads to run while waiting for the result.
Green threads are much simpler for the programmer, but their performance varies: If you have a LOT of threads, green threads can be better for both CPU and RAM. On the other hand, most green thread languages can't take advantage of multiple cores. (You can't even buy a single-core computer or phone anymore!). And a bad library can halt the entire language by doing a blocking OS call.
The best of both worlds is to have one OS thread per CPU, and many green threads that are magically moved around onto OS threads. Languages like Go and Erlang can do this.
system calls and other uses not available to user-level threads
This is only half true. Yes, you can easily cause problems if you call the OS yourself (i.e. do something that's blocking.) But the language usually has replacements, so you don't even notice. These replacements do call the kernel, just slightly differently than you think.
Kernel threads vs User Threads
Edit: This is my original answer, but it is about User space threads vs Kernel-only threads, which (in hindsight) probably wasn't the question.
User threads and Kernel threads are exactly the same. (You can see by looking in /proc/ and see that the kernel threads are there too.)
A User thread is one that executes user-space code. But it can call into kernel space at any time. It's still considered a "User" thread, even though it's executing kernel code at elevated security levels.
A Kernel thread is one that only runs kernel code and isn't associated with a user-space process. These are like "UNIX daemons", except they are kernel-only daemons. So you could say that the kernel is a multi-threaded program. For example, there is a kernel thread for swap. This forces all swap issues to get "serialized" into a single stream.
If a user thread needs something, it will call into the kernel, which marks that thread as sleeping. Later, the swap thread finds the data, so it marks the user thread as runnable. Later still, the "user thread" returns from the kernel back to userland as if nothing happened.
In fact, all threads start off in kernel space, because the clone() operation happens in kernel space. (And there's lots of kernel accounting to do before you can 'return' to a new process in user space.)
Before we go into comparison, let us first understand what a thread is. Threads are lightweight processes within the domain of independent processes. They are required because processes are heavy, consume a lot of resources and more importantly,
two separate processes cannot share a memory space.
Let's say you open a text editor. It's an independent process executing in the memory with a separate addressable location. You'll need many resources within this process, such as insert graphics, spell-checks etc. It's not feasible to create separate processes for each of these functionalities and maintain them independently in memory. To avoid this,
multiple threads can be created within a single process, which can
share a common memory space, existing independently within a process.
Now, coming back to your questions, one at a time.
I'm not really to sure about the differences between user-level and kernel-level threads.
Threads are broadly classified as user level threads and kernel level threads based on their domain of execution. There are also cases when one or many user thread maps to one or many kernel threads.
- User Level Threads
User level threads are mostly at the application level where an application creates these threads to sustain its execution in the main memory. Unless required, these thread work in isolation with kernel threads.
These are easier to create since they do not have to refer many registers and context switching is much faster than a kernel level thread.
User level thread, mostly can cause changes at the application level and the kernel level thread continues to execute at its own pace.
- Kernel Level Threads
These threads are mostly independent of the ongoing processes and are executed by the operating system.
These threads are required by the Operating System for tasks like memory management, process management etc.
Since these threads maintain, execute and report the processes required by the operating system; kernel level threads are more expensive to create and manage and context switching of these threads are slow.
Most of the kernel level threads can not be preempted by the user level threads.
MS DOS written for Intel 8088 didn't have dual mode of operation. Thus, a user level process had the ability to corrupt the entire operating system.
- User Level Threads mapped over Kernel Threads
This is perhaps the most interesting part. Many user level threads map over to kernel level thread, which in-turn communicate with the kernel.
Some of the prominent mappings are:
One to One
When one user level thread maps to only one kernel thread.
advantages: each user thread maps to one kernel thread. Even if one of the user thread issues a blocking system call, the other processes remain unaffected.
disadvantages: every user thread requires one kernel thread to interact and kernel threads are expensive to create and manage.
Many to One
When many user threads map to one kernel thread.
advantages: multiple kernel threads are not required since similar user threads can be mapped to one kernel thread.
disadvantage: even if one of the user thread issues a blocking system call, all the other user threads mapped to that kernel thread are blocked.
Also, a good level of concurrency cannot be achieved since the kernel will process only one kernel thread at a time.
Many to Many
When many user threads map to equal or lesser number of kernel threads. The programmer decides how many user threads will map to how many kernel threads. Some of the user threads might map to just one kernel thread.
advantages: a great level of concurrency is achieved. Programmer can decide some potentially dangerous threads which might issue a blocking system call and place them with the one-to-one mapping.
disadvantage: the number of kernel threads, if not decided cautiously can slow down the system.
The other part of your question:
kernel-supported threads have access to the kernel for system calls
and other uses not available to user-level threads.
So, are user-level threads simply threads created by the programmer
when then utilise kernel-supported threads to perform operations that
couldn't be normally performed due to its state?
Partially correct. Almost all the kernel thread have access to system calls and other critical interrupts since kernel threads are responsible for executing the processes of the OS. User thread will not have access to some of these critical features. e.g. a text editor can never shoot a thread which has the ability to change the physical address of the process. But if needed, a user thread can map to kernel thread and issue some of the system calls which it couldn't do as an independent entity. The kernel thread would then map this system call to the kernel and would execute actions, if deemed fit.
Quote from here :
Kernel-Level Threads
To make concurrency cheaper, the execution aspect of process is separated out into threads. As such, the OS now manages threads and processes. All thread operations are implemented in the kernel and the OS schedules all threads in the system. OS managed threads are called kernel-level threads or light weight processes.
NT: Threads
Solaris: Lightweight processes(LWP).
In this method, the kernel knows about and manages the threads. No runtime system is needed in this case. Instead of thread table in each process, the kernel has a thread table that keeps track of all threads in the system. In addition, the kernel also maintains the traditional process table to keep track of processes. Operating Systems kernel provides system call to create and manage threads.
Advantages:
Because kernel has full knowledge of all threads, Scheduler may decide to give more time to a process having large number of threads than process having small number of threads.
Kernel-level threads are especially good for applications that frequently block.
Disadvantages:
The kernel-level threads are slow and inefficient. For instance, threads operations are hundreds of times slower than that of user-level threads.
Since kernel must manage and schedule threads as well as processes. It require a full thread control block (TCB) for each thread to maintain information about threads. As a result there is significant overhead and increased in kernel complexity.
User-Level Threads
Kernel-Level threads make concurrency much cheaper than process because, much less state to allocate and initialize. However, for fine-grained concurrency, kernel-level threads still suffer from too much overhead. Thread operations still require system calls. Ideally, we require thread operations to be as fast as a procedure call. Kernel-Level threads have to be general to support the needs of all programmers, languages, runtimes, etc. For such fine grained concurrency we need still "cheaper" threads.
To make threads cheap and fast, they need to be implemented at user level. User-Level threads are managed entirely by the run-time system (user-level library).The kernel knows nothing about user-level threads and manages them as if they were single-threaded processes.User-Level threads are small and fast, each thread is represented by a PC,register,stack, and small thread control block. Creating a new thread, switiching between threads, and synchronizing threads are done via procedure call. i.e no kernel involvement. User-Level threads are hundred times faster than Kernel-Level threads.
Advantages:
The most obvious advantage of this technique is that a user-level threads package can be implemented on an Operating System that does not support threads.
User-level threads does not require modification to operating systems.
Simple Representation: Each thread is represented simply by a PC, registers, stack and a small control block, all stored in the user process address space.
Simple Management: This simply means that creating a thread, switching between threads and synchronization between threads can all be done without intervention of the kernel.
Fast and Efficient: Thread switching is not much more expensive than a procedure call.
Disadvantages:
User-Level threads are not a perfect solution as with everything else, they are a trade off. Since, User-Level threads are invisible to the OS they are not well integrated with the OS. As a result, Os can make poor decisions like scheduling a process with idle threads, blocking a process whose thread initiated an I/O even though the process has other threads that can run and unscheduling a process with a thread holding a lock. Solving this requires communication between between kernel and user-level thread manager.
There is a lack of coordination between threads and operating system kernel. Therefore, process as whole gets one time slice irrespect of whether process has one thread or 1000 threads within. It is up to each thread to relinquish control to other threads.
User-level threads requires non-blocking systems call i.e., a multithreaded kernel. Otherwise, entire process will blocked in the kernel, even if there are runable threads left in the processes. For example, if one thread causes a page fault, the process blocks.
User Threads
The library provides support for thread creation, scheduling and management with no support from the kernel.
The kernel unaware of user-level threads creation and scheduling are done in user space without kernel intervention.
User-level threads are generally fast to create and manage they have drawbacks however.
If the kernel is single-threaded, then any user-level thread performing a blocking system call will cause the entire process to block, even if other threads are available to run within the application.
User-thread libraries include POSIX Pthreads, Mach C-threads,
and Solaris 2 UI-threads.
Kernel threads
The kernel performs thread creation, scheduling, and management in kernel space.
kernel threads are generally slower to create and manage than are user threads.
the kernel is managing the threads, if a thread performs a blocking system call.
A multiprocessor environment, the kernel can schedule threads on different processors.
5.including Windows NT, Windows 2000, Solaris 2, BeOS, and Tru64 UNIX (formerlyDigital UN1X)-support kernel threads.
Some development environments or languages will add there own threads like feature, that is written to take advantage of some knowledge of the environment, for example a GUI environment could implement some thread functionality which switch between user threads on each event loop.
A game library could have some thread like behaviour for characters. Sometimes the user thread like behaviour can be implemented in a different way, for example I work with cocoa a lot, and it has a timer mechanism which executes your code every x number of seconds, use fraction of a seconds and it like a thread. Ruby has a yield feature which is like cooperative threads. The advantage of user threads is they can switch at more predictable times. With kernel thread every time a thread starts up again, it needs to load any data it was working on, this can take time, with user threads you can switch when you have finished working on some data, so it doesn't need to be reloaded.
I haven't come across user threads that look the same as kernel threads, only thread like mechanisms like the timer, though I have read about them in older text books so I wonder if they were something that was more popular in the past but with the rise of true multithreaded OS's (modern Windows and Mac OS X) and more powerful hardware I wonder if they have gone out of favour.