Related
I have couple of doubts regarding the process and threads and are given below
1.What are the things that thread doesn’t share with process?
2.Why there is separate stack for each thread?
3.How do two threads from different process communicate?
1) This is a definition. You don't need "help" with this one, you need a "book."
2) I'm very willing to help this one. It isn't a simple definition question, so let's start by answering your question with a question... In a single-process, single-thread system, what is the purpose of the stack? Once you can answer this, you are an inch from answering this question.
3) On what system?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computing)
Wikipedia is down for the moment, butafter that, you can check it :)
Your second question actually answers your first. Threads work at a different rate from one another. Imagine a program being 1 line of commands all following eachother, waiting for completion of one another. Now add a second line so you have 2 bits of processing done at the same time (and different rates of speed quite possibly). That's a thread.
In essence, a thread is a different process, spawned from a mutual application. Usability varies greatly according to which system you use and what you wist to accomplish.
These are the types of things you're better off using Google that Stackoverflow.
It seems that I've finally got to implement some sort of threading into my Delphi 2009 program. If there were only one way to do it, I'd be off and running. But I see several possibilities.
Can anyone explain what's the difference between these and why I'd choose one over another.
The TThread class in Delphi
AsyncCalls by Andreas Hausladen
OmniThreadLibrary by Primoz Gabrijelcic (gabr)
... any others?
Edit:
I have just read an excellent article by Gabr in the March 2010 (No 10) issue of Blaise Pascal Magazine titled "Four Ways to Create a Thread". You do have to subscribe to gain content to the magazine, so by copyright, I can't reproduce anything substantial about it here.
In summary, Gabr describes the difference between using TThreads, direct Windows API calls, Andy's AsyncCalls, and his own OmniThreadLibrary. He does conclude at the end that:
"I'm not saying that you have to choose anything else than the classical Delphi way (TThread) but it is still good to be informed of options you have"
Mghie's answer is very thorough and suggests OmniThreadLibrary may be preferable. But I'm still interested in everyone's opinions about how I (or anyone) should choose their threading method for their application.
And you can add to the list:
. 4. Direct calls to the Windows API
. 5. Misha Charrett's CSI Distributed Application Framework as suggested by LachlanG in his answer.
Conclusion:
I'm probably going to go with OmniThreadLibrary. I like Gabr's work. I used his profiler GPProfile many years ago, and I'm currently using his GPStringHash which is actually part of OTL.
My only concern might be upgrading it to work with 64-bit or Unix/Mac processing once Embarcadero adds that functionality into Delphi.
If you are not experienced with multi-threading you should probably not start with TThread, as it is but a thin layer over native threading. I consider it also to be a little rough around the edges; it has not evolved a lot since the introduction with Delphi 2, mostly changes to allow for Linux compatibility in the Kylix time frame, and to correct the more obvious defects (like fixing the broken MREW class, and finally deprecating Suspend() and Resume() in the latest Delphi version).
Using a simple thread wrapper class basically also causes the developer to focus on a level that is much too low. To make proper use of multiple CPU cores a focus on tasks instead of threads is better, because the partitioning of work with threads does not adapt well to changing requirements and environments - depending on the hardware and the other software running in parallel the optimum number of threads may vary greatly, even at different times on the same system. A library that you pass only chunks of work to, and which schedules them automatically to make best use of the available resources helps a lot in this regard.
AsyncCalls is a good first step to introduce threads into an application. If you have several areas in your program where a number of time-consuming steps need to be performed that are independent of each other, then you can simply execute them asynchronously by passing each of them to AsyncCalls. Even when you have only one such time-consuming action you can execute it asynchronously and simply show a progress UI in the VCL thread, optionally allowing for cancelling the action.
AsyncCalls is IMO not so good for background workers that stay around during the whole program runtime, and it may be impossible to use when some of the objects in your program have thread affinity (like database connections or OLE objects that may have a requirement that all calls happen in the same thread).
What you also need to be aware of is that these asynchronous actions are not of the "fire-and-forget" kind. Every overloaded AsyncCall() function returns an IAsyncCall interface pointer that you may need to keep a reference to if you want to avoid blocking. If you don't keep a reference, then the moment the ref count reaches zero the interface will be freed, which will cause the thread releasing the interface to wait for the asynchronous call to complete. This is something that you might see while debugging, when exiting the method that created the IAsyncCall may take a mysterious amount of time.
OTL is in my opinion the most versatile of your three options, and I would use it without a second thought. It can do everything TThread and AsyncCalls can do, plus much more. It has a sound design, which is high-level enough both to make life for the user easy, and to let a port to a Unixy system (while keeping most of the interface intact) look at least possible, if not easy. In the last months it has also started to acquire some high-level constructs for parallel work, highly recommended.
OTL has a few dozen samples too, which is important to get started. AsyncCalls has nothing but a few lines in comments, but then it is easy enough to understand due to its limited functionality (it does only one thing, but it does it well). TThread has only one sample, which hasn't really changed in 14 years and is mostly an example of how not to do things.
Whichever of the options you choose, no library will eliminate the need to understand threading basics. Having read a good book on these is a prerequisite to any successful coding. Proper locking for example is a requirement with all of them.
There is another lesser known Delphi threading library, Misha Charrett's CSI Application Framework.
It's based around message passing rather than shared memory. The same message passing mechanism is used to communicate between threads running in the same process or in other processes so it's both a threading library and a distributed inter-process communication library.
There's a bit of a learning curve to get started but once you get going you don't have to worry about all the traditional threading issues such as deadlocks and synchronisation, the framework takes care of most of that for you.
Misha's been developing this for years and is still actively improving the framework and documentation all the time. He's always very responsive to support questions.
TThread is a simple class that encapsulates a Windows thread. You make a descendant class with an Execute method that contains the code this thread should execute, create the thread and set it to run and the code executes.
AsyncCalls and OmniThreadLibrary are both libraries that build a higher-level concept on top of threads. They're about tasks, discrete pieces of work that you need to have execute asynchronously. You start the library, it sets up a task pool, a group of special threads whose job is to wait around until you have work for them, and then you pass the library a function pointer (or method pointer or anonymous method) containing the code that needs to be executed, and it executes it in one of the task pool threads and handles a lot of the the low-level details for you.
I haven't used either library all that much, so I can't really give you a comparison between the two. Try them out and see what they can do, and which one feels better to you.
(sorry, I don't have enough points to comment so I'm putting this in as an answer rather than another vote for OTL)
I've used TThread, CSI and OmniThread (OTL). The two libraries both have non-trivial learning curves but are much more capable than TThread. My conclusion is that if you're going to do anything significant with threading you'll end up writing half of the library functionality anyway, so you might as well start with the working, debugged version someone else wrote. Both Misha and Gabr are better programmers than most of us, so odds are they've done a better job than we will.
I've looked at AsyncCalls but it didn't do enough of what I wanted. One thing it does have is a "Synchronize" function (missing from OTL) so if you're dependent on that you might go with AynscCalls purely for that. IMO using message passing is not hard enough to justify the nastiness of Synchronize, so buckle down and learn how to use messages.
Of the three I prefer OTL, largely because of the collection of examples but also because it's more self-contained. That's less of an issue if you're already using the JCL or you work in only one place, but I do a mix including contract work and selling clients on installing Misha's system is harder than the OTL, just because the OTL is ~20 files in one directory. That sounds silly, but it's important for many people.
With OTL the combination of searching the examples and source code for keywords, and asking questions in the forums works for me. I'm familiar with the traditional "offload CPU-intensive tasks" threading jobs, but right now I'm working on backgrounding a heap of database work which has much more "threads block waiting for DB" and less "CPU maxed out", and the OTL is working quite well for that. The main differences are that I can have 30+ threads running without the CPU maxing out, but stopping one is generally impossible.
I know this isn't the most advanced method :-) and maybe it has limitations too, but I just tried System.BeginThread and found it quite simple - probably because of the quality of the documentation I was referring to... http://www.delphibasics.co.uk/RTL.asp?Name=BeginThread (IMO Neil Moffatt could teach MSDN a thing or two)
That's the biggest factor I find in trying to learn new things, the quality of the documentation, not it's quantity. A couple of hours was all it took, then I was back to the real work rather than worrying about how to get the thread to do it's business.
EDIT actually Rob Kennedy does a great job explaining BeginThread here BeginThread Structure - Delphi
EDIT actually the way Rob Kennedy explains TThread in the same post, I think I'll change my code to use TThread tommorrow. Who knows what it will look like next week! (AsyncCalls maybe)
While reading up on SQLite, I stumbled upon this quote in the FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid them."
I have a lot of respect for SQLite, so I couldn't just disregard this. I got thinking what else I could, according to the "avoid them" policy, use instead in order to parallelize my tasks. As an example, the application I'm currently working on requires a user interface that is always responsive, and needs to poll several websites from time to time (a process which takes at least 30 seconds for each website).
So I opened up the PDF linked from that FAQ, and essentially it seems that the paper suggests several techniques to be applied together with threads, such as barriers or transactional memory - rather than any techniques to replace threads altogether.
Given that these techniques do not fully dispense with threads (unless I misunderstood what the paper is saying), I can see two options: either the SQLite FAQ does not literally mean what it says, or there exist practical approaches that actually avoid the use of threads altogether. Are there any?
Just a quick note on tasklets/cooperative scheduling as an alternative - this looks great in small examples, but I wonder whether a large-ish UI-heavy application can be practically parallelized in a solely cooperative way. If you have done this successfully or know of such examples this certainly qualifies as a valid answer!
Note: This answer no longer accurately reflects what I think about this subject. I don't like its overly dramatic, somewhat nasty tone. Also, I am not so certain that the quest for provably correct software has been so useless as I seemed to think back then. I am leaving this answer up because it is accepted, and up-voted, and to edit it into something I currently believe would pretty much vandalize it.
I finally got around to reading the paper. Where do I start?
The author is singing an old song, which goes something like this: "If you can't prove the program is correct, we're all doomed!" It sounds best when screamed loudly accompanied by over modulated electric guitars and a rapid drum beat. Academics started singing that song when computer science was in the domain of mathematics, a world where if you don't have a proof, you don't have anything. Even after the first computer science department was cleaved from the mathematics department, they kept singing that song. They are singing that song today, and nobody is listening. Why? Because the rest of us are busy creating useful things, good things out of software that can't be proved correct.
The presence of threads makes it even more difficult to prove a program correct, but who cares? Even without threads, only the most trivial of programs can be proved correct. Why do I care if my non-trivial program, which could not be proved correct, is even more unprovable after I use threading? I don't.
If you weren't sure the author was living in an academic dreamworld, you can be sure of it after he maintains that the coordination language he suggests as an alternative to threads could best be expressed with a "visual syntax" (drawing graphs on the screen). I've never heard that suggestion before, except every year of my career. A language that can only be manipulated by GUI and does not play with any of the programmer's usual tools is not an improvement. The author goes on to cite UML as a shining example of a visual syntax which is "routinely combined with C++ and Java." Routinely in what world?
In the mean time, I and many other programmers go on using threads without all that much trouble. How to use threads well and safely is pretty much a solved problem, as long as you don't get all hung up on provability.
Look. Threading is a big kid's toy, and you do need to know some theory and usage patterns to use them well. Just as with databases, distributed processing, or any of the other beyond-grade-school devices that programmers successfully use every day. But just because you can't prove it correct doesn't mean it's wrong.
The statement in the SQLite FAQ, as I read it, is just a comment on how difficult threading can be to the uninitiated. It is the author's opinion, and it might be a valid one. But saying you should never use threads is throwing the baby out with the bath water, in my opinion. Threads are a tool. Like all tools, they can be used and they can be abused. I can read his paper and be convinced that threads are the devil, but I have used them successfully, without killing kittens.
Keep in mind that SQLite is written to be as lightweight and easy to understand (from a coding standpoint) as possible, so I would imagine that threading is kind of the antithesis to this lightweight approach.
Also, SQLite is not meant to be used in a highly-concurrent environment. If you have one of these, you might be better off working with a more enterprisey database like Postgres.
Evil, but a necessary evil. High level abstractions of threads (Tasks in .NET for example) are becoming more common but for the most part the industry is not trying to find a way to avoid threads, just making it easier to deal with the complexities that come with any kind of concurrent programming.
One trend I've noticed, at least in the Cocoa domain, is help from the framework. Apple has gone to great lengths to help developers with the relatively difficult concept of concurrent programming. Some things I've seen:
Different granularity of threading. Cocoa supports everything from posix threads (low level) to object oriented threading with NSLock and NSThread, to high level parellelism such as NSOperation. Depending on your task, using a high level tool like NSOperation is easier and gets the job done.
Threading behind the scenes via an API. Lots of the UI and animation stuff in cocoa is hidden behind an API. You are responsible for calling an API method and providing an asynchronous callback this executed when the secondary thread completes (for example the end of some animation).
openMP. There are tools like openMP that allow you to provide pragmas that describe to the compiler that some task may be safely parelellized. For example iterating a set of items in an independent way.
It seems like a big push in this industry is to make things simple for the Application developers and leave the gory thread details to the system developers and framework developers. There is a push in academia for formalizing parellel patterns. As mentioned you cant always avoid threading, but there are an increasing number of tools in your arsenal to make it as painless as possible.
If you really want to live without threads, you can, so long as you don't call any functions that can potentially block. This may not be possible.
One alternative is to implement the tasks you would have made into threads as finite state machines. Basically, the task does what it can do immediately, then goes to its next state, waiting for an event, such as input arriving on a file or a timer going off. X Windows, as well as most GUI toolkits, support this style. When something happens, they call a callback, which does what it needs to do and returns. For a FSM, the callback checks to see what state the task is in and what the event is to determine what to do immediately and what the next state will be.
Say you have an app that needs to accept socket connections, and for each connection, parse command lines, execute some code, and return the results. A task would then be what listens to a socket. When select() (or Gtk+, or whatever) tells you the socket has something to read, you read it into a buffer, then check to see if you have enough input buffered to do something. If so, you advance to a "start doing something" state, otherwise you stay in the "reading a line" state. (What you "do" could be multiple states.) When done, your task drops the line from the buffer and goes back to the "reading a line" state. No threads or preemption needed.
This lets you act multithreaded by way of being event-driven. If your state machines are complicated, however, your code can get hard to maintain pretty fast, and you'll need to work up some kind of FSM-management library to separate the grunt work of running the FSM from the code that actually does things.
P.S. Another way to get threads without really using threads is the GNU Pth library. It doesn't do preemption, but it is another option if you really don't want to deal with threads.
Another approach to this may be to use a different concurrency model rather than avoid multithreading altogether (you have to utilize all these CPU cores in parallel somehow).
Take a look at mechanisms used in Clojure (e.g. agents, software transactional memory).
Software Transactional Memory (STM) is a good alternative concurrency control. It scales well with multiple processors and do not have most of the problems of conventional concurrency control mechanisms. It is implemented as part of the Haskell language. It worths giving a try. Although, I do not know how this is applicable in the context of SQLite.
Alternatives to threads:
coroutines
goroutines
mapreduce
workerpool
apple's grand central dispatch+lambdas
openCL
erlang
(interesting to note that half of those technologies were invented or popularised by google.)
Another thing is many web frameworks transparently use multiple threads/processes for handling requests, and usually in such a way that mostly eliminates the problems associated with multithreading (for the user of the framework), or at least makes the threading rather invisible. The web being stateless, the only shared state is session state (which isn't really a problem since by definition, a single session isn't going to be doing concurrent things), and data in a database that already has its multithreading nonsense sorted out for you.
It's somewhat important to note though that these are all abstractions. The underlying implementations of these things still use threads. But this is still incredibly useful. In the same way you wouldn't use assembler to write a web application, you wouldn't use threads directly to write any important application. Designing an application to use threads is too complicated to leave for a human to deal with.
Threading is not the only model of concurrency. The actors model (Erlang, Scala) is an example of a somewhat different approach.
http://www.scala-lang.org/node/242
If your task is really, really easily isolatable, you can use processes instead of threads, like Chrome does for its tabs.
Otherwise, inside a single process, there is no way to achieve real parallelism without threads, because you need at least two coroutines if you want two things to happen at the same time (assuming you're having multiple processors/cores at hand, of course; otherwise real parallelism is simply not possible).
The complexity of threading a program is always relative to the degree of isolation of the tasks the threads will perform. There's no trouble in running several threads if you know for sure these will never use the same variables. Then again, multiple high-level constructs exist in modern languages to help synchronize access to shared resources.
It's really a matter of application. If your task is simple enough to fit in some kind of high-level Task object (depends on your development platform; your mileage may vary), then using a task queue is your best bet. My rule of the thumb is that if you can't find a cool name to your thread, then its task is not important enough to justify a thread (instead of task going on an operation queue).
Threads give you the opportunity to do some evil things, specifically sharing state among different execution paths. But they offer a lot of convenience; you don't have to do expensive communication across process boundaries. Plus, they come with less overhead. So I think they're perfectly fine, used correctly.
I think the key is to share as little data as possible among the threads; just stick to synchronization data. If you try to share more than that, you have to engage in complex code that is hard to get right the first time around.
One method of avoiding threads is multiplexing - in essence you make a lightweight mechanism similar to threads which you manage yourself.
Thing is this is not always viable. In your case the 30s polling time per website - can it be split into 60 0.5s pieces, in between which you can stuff calls to the UI? If not, sorry.
Threads aren't evil, they are just easy to shoot your foot with. If doing Query A takes 30s and then doing Query B takes another 30s, doing them simultaneously in threads will take 120s instead of 60 due to thread overhead, fighting for disk access and various bottlenecks.
But if Operation A consists of 5s of activity and 55 seconds of waiting, mixed randomly, and Operation B takes 60s of actual work, doing them in threads will take maybe 70s, compared to plain 120 when you execute them in sequence.
The rule of thumb is: threads should idle and wait most of the time. They are good for I/O, slow reads, low-priority work and so on. If you want performance, use multiplexing, which requires more work but is faster, more efficient and has way less caveats. (synchronizing threads and avoiding race conditions is a whole different chapter of thread headaches...)
we all writing code for single processor.
i wonder when we all are able to write code on multi processors?
what do we need (software tools, logic, algorithms) for this switching?
edit: in my view, as we do many task parallely, same way we need to convert those real life solutions(algorithms) to computer lang. just as OOPs coding did for procedural coding. OOPs is more real life coding style than procedural one. so i hope for that kind of solutions.
I think the most important requirement is a good language that has native constructs that support parallelism or one that can automatically generate parallel code. There are quite a few languages that fit that description, but none of them is popular enough to really be considered for mainstream use. That, in turn is caused by several things:
By their very nature, these languages are very different from today's imperative languages, and are therefor harder to learn (or at least seem that way).
They often lack good tools and libraries, making them unusable for any "real" project.
Of course, if it were more popular more people would be willing to learn it and there would be more support, so it's a kind of cycle that's pretty hard to break out of. I guess all we can do is hope. :)
An example of a language designed with heavy parallelization in mind is Erlang - and it's actually used in commercial projects.
What we need are natural abstractions for highly-concurrent algorithms. Actors (think: Erlang) go a long way in this direction, but they aren't a one-size-fits-all solution. Some more specific abstractions like fork/join or map/reduce can be even easier to apply to common problems.
The trick with all of these concurrency abstractions is they require functional-style programming. Concurrency doesn't mesh well with shared mutable state. As they say, "Locks considered harmful". Since most developers come from a strictly imperative background, switching to a shared-nothing continuation passing approach is often extremely challenging.
Incidentally, with respect to concurrency abstractions, Clojure has some very interesting features in this direction. Not only does it have sort-of actors, but it also defines a transactional memory model (think: databases) along with a global, atomic references mechanism. These two features allow concurrent operations to share "mutable" state without ever having to worry about locking or race conditions.
In the end, it comes down to education. Much of the needed theoretical work into concurrency abstractions has already been done, we just need to accept it. Unfortunately, as Erlang and Haskell prove, sometimes the best ideas remain relegated to an extremely fringe demographic. Hopefully efforts like Scala and Clojure will succeed in bringing the more advanced abstractions into the mainstream by sneaking them onto an existing, well-supported platform (the JVM).
Unfortunately for massive concurrent programming - unless there is a breakthrough in compilers to help, we will be throwing out a lot of what we know about algorithms (I think Don Knuth even said that). Read about Erlang for a glimpse of this possible future.
There are several tools/languages that are popular or are gaining popularity. If you use FORTRAN, C, or C++, you can use OpenMP (not too hard to implement) or the Message Passing Interface (MPI) libraries (powerful and greatest speedup potential, but also complex and difficult). OpenMP uses preprocessor directives to mark areas that can be parallelized, especially loops. MPI uses messages that pass data back and forth between processes, and the greatest difficulty is keeping everything synchronized without hitting bottlenecks and keeping processes waiting. I would say MPI is definitely on the way out, however. It's become clear in the scientific/high-performance computing communities that the speedup is rarely worth the additional development time.
As for up and coming languages, check out Fortress. It's still being designed, but the goal is to create a language even easier for scientific computing than FORTRAN. Programs will be specified in a very high level mathematical syntax. Additionally, parallelism will be implicit; the programmer will have to work to do things in serial. Plus, it's being championed by Sun and is based on java, so it will be portable.
There is no simple answer, and in many ways even the complex answers are currently inadequate or incomplete. You'll get a better answer if you are more specific about the replies you want: pointers to dev libraries and tools, instructional materials, pointers to current research projects and issues in this area, or something else?
The most important requirement is to be able to split your problem into smaller problems that can be solved independently of each other. Once you've worked out how you're going to do that, everything else is easier to think about and further questions of implementation (e.g. "parts of my calculation depend on other parts - how do I wait for them to have finished?") become concrete, specific things you can research or ask here about.
for java you can now look to Parallel Java Library or DPJ(deterministic Parallel Java!)
It will offer you great help in extracting parallelism from codes!!
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
Questions asking us to recommend or find a tool, library or favorite off-site resource are off-topic for Stack Overflow as they tend to attract opinionated answers and spam. Instead, describe the problem and what has been done so far to solve it.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
We have a codebase that is several years old, and all the original developers are long gone. It uses many, many threads, but with no apparent design or common architectural principles. Every developer had his own style of multithreaded programming, so some threads communicate with one another using queues, some lock data with mutexes, some lock with semaphores, some use operating-system IPC mechanisms for intra-process communications. There is no design documentation, and comments are sparse. It's a mess, and it seems that whenever we try to refactor the code or add new functionality, we introduce deadlocks or other problems.
So, does anyone know of any tools or techniques that would help to analyze and document all the interactions between threads? FWIW, the codebase is C++ on Linux, but I'd be interested to hear about tools for other environments.
Update
I appreciate the responses received so far, but I was hoping for something more sophisticated or systematic than advice that is essentially "add log messages, figure out what's going on, and fix it." There are lots of tools out there for analyzing and documenting control-flow in single-threaded programs; is there nothing available for multi-threaded programs?
See also Debugging multithreaded applications
Invest in a copy of Intel's VTune and its thread profiling tools. It will give you both a system and a source level view of the thread behaviour. It's certainly not going to autodocument the thing for you, but should be a real help in at least visualising what is happening in different circumstances.
I think there is a trial version that you can download, so may be worth giving that a go. I've only used the Windows version, but looking at the VTune webpage it also has a Linux version.
As a starting point, I'd be tempted to add tracing log messages at strategic points within your application. This will allow you to analyse how your threads are interacting with no danger that the act of observing the threads will change their behaviour (as could be the case with step-by-step debugging).
My experience is with the .NET platform and my favoured logging tool would be log4net since it's free, has extensive configuration options and, if you're sensible in how you implement your logging, it won't noticeably hinder your application's performance. Alternatively, there is .NET's built in Debug (or Trace) class in the System.Diagnostics namespace.
I'd focus on the shared memory locks first (the mutexes and semaphores) as they are most likely to cause issues. Look at which state is being protected by locks and then determine which state is under the protection of several locks. This will give you a sense of potential conflicts. Look at situations where code that holds a lock calls out to methods (don't forget virtual methods). Try to eliminate these calls where possible (by reducing the time the lock is held).
Given the list of mutexes that are held and a rough idea of the state that they protect, assign a locking order (i.e., mutex A should always be taken before mutex B). Try to enforce this in the code.
See if you can combine several locks into one if concurrency won't be adversely affected. For example, if mutex A and B seem like they might have deadlocks and an ordering scheme is not easily done, combine them to one lock initially.
It's not going to be easy but I'm for simplifying the code at the expense of concurrency to get a handle of the problem.
This a really hard problem for automated tools. You might want to look into model checking your code. Don't expect magical results: model checkers are very limited in the amount of code and the number of threads they can effectively check.
A tool that might work for you is CHESS (although it is unfortunately Windows-only). BLAST is another fairly powerful tool, but is very difficult to use and may not handle C++. Wikipedia also lists StEAM, which I haven't heard of before, but sounds like it might work for you:
StEAM is a model checker for C++. It detects deadlocks, segmentation faults, out of range variables and non-terminating loops.
Alternatively, it would probably help a lot to try to converge the code towards a small number of well-defined (and, preferably, high-level) synchronization schemes. Mixing locks, semaphores, and monitors in the same code base is asking for trouble.
One thing to keep in mind with using log4net or similar tool is that they change the timing of the application and can often hide the underlying race conditions. We had some poorly written code to debug and introduced logging and this actually removed race conditions and deadlocks (or greatly reduced their frequency).
In Java, you have choices like FindBugs (for static bytecode analysis) to find certain kinds of inconsistent synchronization, or the many dynamic thread analyzers from companies like Coverity, JProbe, OptimizeIt, etc.
Can't UML help you here ?
If you reverse-engineer your codebase into UML, then you should be able to draw class diagrams that shows the relationships between your classes. Starting from the classes whose methods are the thread entry points, you could see which thread uses which class. Based on my experience with Rational Rose, this could be achieved using drag-and-drop ; if no relationship between the added class and the previous ones, then the added class is not directly used by the thread that started with the method you began the diagram with. This should gives you hints towards the role of each threads.
This will also show the "data objects" that are shared and the objects that are thread-specific.
If you draw a big class diagram and remove all the "data objects", then you should be able to layout that diagram as clouds, each clouds being a thread - or a group of threads, unless the coupling and cohesion of the code base is awful.
This will only gives you one portion of the puzzle, but it could be helpful ; I just hope your codebase is not too muddy or too "procedural", in which case ...