Related
We're reading a basic/simple guide to Operating Systems in my CS class. The text gives multiple examples of OSs that use 1:1 threading, and some that formerly did hybrid/ M:N. But there are no examples of user threads/N:1.
This isn't a homework question, I'm just genuinely curious if this is or was a thing. Have any OSs utilized exclusively user threads? Or is there any software or programming language that does? It seems like with the right scheduling it could be very fast? Thank you!
Spent forever on Google and can't find any explicit answer to this!
Do any operating systems utilize user threads only?
No (and not in the way you're expecting, but by definition). Whatever a program feels like doing in user-space is none of the operating system's business and can not be considered something the OS itself does.
Essentially there's 3 cases:
the OS is a single-tasking OS (and user-space programs use libraries or whatever to provide threading if/when they want it). E.g. MS-DOS.
the OS is a multi-tasking OS, where the OS only knows about processes (and user-space programs use libraries or whatever to provide threading if/when they want it). E.g. early Unix.
the OS/kernel provides threads (leading to 1:1 or M:N).
It seems like with the right scheduling it could be very fast?
User-space threading isn't "very fast", it's significantly worse for most things. The reasons are:
it can't work when there's multiple CPUs (so the nice 8-core CPU you're currently using becomes 87.5% wasted). You need a "M:N threading" at a minimum to avoid this performance disaster.
it breaks thread priorities badly - e.g. CPU/s wasting time doing unimportant work while important work isn't being done, because one process doesn't know anything about threads that belong to any other process (or their priorities). The scheduler must be aware of all threads to avoid this performance disaster (and if one process knows about all threads belonging to all other processes it becomes a security disaster).
almost all thread switches are caused by devices (threads having to wait for disk, network, keyboard, "wall clock time", ... causing scheduler to have to find some other thread to run; and things a thread was waiting for occurring causing the thread to be able to run again and possibly preempt less important work that was running at the time); and all devices involve the kernel (even for micro-kernels where kernel is needed to pass messages, etc); so almost all thread switches involve the kernel. By doing threading in user-space you just end up with kernel wasting time notifying user-space (so user-space can do some scheduling) instead of kernel doing the scheduling itself (without wasting time on notifications).
User-space threading is better for rare situations where kernel doesn't have to be involved anyway, which is limited to:
thread creation and termination; but only if memory (for thread state, thread stack, thread local storage) is pre-allocated and recycled, and only if "thread recycling" isn't done (e.g. pre-create kernel threads and put them back in a "free thread pool" instead of telling kernel to terminate and create them again later).
locking (e.g. mutexes) where all threads using the lock belong to the same process; where 1 kernel thread (and no need for locks) is still better than "multiple user-space threads (sharing 1 kernel thread) fighting for the same lock with extra pointless overhead".
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.
Work stealing is a common strategy for User-level Thread. Each process has a work queue for taking work, and will steal from others' queue when they are out of work to do.
Is there any kernel that implements such strategy for Kernel-level thread ? If not, what is the reason ?
I believe in Linux there is a notion of thread-migration in kernel-level thread, which migrates thread from high-load processor to low-load processor but that seems like a different algorithm. But correct me if I'm wrong.
Thanks
The work stealing scheduler is a parallel computation scheduler. It is usually on user level libraries (like Intel tbb: https://www.threadingbuildingblocks.org/) or even languages like Cilk (https://software.intel.com/en-us/intel-cilk-plus)
Kernel-level threads are scheduled by the operating system, and as so the scheduling techniques are quite different. For instance, in work-stealing scheduler, one of the objectives is to limit memory usage (as proven in the original paper: http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/steal.pdf) and to achieve that the threads are stored in a deque. However, in operating system's schedulers the main objective is to be fair between the users, give each process/kernel thread a fair amount of time to run (as max-min fairness states: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Max-min_fairness), etc. Operating System's schedulers even use different priorities among kernel threads/processes (please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Completely_Fair_Scheduler or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multilevel_feedback_queue). For that reason, work stealing implementations are made in user-level, since their objective is to schedule user-level threads inside a process and not kernel-threads.
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.
I was very confused but the following thread cleared my doubts:
Multiprocessing, Multithreading,HyperThreading, Multi-core
But it addresses the queries from the hardware point of view. I want to know how these hardware features are mapped to software?
One thing that is obvious is that there is no difference between MultiProcessor(=Mutlicpu) and MultiCore other than that in multicore all cpus reside on one chip(die) where as in Multiprocessor all cpus are on their own chips & connected together.
So, mutlicore/multiprocessor systems are capable of executing multiple processes (firefox,mediaplayer,googletalk) at the "sametime" (unlike context switching these processes on a single processor system) Right?
If it correct. I'm clear so far. But the confusion arises when multithreading comes into picture.
MultiThreading "is for" parallel processing. right?
What are elements that are involved in multithreading inside cpu? diagram? For me to exploit the power of parallel processing of two independent tasks, what should be the requriements of CPU?
When people say context switching of threads. I don't really get it. because if its context switching of threads then its not parallel processing. the threads must be executed "scrictly simultaneously". right?
My notion of multithreading is that:
Considering a system with single cpu. when process is context switched to firefox. (suppose) each tab of firefox is a thread and all the threads are executing strictly at the same time. Not like one thread has executed for sometime then again another thread has taken until the context switch time is arrived.
What happens if I run a multithreaded software on a processor which can't handle threads? I mean how does the cpu handle such software?
If everything is good so far, now question is HOW MANY THREADS? It must be limited by hardware, I guess? If hardware can support only 2 threads and I start 10 threads in my process. How would cpu handle it? Pros/Cons? From software engineering point of view, while developing a software that will be used by the users in wide variety of systems, Then how would I decide should I go for multithreading? if so, how many threads?
First, try to understand the concept of 'process' and 'thread'. A thread is a basic unit for execution: a thread is scheduled by operating system and executed by CPU. A process is a sort of container that holds multiple threads.
Yes, either multi-processing or multi-threading is for parallel processing. More precisely, to exploit thread-level parallelism.
Okay, multi-threading could mean hardware multi-threading (one example is HyperThreading). But, I assume that you just say multithreading in software. In this sense, CPU should support context switching.
Context switching is needed to implement multi-tasking even in a physically single core by time division.
Say there are two physical cores and four very busy threads. In this case, two threads are just waiting until they will get the chance to use CPU. Read some articles related to preemptive OS scheduling.
The number of thread that can physically run in concurrent is just identical to # of logical processors. You are asking a general thread scheduling problem in OS literature such as round-robin..
I strongly suggest you to study basics of operating system first. Then move on multithreading issues. It seems like you're still unclear for the key concepts such as context switching and scheduling. It will take a couple of month, but if you really want to be an expert in computer software, then you should know such very basic concepts. Please take whatever OS books and lecture slides.
Threads running on the same core are not technically parallel. They only appear to be executed in parallel, as the CPU switches between them very fast (for us, humans). This switch is what is called context switch.
Now, threads executing on different cores are executed in parallel.
Most modern CPUs have a number of cores, however, most modern OSes (windows, linux and friends) usually execute much larger number of threads, which still causes context switches.
Even if no user program is executed, still OS itself performs context switches for maintanance work.
This should answer 1-3.
About 4: basically, every processor can work with threads. it is much more a characteristic of operating system. Thread is basically: memory (optional), stack and registers, once those are replaced you are in another thread.
5: the number of threads is pretty high and is limited by OS. Usually it is higher than regular programmer can successfully handle :)
The number of threads is dictated by your program:
is it IO bound?
can the task be divided into a number of smaller tasks?
how small is the task? the task can be too small to make it worth to spawn threads at all.
synchronization: if extensive synhronization is required, the penalty might be too heavy and you should reduce the number of threads.
Multiple threads are separate 'chains' of commands within one process. From CPU point of view threads are more or less like processes. Each thread has its own set of registers and its own stack.
The reason why you can have more threads than CPUs is that most threads don't need CPU all the time. Thread can be waiting for user input, downloading something from the web or writing to disk. While it is doing that, it does not need CPU, so CPU is free to execute other threads.
In your example, each tab of Firefox probably can even have several threads. Or they can share some threads. You need one for downloading, one for rendering, one for message loop (user input), and perhaps one to run Javascript. You cannot easily combine them because while you download you still need to react to user's input. However, download thread is sleeping most of the time, and even when it's downloading it needs CPU only occasionally, and message loop thread only wakes up when you press a button.
If you go to task manager you'll see that despite all these threads your CPU use is still quite low.
Of course if all your threads do some number-crunching tasks, then you shouldn't create too many of them as you get no performance benefit (though there may be architectural benefits!).
However, if they are mainly I/O bound then create as many threads as your architecture dictates. It's hard to give advice without knowing your particular task.
Broadly speaking, yeah, but "parallel" can mean different things.
It depends what tasks you want to run in parallel.
Not necessarily. Some (indeed most) threads spend a lot of time doing nothing. Might as well switch away from them to a thread that wants to do something.
The OS handles thread switching. It will delegate to different cores if it wants to. If there's only one core it'll divide time between the different threads and processes.
The number of threads is limited by software and hardware. Threads consume processor and memory in varying degrees depending on what they're doing. The thread management software may impose its own limits as well.
The key thing to remember is the separation between logical/virtual parallelism and real/hardware parallelism. With your average OS, a system call is performed to spawn a new thread. What actually happens (whether it is mapped to a different core, a different hardware thread on the same core, or queued into the pool of software threads) is up to the OS.
Parallel processing uses all the methods not just multi-threading.
Generally speaking, if you want to have real parallel processing, you need to perform it in hardware. Take the example of the Niagara, it has up to 8-cores each capable of executing 4-threads in hardware.
Context switching is needed when there are more threads than is capable of being executed in parallel in hardware. Even then, when executed in series (switching between one thread to the next), they are considered concurrent because there is no guarantee on the order of switching. So, it may go T0, T1, T2, T1, T3, T0, T2 and so on. For all intents and purposes, the threads are parallel.
Time slicing.
That would be up to the OS.
Multithreading is the execution of more than one thread at a time. It can happen both on single core processors and the multicore processor systems. For single processor systems, context switching effects it. Look!Context switching in this computational environment refers to time slicing by the operating system. Therefore do not get confused. The operating system is the one that controls the execution of other programs. It allows one program to execute in the CPU at a time. But the frequency at which the threads are switched in and out of the CPU determines the transparency of parallelism exhibited by the system.
For multicore environment,multithreading occurs when each core executes a thread.Though,in multicore again,context switching can occur in the individual cores.
I think answers so far are pretty much to the point and give you a good basic context. In essence, say you have quad core processor, but each core is capable of executing 2 simultaneous threads.
Note, that there is only slight (or no) increase of speed if you are running 2 simultaneous threads on 1 core versus you run 1st thread and then 2nd thread vertically. However, each physical core adds speed to your general workflow.
Now, say you have a process running on your OS that has multiple threads (i.e. needs to run multiple things in "parallel") and has some kind of stack of tasks in a queue (or some other system with priority rules). Then software sends tasks to a queue and your processor attempts to execute them as fast as it can. Now you have 2 cases:
If a software supports multiprocessing, then tasks will be sent to any available processor (that is not doing anything or simply finished doing some other job and job send from your software is 1st in a queue).
If your software does not support multiprocessing, then all of your jobs will be done in a similar manner, but only by one of your cores.
I suggest reading Wikipedia page on thread. Very first picture there already gives you a nice insight. :)