I am modelling and solving a nonlinear program (NLP) using single-threaded CPLEX with AMPL (I am constraining CPLEX to use only one thread explicitly) in CentOS 7. I am using a processor with 6 independent cores (intel i7 8700) to solve 6 independent test instances.
When I run these tests sequentially, it is much faster than when I run these 6 instances concurrenctly (about 63%) considering time elapsed. They are executed in independent processes, reading distinct data files, and writting results in distinct output files. I have also tried to solve these tests sequentially with multithread, and I got similar times to those cases with only one thread sequentially.
I have checked the behaviour of these processes using top/htop. They get different processors to execute. So my question is how the execution of these tests concurrently would get so much impact on time elapsed if they are solving in different cores with only one thread and they are individual processes?
Any thoughts would be appreciated.
It's very easy to make many threads perform worse than a single thread. The key to successful multi-threading and speedup is to understand not just the fact that the program is multi-threaded, but to know exactly how your threads interact. Here are a few questions you should ask yourself as you review your code:
1) Do the individual threads share resources? If so what are those resources and when you are accessing them do they block other threads?
2) What's the slowest resource your multi-threaded code relies on? A common bottleneck (and oft neglected) is disk IO. Multiple threads can process data much faster but they won't make a disk read faster and in many cases multithreading can make it much worse (e.g. thrashing).
3) Is access to common resources properly synchronized?
To this end, and without knowing more about your problem, I'd recommend:
a) Not reading different files from different threads. You want to keep your disk IO as sequential as possible and this is easier from a single thread. Maybe batch read files from a single thread and then farm them out for processing.
b) Keep your threads as autonomous as possible - any communication back and forth will cause thread contention and slow things down.
Related
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
This computer has eight cores and so should work best with 8/16 threads then, yet many applications use several times that, especially Dropbox.
It also uses 95 threads while idling on my laptop, which only has 4 cores.
Why is this the case? Does it have so many threads for programming convenience, have I misunderstood threading efficiency or is it something else entirely?
I took a peek at the Mac version of the client, and it seems to be written in Python and it uses several frameworks.
A bunch of threads seem to be used in some in house actor system
They use nucleus for app analytics
There seems to be a p2p network
some networking threads (one per hype core)
a global pool (one per physical core)
many threads for file monitoring and thumbnail generation
task schedulers
logging
metrics
db checkpointing
something called infinite configuration
etc.
Most are idle.
It looks like a hodgepodge of subsystems, each starting their own threads, but they don't seem too expensive in terms of memory or CPU.
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
Nope, this is not true. I'm not sure why you think that, but it's not true.
As just the most obvious way to show that it's false, suppose you had that number of threads and one of them accessed a page of memory that wasn't in RAM and had to be loaded to disk. If you don't have any other threads that can run, then one core is wasted for the entire time it takes to read that page of memory from disk.
It's hard to address the misconception directly without knowing what flawed chain of reasoning led to it. But the most common one is that if you have more threads ready-to-run than you can execute at once, then you have lots of context switches and context switches are expensive.
But that is obviously wrong. If all the threads are ready-to-run, then no context switches are necessary. A context switch is only necessary if a running thread stops being ready-to-run.
If all context switches are voluntary, then the implementation can select the optimum number of context switches. And that's precisely what it does.
Having large numbers of threads causes you to lose efficiency if, and only if, lots of threads do a small amount of work and then become no longer ready-to-run while other waiting threads are ready-to-run. That forces the implementation to do a context even where it is not optimal.
Some applications that use lots of threads do in fact do this. And that does result in poor performance. But Dropbox doesn't.
I'm working with a Delphi application and I have created two threads to sync with different databases, one to read and other to write. I would like to know if Delphi is actually using all potential of each core (running on an i5 with 4 cores for example) or if I need to write a specific code to distribute the threads to each core.
I have no idea how to find this.
There's nothing you need to do. The operating system schedules ready-to-run threads on available cores.
There is nothing to do. The OS will choose the best place to run each of your threads taking into account a large number of factors completely beyond your control. The OS manages your threads in conjunction with all other threads in all other processes on the system.
Don't forget that if your threads aren't particularly busy, there will be absolutely no need to run them on different cores.
Sometimes moving code to a separate core can introduce unexpected inefficiencies. Remember CPU's have high speed memory caches; and if certain data is not available in the cache of one core, moving to it could incur relatively slower RAM access.
The point I'm trying to make here, is that you trying to second-guess all these scenarios and permutations is premature optimisation. Rather let the OS do the work for you. You have other things you should rather focus on as indicated below.
However, that said any interaction between your threads can significantly affect the OS's ability to run them on separate cores. E.g.
At one extreme: if each of your threads do a lot of work through a shared lock (perhaps the reader thread places data in a shared location that the writer consumes, so a lock is used to avoid race conditions), then it's likely that both threads will run on the same core.
The best case scenario would be when there is zero interaction between the threads. In this case the OS can easily run the threads on separate cores.
One thing to be aware of is that the threads can interact even if you didn't explicitly code anything to do so. The default memory manger is shared between all threads. So if you do a lot of dynamic memory allocation in each thread, you can experience contention limiting scalability across large numbers of cores.
So the important thing for you to focus on is getting your design "correct":
Ensure a "clean" separation of concerns.
Eliminate unnecessary interaction between threads.
Ensure whatever interaction is needed uses the most appropriate technique for your requirements.
Get the above right, and the OS will schedule your threads as efficiently as it can.
I was wondering if there are any slight difference between the definitions of :
multiprogramming
Multithreading
Parallel processing
As I understand that we are using multithreading to achieve multiprogramming . Should the parallel processing the same as multiprogramming ,or it's related to hardware ?
Thanks
Multiprogramming describes that you are able to run multiple programms on a computer at the same time (compared to an old eg DOS system where only one program at a time could run) (also sometimes refered as mutlitasking) -> multiprogramming
Multithreading has to be seen differently on description: -> multithreading
Hardware Multithreading or Architecture: a Processor is able to run multiple Threads in parallel (for real, counterexample: Multiprogramming)
Software Mutlithreading: is when one Process consists of multiple threads those threads are not independent to each other, like processes, especially those threads can have race conditions while working on the same data (-> difference between thread & process )
Parallel processing desribes that there are some ( > 1) CPU's working togehter in any kind. This includes one PC with a multi-core, one server with multiple processors (eg on cards) or even a network of computers -> Parallel processing
The way I've usually seen your 2nd and 3rd terms used:
Parallel processing refers to two or more threads running at the same time, each working with their own data. That is, beyond starting and stopping, there are few, if anym synchronization problems. Multithreading refers to much the same thing, except that the threads share data and must be very careful about this. That is, synchronization is everything.
Proper parallel processing is not much harder than running a single thread. (Most platforms provide all kinds of support to help keep it simple.) Multithreading is a lot of very hard work.
I am writing a CPU-intensive image processing library. To make best use of available CPU, I can detect the total number of cores on my machine and have my library run with that number of threads. When my library to allocate one thread for each core it performs optimally using 100% available processor time.
The above approach works fine when mine is the only CPU-heavy process running. If another CPU-intensive process is running, or even another instance of my own code, then the OS allocates us only a fraction of the available cores and my library then has too many threads running which is both inefficient and inconsiderate to other processes.
So I would like to find a way to determine the "fair share" number of threads to run given a specific load. For example, if two instances of my process are running on an 8-core machine, each would run with 4 threads. Each would need a way to adapt thread count dynamically according to fluctuations in machine load.
So, my question:
Is there any OS feature or third-party library which allows my process to adapt thread count dynamically to use its fair share of the CPU?
My focus is Windows but interested in non-Windows solutions too.
Edit: to be clear, this is about optimization. I am trying to achieve peak efficiency by running the optimal number of threads appropriate to my fair share of the CPU.
In my eyes, the application shouldnt decide how many threads to spawn. This is an information, that the caller should know. In linux, the "-j" or "--jobs" parameter is widely used (Default: 1).
What about also setting the priority of the processing tasks. So if the caller knows, the processing is mission-critical, he can increase the prio (with the knowledge of maybe blocking the (whole) system). Your processing lib would never know, how important the processing of this image would be.
If the caller doesnt care, then the default low-prio is used, which shouldnt affect the rest of the system. If it does, you should look to what is exactly blocking the system (maybe writing image files to the hdd, reduce ram size to prevent swapping, ...). If you figured out that, you can optimize exactly that point.
If you start the processing with (cpu-cores)*2 on low till normal priority, your system should be useable. No one would expect, that this will kill the system.
Just my 2 cents.
Actually it's not a problem of multithreading but a problem of executing many programs simultaneously. This is hard on most PC's operating systems because it conflicts to the idea of time-sharing.
Let's assume some workflow.
Suppose we have 8 cores and we create 8 threads to feed them; ok, that's easy. Next we choose to monitor core loading to summary how many tasks running on a certain core; well, that needs some statistical assumptions, e.g on Linux you can get a 1/5/15-mins load average chart, but that could be done. The statistical chart is clear and now we get a plot about how many CPU-bound processes are running, say, seeing other 3 CPU-intensive processes.
Then we come to the point: we have to make 3 redundant threads to sleep, but which 3?
Usually we choose 3 threads arbitrarily because the scheduler arranges the other 8 CPU-bound threads automatically. In some cases, we explicitly put threads on high load cores to sleep, assign other threads to certain low load cores, and let the scheduler do the rest things. Most scheduling policies also try to "keep CPU cache hot", which means they tend to forbid transferring threads between cores. We reasonably expect our CPU-intensive threads can utilize the core cache since other processes are scheduled to the 3 crowded cores. Everything looks good.
However this could fail in tightly synchronized computation. In this scenario we need to run our 5 threads simultaneously. Simultaneity here means the 5 threads have to gain CPU and run at almost the same time. I don't know if there's any scheduler on PC could do this for us. In most low-load cases, things still work fine because costs to wait for simultaneity is trivial. But when the load of a core is high and even 1 of our 5 threads is disturbed, occasionally we'll find we spend many life cycles in waiting.
It may help to schedule your program as a real-time program but it's not a perfect solution. Statistically it leads to a wider time window for simultaneity when it gains more CPU control priority. I have to say, it's not guaranteed.
I've been toying around with the Parallel library in .NET 4.0. Recently, I developed a custom ORM for some unusual read/write operations one of our large systems has to use. This allows me to decorate an object with attributes and have reflection figure out what columns it has to pull from the database, as well as what XML it has to output on writes.
Since I envision this wrapper to be reused in many projects, I'd like to squeeze as much speed out of it as possible. This library will mostly be used in .NET web applications. I'm testing the framework using a throwaway console application to poke at the classes I've created.
I've now learned a lesson of the overhead that multithreading comes with. Multithreading causes it to run slower. From reading around, it seems like it's intuitive to people who've been doing it for a long time, but it's actually counter-intuitive to me: how can running a method 30 times at the same time be slower than running it 30 times sequentially?
I don't think I'm causing problems by multiple threads having to fight over the same shared object (though I'm not good enough at it yet to tell for sure or not), so I assume the slowdown is coming from the overhead of spawning all those threads and the runtime keeping them all straight. So:
Though I'm doing it mainly as a learning exercise, is this pessimization? For trivial, non-IO tasks, is multithreading overkill? My main goal is speed, not responsiveness of the UI or anything.
Would running the same multithreading code in IIS cause it to speed up because of already-created threads in the thread pool, whereas right now I'm using a console app, which I assume would be single-threaded until I told it otherwise? I'm about to run some tests, but I figure there's some base knowledge I'm missing to know why it would be one way or the other. My console app is also running on my desktop with two cores, whereas a server for a web app would have more, so I might have to use that as a variable as well.
Thread's don't actually all run concurrently.
On a desktop machine I'm presuming you have a dual core CPU, (maybe a quad at most). This means only 2/4 threads can be running at the same time.
If you have spawned 30 threads, the OS is going to have to context switch between those 30 threads to keep them all running. Context switches are quite costly, so hence the slowdown.
As a basic suggestion, I'd aim for 1 thread per CPU if you are trying to optimise calculations. Any more than this and you're not really doing any extra work, you are just swapping threads in an out on the same CPU. Try to think of your computer as having a limited number of workers inside, you can't do more work concurrently than the number of workers you have available.
Some of the new features in the .net 4.0 parallel task library allow you to do things that account for scalability in the number of threads. For example you can create a bunch of tasks and the task parallel library will internally figure out how many CPUs you have available, and optimise the number of threads is creates/uses so as not to overload the CPUs, so you could create 30 tasks, but on a dual core machine the TP library would still only create 2 threads, and queue the . Obviously, this will scale very nicely when you get to run it on a bigger machine. Or you can use something like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(...) to queue up a bunch of tasks, and the pool will automatically manage how many threads is uses to perform those tasks.
Yes there is a lot of overhead to thread creation, but if you are using the .net thread pool, (or the parallel task library in 4.0) .net will be managing your thread creation, and you may actually find it creates less threads than the number of tasks you have created. It will internally swap your tasks around on the available threads. If you actually want to control explicit creation of actual threads you would need to use the Thread class.
[Some cpu's can do clever stuff with threads and can have multiple Threads running per CPU - see hyperthreading - but check out your task manager, I'd be very surprised if you have more than 4-8 virtual CPUs on today's desktops]
There are so many issues with this that it pays to understand what is happening under the covers. I would highly recommend the "Concurrent Programming on Windows" book by Joe Duffy and the "Java Concurrency in Practice" book. The latter talks about processor architecture at the level you need to understand it when writing multithreaded code. One issue you are going to hit that's going to hurt your code is caching, or more likely the lack of it.
As has been stated there is an overhead to scheduling and running threads, but you may find that there is a larger overhead when you share data across threads. That data may be flushed from the processor cache into main memory, and that will cause serious slow downs to your code.
This is the sort of low-level stuff that managed environments are supposed to protect us from, however, when writing highly parallel code, this is exactly the sort of issue you have to deal with.
A colleague of mine recorded a screencast about the performance issue with Parallel.For and Parallel.ForEach which may help:
http://rocksolidknowledge.com/ScreenCasts.mvc/Watch?video=ParallelLoops.wmv
You're speaking of an ORM, so I presume some amount of I/O is going on. If this is the case, the overhead of thread creation and context switching is going to be comparatively non-existent.
Most likely, you're experiencing I/O contention: it can be slower (particularly on rotational hard drives, but also on other storage devices) to read the same set of data if you read it out of order than if you read it in-order. So, if you're executing 30 database queries, it's possible they'll run faster sequentially than in parallel if they're all backed by the same I/O device and the queries aren't in cache. Running them in parallel may cause the system to have a bunch of I/O read requests almost simultaneously, which may cause the OS to read little bits of each in turn - causing your drive head to jump back and forth, wasting precious milliseconds.
But that's just a guess; it's not possible to really determine what's causing your slowdown without knowing more.
Although thread creation is "extremely expensive" when compared to say adding two numbers, it's not usually something you'll easily overdo. If your operations are extremely short (say, a millisecond or less), using a thread-pool rather than new threads will noticeably save time. Generally though, if your operations are that short, you should reconsider the granularity of parallelism anyhow; perhaps you're better off splitting the computation into bigger chunks: for instance, by having a fairly low number of worker tasks which handle entire batches of smaller work-items at a time rather than each item separately.