I have the following questions regarding threading:
If a program creates huge no. of threads, does this affect the performance of the application? And, what is the estimated cost associated with each thread?
Why is it important to be able to stop specific threads during their execution?
In Modern servers, How many threads are executed per seconds? And what is the cost?
Change in your _form.html.haml
from
= form_for new_manage_event_path do |f|
to
= form_for #event do |f|
And in controller
def events_params
params.require(:manage_event).permit(:name, :address, :sdate, :edate, :contact, :number_of_seats)
end
Related
I have 3 classes that represent nearly isolated processes that can be run concurrently (meant to be persistent, like 3 main() loops).
class DataProcess:
...
def runOnce(self):
...
class ComputeProcess:
...
def runOnce(self):
...
class OtherProcess:
...
def runOnce(self):
...
Here's the pattern I'm trying to achieve:
start various streams
start each process
allow each process to publish to any stream
allow each process to listen to any stream (at various points in it's loop) and behave accordingly (allow for interruption of it's current task or not, etc.)
For example one 'process' Listens for external data. Another process does computation on some of that data. The computation process might be busy for a while, so by the time it comes back to start and checks the stream, there may be many values that piled up. I don't want to just use a queue because, actually I don't want to be forced to process each one in order, I'd rather be able to implement logic like, "if there is one or multiple things waiting, just run your process one more time, otherwise go do this interruptible task while you wait for something to show up."
That's like a lot, right? So I was thinking of using an actor model until I discovered RxPy. I saw that a stream is like a subject
from reactivex.subject import BehaviorSubject
newData = BehaviorSubject()
newModel = BehaviorSubject()
then I thought I'd start 3 threads for each of my high level processes:
thread = threading.Thread(target=data)
threads = {'data': thread}
thread = threading.Thread(target=compute)
threads = {'compute': thread}
thread = threading.Thread(target=other)
threads = {'other': thread}
for thread in threads.values():
thread.start()
and I thought the functions of those threads should listen to the streams:
def data():
while True:
DataProcess().runOnce() # publishes to stream inside process
def compute():
def run():
ComuteProcess().runOnce()
newData.events.subscribe(run())
newModel.events.subscribe(run())
def other():
''' not done '''
ComuteProcess().runOnce()
Ok, so that's what I have so far. Is this pattern going to give me what I'm looking for?
Should I use threading in conjunction with rxpy or just use rxpy scheduler stuff to achieve concurrency? If so how?
I hope this question isn't too vague, I suppose I'm looking for the simplest framework where I can have a small number of computational-memory units (like objects because they have internal state) that communicate with each other and work in parallel (or concurrently). At the highest level I want to be able to treat these computational-memory units (which I've called processes above) as like individuals who mostly work on their own stuff but occasionally broadcast or send a message to a specific other individual, requesting information or providing information.
Am I perhaps actually looking for an actor model framework? or is this RxPy setup versatile enough to achieve that without extreme complexity?
Thanks so much!
I got array with [a-z,A-Z] ASCII numbers like so: my #alphabet = (65..90,97..122);
So main thread functionality is checking each character from alphabet and return string if condition is true.
Simple example :
my #output = ();
for my $ascii(#alphabet){
thread->new(\sub{ return chr($ascii); });
}
I want to run thread on every ASCII number, then put letter from thread function into array in the correct order.
So in out case array #output should be dynamic and contain [a..z,A-Z] after all threads finish their job.
How to check, is all threads is done and keep the order?
You're looking for $thread->join, which waits for a thread to finish. It's documented here, and this SO question may also help.
Since in your case it looks like the work being done in the threads is roughly equal in cost (no thread is going to take a long time more than any other), you can just join each thread in order, like so, to wait for them all to finish:
# Store all the threads for each letter in an array.
my #threads = map { thread->new(\sub{ return chr($_); }) } #alphabet;
my #results = map { $_->join } #threads;
Since, when the first thread returns from join, the others are likely already done and just waiting for "join" to grab their return code, or about to be done, this gets you pretty close to "as fast as possible" parallelism-wise, and, since the threads were created in order, #results is ordered already for free.
Now, if your threads can take variable amounts of time to finish, or if you need to do some time-consuming processing in the "main"/spawning thread before plugging child threads' results into the output data structure, joining them in order might not be so good. In that case, you'll need to somehow either: a) detect thread "exit" events as they happen, or b) poll to see which threads have exited.
You can detect thread "exit" events using signals/notifications sent from the child threads to the main/spawning thread. The easiest/most common way to do that is to use the cond_wait and cond_signal functions from threads::shared. Your main thread would wait for signals from child threads, process their output, and store it into the result array. If you take this approach, you should preallocate your result array to the right size, and provide the output index to your threads (e.g. use a C-style for loop when you create your threads and have them return ($result, $index_to_store) or similar) so you can store results in the right place even if they are out of order.
You can poll which threads are done using the is_joinable thread instance method, or using the threads->list(threads::joinable) and threads->list(threads::running) methods in a loop (hopefully not a busy-waiting one; adding a sleep call--even a subsecond one from Time::HiRes--will save a lot of performance/battery in this case) to detect when things are done and grab their results.
Important Caveat: spawning a huge number of threads to perform a lot of work in parallel, especially if that work is small/quick to complete, can cause performance problems, and it might be better to use a smaller number of threads that each do more than one "piece" of work (e.g. spawn a small number of threads, and each thread uses the threads::shared functions to lock and pop the first item off of a shared array of "work to do" and do it rather than map work to threads as 1:1). There are two main performance problems that arise from a 1:1 mapping:
the overhead (in memory and time) of spawning and joining each thread is much higher than you'd think (benchmark it on threads that don't do anything, just return, to see). If the work you need to do is fast, the overhead of thread management for tons of threads can make it much slower than just managing a few re-usable threads.
If you end up with a lot more threads than there are logical CPU cores and each thread is doing CPU-intensive work, or if each thread is accessing the same resource (e.g. reading from the same disks or the same rows in a database), you hit a performance cliff pretty quickly. Tuning the number of threads to the "resources" underneath (whether those are CPUs or hard drives or whatnot) tends to yield much better throughput than trusting the thread scheduler to switch between many more threads than there are available resources to run them on. The reasons this is slow are, very broadly:
Because the thread scheduler (part of the OS, not the language) can't know enough about what each thread is trying to do, so preemptive scheduling cannot optimize for performance past a certain point, given that limited knowledge.
The OS usually tries to give most threads a reasonably fair shot, so it can't reliably say "let one run to completion and then run the next one" unless you explicitly bake that into the code (since the alternative would be unpredictably starving certain threads for opportunities to run). Basically, switching between "run a slice of thread 1 on resource X" and "run a slice of thread 2 on resource X" doesn't get you anything once you have more threads than resources, and adds some overhead as well.
TL;DR threads don't give you performance increases past a certain point, and after that point they can make performance worse. When you can, reuse a number of threads corresponding to available resources; don't create/destroy individual threads corresponding to tasks that need to be done.
Building on Zac B's answer, you can use the following if you want to reuse threads:
use strict;
use warnings;
use Thread::Pool::Simple qw( );
$| = 1;
my $pool = Thread::Pool::Simple->new(
do => [ sub {
select(undef, undef, undef, (200+int(rand(8))*100)/1000);
return chr($_[0]);
} ],
);
my #alphabet = ( 65..90, 97..122 );
print $pool->remove($_) for map { $pool->add($_) } #alphabet;
print "\n";
The results are returned in order, as soon as they become available.
I'm the author of Parallel::WorkUnit so I'm partial to it. And I thought adding ordered responses was actually a great idea. It does it with forks, not threads, because forks are more widely supported and they often perform better in Perl.
my $wu = Parallel::WorkUnit->new();
for my $ascii(#alphabet){
$wu->async(sub{ return chr($ascii); });
}
#output = $wu->waitall();
If you want to limit the number of simultaneous processes:
my $wu = Parallel::WorkUnit->new(max_children => 5);
for my $ascii(#alphabet){
$wu->queue(sub{ return chr($ascii); });
}
#output = $wu->waitall();
Vert.x have many thread pool, eventLoopGroup,acceptorEventLoopGroup,internalBlockingPool,workerPool.
Why need so many?
FileSystem read file will use internalBlockingPool, but like this code executeBlocking will use workerPool.
And in this code why resultHandler execute in eventLoop thread not
workpool?
vertx.executeBlocking(future -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
future.complete();
}, r -> {
System.out.println(Thread.currentThread().getName());
});
In my understanding eventloop just a single thread is endless loop for channel.If nothing to do with network, no need to use eventLoopGroup.
how to understand event in Vert.x, can give some Vert.x code not netty code？
Event loops: there can be more than one event loop thread. There typically will be more than one event loop thread (it depends on your number of cores). For example,if you start N instances of a verticle, you will want it to spread across multiple cores using multiple event loops. In the docs, look up the multi-reactor pattern.
Vert.x works differently here. Instead of a single event loop, each
Vertx instance maintains several event loops. By default we choose the
number based on the number of available cores on the machine, but this
can be overridden.
http://vertx.io/docs/vertx-core/java/#_reactor_and_multi_reactor
Regarding your question about the result handler: The execute blocking function will run on a worker thread, but once it is all done, it will be pushed over to the event loop thread to finish the result handler. This behavior helps with keeping certain logic on the event loop thread.
Regarding the other thread groups, they just handle specific functionality in vert.x. If you are stressed about the number of threads in vert.x, I would not worry about it. Vert.x does a good job keeping the OS threads to a minimum while maintaining high functionality and throughput.
I am running a complex software with different actors (scala actors). Some of them have some executions that uses scala futures to avoid locking and keep processing new received messages (simplified code):
def act {
while (true) {
receive {
case (code: String) =>
val codeMatch = future { match_code(code) }
for (c <- codeMatch)
yield callback(code)(JSON.parseJSON(c))
}
}
}
def match_code(code: String) {
val result = s"my_script.sh $code" !!
}
I noticed looking at jvisualvm and Eclipse Debugger that the number of active threads keeps increasing when this system is running. I am afraid I am having some kind of Thread leak, but I can't detect where is the problem.
Here are some screenshots of both finished and live threads (I hided some live threads that are not related to this problem)
Finished Threads
Living threads
Edit 1:
In the above graphs example, I run the system with only 3 actors of different classes: Actor1 sends messages to Actor2 that sends message to Actor3
You are using receive so each actor will use its own thread, and you don't at least in this example provide any way for actors to terminate. So you would expect to have one new thread per actor that was ever started. If that is what you see, then all is working as expected. If you want to have actors cease running, you will have to let them eventually fall out of the while loop or call sys.exit on them or somesuch.
(Also, old-style Scala actors are deprecated in favor of Akka actors in 2.11.)
You also don't (in the code above) have any indication whether the future actually completed. If the futures don't finish, they'll keep tying up threads.
Coding in Lua, I have a triply nested loop that goes through 6000 iterations. All 6000 iterations are independent and can easily be parallelized. What threads package for Lua compiles out of the box and gets decent parallel speedups on four or more cores?
Here's what I know so far:
luaproc comes from the core Lua team, but the software bundle on luaforge is old, and the mailing list has reports of it segfaulting. Also, it's not obvious to me how to use the scalar message-passing model to get results ultimately into a parent thread.
Lua Lanes makes interesting claims but seems to be a heavyweight, complex solution. Many messages on the mailing list report trouble getting Lua Lanes to build or work for them. I myself have had trouble getting the underlying "Lua rocks" distribution mechanism to work for me.
LuaThread requires explicit locking and requires that communication between threads be mediated by global variables that are protected by locks. I could imagine worse, but I'd be happier with a higher level of abstraction.
Concurrent Lua provides an attractive message-passing model similar to Erlang, but it says that processes do not share memory. It is not clear whether spawn actually works with any Lua function or whether there are restrictions.
Russ Cox proposed an occasional threading model that works only for C threads. Not useful for me.
I will upvote all answers that report on actual experience with these or any other multithreading package, or any answer that provides new information.
For reference, here is the loop I would like to parallelize:
for tid, tests in pairs(tests) do
local results = { }
matrix[tid] = results
for i, test in pairs(tests) do
if test.valid then
results[i] = { }
local results = results[i]
for sid, bin in pairs(binaries) do
local outcome, witness = run_test(test, bin)
results[sid] = { outcome = outcome, witness = witness }
end
end
end
end
The run_test function is passed in as an argument, so a package can be useful to me only if it can run arbitrary functions in parallel. My goal is enough parallelism to get 100% CPU utilization on 6 to 8 cores.
Norman wrote concerning luaproc:
"it's not obvious to me how to use the scalar message-passing model to get results ultimately into a parent thread"
I had the same problem with a use case I was dealing with. I liked lua proc due to its simple and light implementation, but my use case had C code that was calling lua, which was triggering a co-routine that needed to send/receive messages to interact with other luaproc threads.
To achieve my desired functionality I had to add features to luaproc to allow sending and receiving messages from the parent thread or any other thread not running from the luaproc scheduler. Additionally, my changes allow using luaproc send/receive from coroutines created from luaproc.newproc() created lua states.
I added an additional luaproc.addproc() function to the api which is to be called from any lua state running from a context not controlled by the luaproc scheduler in order to set itself up with luaproc for sending/receiving messages.
I am considering posting the source as a new github project or contacting the developers and seeing if they would like to pull my additions. Suggestions as to how I should make it available to others are welcome.
Check the threads library in torch family. It implements a thread pool model: a few true threads (pthread in linux and windows thread in win32) are created first. Each thread has a lua_State object and a blocking job queue that admits jobs added from the main thread.
Lua objects are copied over from main thread to the job thread. However C objects such as Torch tensors or tds data structures can be passed to job threads via pointers -- this is how limited shared memory is achieved.
This is a perfect example of MapReduce
You can use LuaRings to accomplish your parallelization needs.
Concurrent Lua might seem like the way to go, but as I note in my updates below, it doesn't run things in parallel. The approach I tried was to spawn several processes that execute pickled closures received through the message queue.
Update
Concurrent Lua seems to handle first-class functions and closures without a hitch. See the following example program.
require 'concurrent'
local NUM_WORKERS = 4 -- number of worker threads to use
local NUM_WORKITEMS = 100 -- number of work items for processing
-- calls the received function in the local thread context
function worker(pid)
while true do
-- request new work
concurrent.send(pid, { pid = concurrent.self() })
local msg = concurrent.receive()
-- exit when instructed
if msg.exit then return end
-- otherwise, run the provided function
msg.work()
end
end
-- creates workers, produces all the work and performs shutdown
function tasker()
local pid = concurrent.self()
-- create the worker threads
for i = 1, NUM_WORKERS do concurrent.spawn(worker, pid) end
-- provide work to threads as requests are received
for i = 1, NUM_WORKITEMS do
local msg = concurrent.receive()
-- send the work as a closure
concurrent.send(msg.pid, { work = function() print(i) end, pid = pid })
end
-- shutdown the threads as they complete
for i = 1, NUM_WORKERS do
local msg = concurrent.receive()
concurrent.send(msg.pid, { exit = true })
end
end
-- create the task process
local pid = concurrent.spawn(tasker)
-- run the event loop until all threads terminate
concurrent.loop()
Update 2
Scratch all of that stuff above. Something didn't look right when I was testing this. It turns out that Concurrent Lua isn't concurrent at all. The "processes" are implemented with coroutines and all run cooperatively in the same thread context. That's what we get for not reading carefully!
So, at least I eliminated one of the options I guess. :(
I realize that this is not a works-out-of-the-box solution, but, maybe go old-school and play with forks? (Assuming you're on a POSIX system.)
What I would have done:
Right before your loop, put all tests in a queue, accessible between processes. (A file, a Redis LIST or anything else you like most.)
Also before the loop, spawn several forks with lua-posix (same as the number of cores or even more depending on the nature of tests). In parent fork wait until all children will quit.
In each fork in a loop, get a test from the queue, execute it, put results somewhere. (To a file, to a Redis LIST, anywhere else you like.) If there are no more tests in queue, quit.
In the parent fetch and process all test results as you do now.
This assumes that test parameters and results are serializable. But even if they are not, I think that it should be rather easy to cheat around that.
I've now built a parallel application using luaproc. Here are some misconceptions that kept me from adopting it sooner, and how to work around them.
Once the parallel threads are launched, as far as I can tell there is no way for them to communicate back to the parent. This property was the big block for me. Eventually I realized the way forward: when it's done forking threads, the parent stops and waits. The job that would have been done by the parent should instead be done by a child thread, which should be dedicated to that job. Not a great model, but it works.
Communication between parent and children is very limited. The parent can communicate only scalar values: strings, Booleans, and numbers. If the parent wants to communicate more complex values, like tables and functions, it must code them as strings. Such coding can take place inline in the program, or (especially) functions can be parked into the filesystem and loaded into the child using require.
The children inherit nothing of the parent's environment. In particular, they don't inherit package.path or package.cpath. I had to work around this by the way I wrote the code for the children.
The most convenient way to communicate from parent to child is to define the child as a function, and to have the child capture parental information in its free variables, known in Lua parlances as "upvalues." These free variables may not be global variables, and they must be scalars. Still, it's a decent model. Here's an example:
local function spawner(N, workers)
return function()
local luaproc = require 'luaproc'
for i = 1, N do
luaproc.send('source', i)
end
for i = 1, workers do
luaproc.send('source', nil)
end
end
end
This code is used as, e.g.,
assert(luaproc.newproc(spawner(randoms, workers)))
This call is how values randoms and workers are communicated from parent to child.
The assertion is essential here, as if you forget the rules and accidentally capture a table or a local function, luaproc.newproc will fail.
Once I understood these properties, luaproc did indeed work "out of the box", when downloaded from askyrme on github.
ETA: There is an annoying limitation: in some circumstances, calling fread() in one thread can prevent other threads from being scheduled. In particular, if I run the sequence
local file = io.popen(command, 'r')
local result = file:read '*a'
file:close()
return result
the read operation blocks all other threads. I don't know why this is---I assume it is some nonsense going on within glibc. The workaround I used was to call directly to read(2), which required a little glue code, but this works properly with io.popen and file:close().
There's one other limitation worth noting:
Unlike Tony Hoare's original conception of communicating sequential processing, and unlike most mature, serious implementations of synchronous message passing, luaproc does not allow a receiver to block on multiple channels simultaneously. This limitation is serious, and it rules out many of the design patterns that synchronous message-passing is good at, but it's still find for many simple models of parallelism, especially the "parbegin" sort that I needed to solve for my original problem.