I would like to create a variable number of threads in Prolog and make the main thread wait for all of them.
I have tried to make a join for each one of them in the predicate but it seems like they are waiting one for the other in a sequential order.
I have also tried storing the ids of the threads in a list and join each one after but it still isn't working.
In the code sample, I have also tried passing the S parameters in thread_join in the recursive call.
thr1(0):-!.
thr1(N):-
thread_create(someFunction(N),Id, []),
thread_join(Id, S),
N1 is N-1,
thr1(N1).
I expect the N predicates to overlap results when doing some print, but they are running in a sequential order.
Most likely the calls to your someFunction/1 predicate succeed faster than the time it takes to create the next thread, which is a relatively heavy process as SWI-Prolog threads are mapped to POSIX threads. Thus, to actually get overlapping results, the computation time of the thread goals must exceed thread creation time. For a toy example of accomplishing that, see:
https://github.com/LogtalkDotOrg/logtalk3/tree/master/examples/threads/sync
Related
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();
I know multi thread with future a little such as :
for(i <- 1 to 5) yield future {
println(i)
}
but this is all the threads do same work.
So, i want to know how to make two threads which do different work concurrently.
Also, I want to know is there any method to know all the thread is complete?
Please, give me something simple.
First of all, chances are you might be happy with parallel collections, especially if all you need is to crunch some data in parallel using multiple threads:
val lines = Seq("foo", "bar", "baz")
lines.par.map(line => line.length)
While parallel collections suitable for finite datasets, Futures are more oriented towards events-like processing and in fact, future defines task, abstracting away from execution details (one thread, multiple threads, how particular task is pinned to thread) -- all of this is controlled with execution context. What you can do with futures though is to add callback (on success, on failure, on both), compose it with another future or await for result. All this concepts are nicely explained in official doc which is worthwhile reading.
In Python, I am using a library called futures, which allows me to do my processing work with a pool of N worker processes, in a succinct and crystal-clear way:
schedulerQ = []
for ... in ...:
workParam = ... # arguments for call to processingFunction(workParam)
schedulerQ.append(workParam)
with futures.ProcessPoolExecutor(max_workers=5) as executor: # 5 CPUs
for retValue in executor.map(processingFunction, schedulerQ):
print "Received result", retValue
(The processingFunction is CPU bound, so there is no point for async machinery here - this is about plain old arithmetic calculations)
I am now looking for the closest possible way to do the same thing in Scala. Notice that in Python, to avoid the GIL issues, I was using processes (hence the use of ProcessPoolExecutor instead of ThreadPoolExecutor) - and the library automagically marshals the workParam argument to each process instance executing processingFunction(workParam) - and it marshals the result back to the main process, for the executor's map loop to consume.
Does this apply to Scala and the JVM? My processingFunction can, in principle, be executed from threads too (there's no global state at all) - but I'd be interested to see solutions for both multiprocessing and multithreading.
The key part of the question is whether there is anything in the world of the JVM with as clear an API as the Python futures you see above... I think this is one of the best SMP APIs I've ever seen - prepare a list with the function arguments of all invocations, and then just two lines: create the poolExecutor, and map the processing function, getting back your results as soon as they are produced by the workers. Results start coming in as soon as the first invocation of processingFunction returns and keep coming until they are all done - at which point the for loop ends.
You have way less boilerplate than that using parallel collections in Scala.
myParameters.par.map(x => f(x))
will do the trick if you want the default number of threads (same as number of cores).
If you insist on setting the number of workers, you can like so:
import scala.collection.parallel._
import scala.concurrent.forkjoin._
val temp = myParameters.par
temp.tasksupport = new ForkJoinTaskSupport(new ForkJoinPool(5))
temp.map(x => f(x))
The exact details of return timing are different, but you can put as much machinery as you want into f(x) (i.e. both compute and do something with the result), so this may satisfy your needs.
In general, simply having the results appear as completed is not enough; you then need to process them, maybe fork them, collect them, etc.. If you want to do this in general, Akka Streams (follow links from here) are nearing 1.0 and will facilitate the production of complex graphs of parallel processing.
There is both a Futures api that allows you to run work-units on a thread pool (docs: http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/core/futures.html) and a "parallell collections api" that you can use to perform parallell operations on collections: http://docs.scala-lang.org/overviews/parallel-collections/overview.html
If I have a program like the one below, does prolog try to prove maximum/3 all three times in parallel? i.e does each thread get its own core (assuming available on the computer)?
My actual program takes about 2 hours to run a predicate in the position of maximum/3 here and I have 70 equivalent of pair/2 that will need to be calculated. Would this approach work? If not why not? I have set the program running but it seems from the output that it is just doing one thread at a time.
maximum(X,Y,Y) :- X =< Y,!.
maximum(X,_,X).
pair(5,6).
pair(8,7).
pair(9,9).
thread(A,B,Stream) :-
maximum(A,B,C),
format(Stream, "max('~w','~w',~w).~n",[A,B,C]),
thread_exit(C).
start(File) :-
open(File,append,Stream,[]),
forall(
pair(A,B),
(
thread_create(thread(A,B,Stream),Id,[]),
thread_join(Id,exited(X)),
writeln(X)
)
),
close(Stream).
You can simplify your code by taking advantage of the SWI-Prolog concurrent/3 library predicate:
http://www.swi-prolog.org/pldoc/doc_for?object=thread:concurrent/3
Another option is Logtalk's support for high-level multi-threading programming (SWI-Prolog is one of the backend Prolog compilers it supports).
In any case, it's a two step process: first create the goals (that should be executed in parallel) and, second, run them. But you're not doing that. SWI-Prolog threads are created (by default) as non-detached. The call to thread_join/2 predicate in your code means that you're waiting for the thread you just created to finish before passing to the next pair. Thus, you're correct and your code is running one thread at a time. Try:
maximum(X,Y,Y) :- X =< Y,!.
maximum(X,_,X).
pair(5,6).
pair(8,7).
pair(9,9).
thread(A,B,Stream) :-
maximum(A,B,C),
format(Stream, "max('~w','~w',~w).~n",[A,B,C]).
start(File) :-
open(File,append,Stream,[]),
findall(thread(A,B,Stream), pair(A,B), Goals),
length(Goals, N),
concurrent(N, Goals, []),
close(Stream).
Sample execution:
?- [concurrent].
true.
?- start(results).
true.
?-
% halt
$ cat results
max('5','6',6).
max('8','7',8).
max('9','9',9).
Using the number of goals as the number of threads (aka workers) to use is, however, not the best choice. Likely better to use a value for N derived from the number of cores (or the number of threads each core can run) of your hardware.
The Logtalk solution is similar (but more portable) using its threaded/1built-in predicate (but it takes a goal conjunction instead of a goal list).
I have a single-threaded linux app which I would like to make parallel. It reads a data file, creates objects, and places them in a vector. Then it calls a compute-intensive method (.5 second+) on each object. I want to call the method in parallel with object creation. While I've looked at qt and tbb, I am open to other options.
I planned to start the thread(s) while the vector was empty. Each one would call makeSolids (below), which has a while loop that would run until interpDone==true and all objects in the vector have been processed. However, I'm a n00b when it comes to threading, and I've been looking for a ready-made solution.
QtConcurrent::map(Iter begin,Iter end,function()) looks very easy, but I can't use it on a vector that's changing in size, can I? And how would I tell it to wait for more data?
I also looked at intel's tbb, but it looked like my main thread would halt if I used parallel_for or parallel_while. That stinks, since their memory manager was recommended (open cascade's mmgt has poor performance when multithreaded).
/**intended to be called by a thread
\param start the first item to get from the vector
\param skip how many to skip over (4 for 4 threads)
*/
void g2m::makeSolids(uint start, uint incr) {
uint curr = start;
while ((!interpDone) || (lineVector.size() > curr)) {
if (lineVector.size() > curr) {
if (lineVector[curr]->isMotion()) {
((canonMotion*)lineVector[curr])->setSolidMode(SWEPT);
((canonMotion*)lineVector[curr])->computeSolid();
}
lineVector[curr]->setDispMode(BEST);
lineVector[curr]->display();
curr += incr;
} else {
uio::sleep(); //wait a little bit for interp
}
}
}
EDIT: To summarize, what's the simplest way to process a vector at the same time that the main thread is populating the vector?
Firstly, to benefit from threading you need to find similarly slow tasks for each thread to do. You said your per-object processing takes .5s+, how long does your file reading / object creation take? It could easily be a tenth or a thousandth of that time, in which case your multithreading approach is going to produce neglegible benefit. If that's the case, (yes, I'll answer your original question soon incase it's not) then think about simultaneously processing multiple objects. Given your processing takes quite a while, the thread creation overhead isn't terribly significant, so you could simply have your main file reading/object creation thread spawn a new thread and direct it at the newly created object. The main thread then continues reading/creating subsequent objects. Once all objects are read/created, and all the processing threads launched, the main thread "joins" (waits for) the worker threads. If this will create too many threads (thousands), then put a limit on how far ahead the main thread is allowed to get: it might read/create 10 objects then join 5, then read/create 10, join 10, read/create 10, join 10 etc. until finished.
Now, if you really want the read/create to be in parallel with the processing, but the processing to be serialised, then you can still use the above approach but join after each object. That's kind of weird if you're designing this with only this approach in mind, but good because you can easily experiment with the object processing parallelism above as well.
Alternatively, you can use a more complex approach that just involves the main thread (that the OS creates when your program starts), and a single worker thread that the main thread must start. They should be coordinated using a mutex (a variable ensuring mutually-exclusive, which means not-concurrent, access to data), and a condition variable which allows the worker thread to efficiently block until the main thread has provided more work. The terms - mutex and condition variable - are the standard terms in the POSIX threading that Linux uses, so should be used in the explanation of the particular libraries you're interested in. Summarily, the worker thread waits until the main read/create thread broadcasts it a wake-up signal indicating another object is ready for processing. You may want to have a counter with index of the last fully created, ready-for-processing object, so the worker thread can maintain it's count of processed objects and move along the ready ones before once again checking the condition variable.
It's hard to tell if you have been thinking about this problem deeply and there is more than you are letting on, or if you are just over thinking it, or if you are just wary of threading.
Reading the file and creating the objects is fast; the one method is slow. The dependency is each consecutive ctor depends on the outcome of the previous ctor - a little odd - but otherwise there are no data integrity issues so there doesn't seem to be anything that needs to be protected by mutexes and such.
Why is this more complicated than something like this (in crude pseudo-code):
while (! eof)
{
readfile;
object O(data);
push_back(O);
pthread_create(...., O, makeSolid);
}
while(x < vector.size())
{
pthread_join();
x++;
}
If you don't want to loop on the joins in your main then spawn off a thread to wait on them by passing a vector of TIDs.
If the number of created objects/threads is insane, use a thread pool. Or put a counter is the creation loop to limit the number of threads that can be created before running ones are joined.
#Caleb: quite -- perhaps I should have emphasized active threads. The GUI thread should always be considered one.