As we know that Multitasking involves running multiple processes and multithreading, on the other hand, is running multiple threads which share the same memory space of process
So I want to know which approach seems to be better and faster in terms of Computer Systems?
Which can bring a noticeable difference in performance?
Thanks in advance!
As SergeyA has indicated, this is an awfully broad question. The answer is really going to depend upon the problem being solved.
If the various tasks are large separate with only occasional communication between them, then multiple processes offers the advantage of being able to split the processes across different compute servers.
If the tasks are tightly coupled, then the inter-process communications can eat up a lot of that advantage. At that point, multithreading is most likely more efficient and most likely easier to implement.
Creating multiple processes can be somewhat expensive. Spawning threads is exceedingly easy. That becomes a factor.
Resources required can also be a factor. If you're processing a large dataset and do that across processes, then each process needs to pull the dataset into memory. That takes both time and memory. If you multithread, you can load it once and share the data between your threads.
So it depends. For most problems, multithreading is probably significantly faster than using multiple processes, but as soon as you encounter hardware limitations, that answer goes out the window.
Related
The title pretty well sums up my question. "In what circumstances would using threads benefit a sequential program"?
there are many reasons and its a bit complicated. So I try to be as precious as possible.
Every programm can be parallelized, but sometimes its not worth.
The Big benefit of multithreading is the usage of all cores. This can lead to an improvement of the performance. In the optimal case, having 2 cores working on a problem will double the execution-speed. But in reality this speed-up will be reduzed by the amount of overhead from the threads:
general overhead:
thread start/stop
communication/synchronization
To ignore the start-stop overhead, the life-time of the threads should be as large as possible.
The communication/synchronisation part is the main-problem. There is an an awful lot of complexity here. In short: avoid/reduce the communication between threads. Each thread should work as isolated as possible.
basically its a trade-off between the overhead and parallelism.
so the key-questions are:
Do you have performance-problems?
Do you have access to a multicore?
Do you need the ease of stack-management (->each TCP-connection on
different thread)
Are you willing to test multiple solutions
(sequential vs. parallel)?
for more information: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustafson%27s_law
It is said that one of the main benefits of Node (and presumable twisted et al) over more conventional threaded servers, is the very high concurrency enabled by the event loop model. The biggest reason for this is that each thread has a high memory footprint and swapping contexts is comparatively expensive. When you have thousands of threads the server spends most of its time swapping from thread to thread.
My question is, why don't operating systems or the underlying hardware support much more lightweight threads? If they did, could you solve the 10k problem with plain threads? If they can't, why is that?
Modern operating systems can support the execution of a very large number of threads.
More generally, hardware keeps getting faster (and recently, it has been getting faster in a way that is much friendlier to multithreading and multiprocessing than to single-threaded event loops - ie, increased number of cores, rather than increased processing throughput capabilities in a single core). If you can't afford the overhead of a thread today, you can probably afford it tomorrow.
What the cooperative multitasking systems of Twisted (and presumably Node.js et al) offers over pre-emptive multithreading (at least in the form of pthreads) is ease of programming.
Correctly using multithreading involves being much more careful than correctly using a single thread. An event loop is just the means of getting multiple things done without going beyond your single thread.
Considering the proliferation of parallel hardware, it would be ideal for multithreading or multiprocessing to get easier to do (and easier to do correctly). Actors, message passing, maybe even petri nets are some of the solutions people have attempted to solve this problem. They are still very marginal compared to the mainstream multithreading approach (pthreads). Another approach is SEDA, which uses multiple threads to run multiple event loops. This also hasn't caught on.
So, the people using event loops have probably decided that programmer time is worth more than CPU time, and the people using pthreads have probably decided the opposite, and the people exploring actors and such would like to value both kinds of time more highly (clearly insane, which is probably why no one listens to them).
The issue isn't really how heavyweight the threads are but the fact that to write correct multithreaded code you need locks on shared items and that prevents it from scaling with the number of threads because threads end up waiting for each other to gain locks and you rapidly reach the point where adding additional threads has no effect or even slows the system down as you get more lock contention.
In many cases you can avoid locking, but it's very difficult to get right, and sometimes you simply need a lock.
So if you are limited to a small number of threads, you might well find that removing the overhead of having to lock resources at all, or even think about it, makes a single threaded program faster than a multithreaded program no matter how many threads you add.
Basically locks can (depending on your program) be really expensive and can stop your program scaling beyond a few threads. And you almost always need to lock something.
It's not the overhead of a thread that's the problem, it's the synchronization between the threads. Even if you could switch between threads instantly, and had infinite memory none of that helps if each thread just ends up waiting in a queue for it's turn at some shared resource.
I don’t want to make this subjective...
If I/O and other input/output-related bottlenecks are not of concern, then do we need to write multithreaded code? Theoretically the single threaded code will fare better since it will get all the CPU cycles. Right?
Would JavaScript or ActionScript have fared any better, had they been multithreaded?
I am just trying to understand the real need for multithreading.
I don't know if you have payed any attention to trends in hardware lately (last 5 years) but we are heading to a multicore world.
A general wake-up call was this "The free lunch is over" article.
On a dual core PC, a single-threaded app will only get half the CPU cycles. And CPUs are not getting faster anymore, that part of Moores law has died.
In the words of Herb Sutter The free lunch is over, i.e. the future performance path for computing will be in terms of more cores not higher clockspeeds. The thing is that adding more cores typically does not scale the performance of software that is not multithreaded, and even then it depends entirely on the correct use of multithreaded programming techniques, hence multithreading is a big deal.
Another obvious reason is maintaining a responsive GUI, when e.g. a click of a button initiates substantial computations, or I/O operations that may take a while, as you point out yourself.
The primary reason I use multithreading these days is to keep the UI responsive while the program does something time-consuming. Sure, it's not high-tech, but it keeps the users happy :-)
Most CPUs these days are multi-core. Put simply, that means they have several processors on the same chip.
If you only have a single thread, you can only use one of the cores - the other cores will either idle or be used for other tasks that are running. If you have multiple threads, each can run on its own core. You can divide your problem into X parts, and, assuming each part can run indepedently, you can finish the calculations in close to 1/Xth of the time it would normally take.
By definition, the fastest algorithm running in parallel will spend at least as much CPU time as the fastest sequential algorithm - that is, parallelizing does not decrease the amount of work required - but the work is distributed across several independent units, leading to a decrease in the real-time spent solving the problem. That means the user doesn't have to wait as long for the answer, and they can move on quicker.
10 years ago, when multi-core was unheard of, then it's true: you'd gain nothing if we disregard I/O delays, because there was only one unit to do the execution. However, the race to increase clock speeds has stopped; and we're instead looking at multi-core to increase the amount of computing power available. With companies like Intel looking at 80-core CPUs, it becomes more and more important that you look at parallelization to reduce the time solving a problem - if you only have a single thread, you can only use that one core, and the other 79 cores will be doing something else instead of helping you finish sooner.
Much of the multithreading is done just to make the programming model easier when doing blocking operations while maintaining concurrency in the program - sometimes languages/libraries/apis give you little other choice, or alternatives makes the programming model too hard and error prone.
Other than that the main benefit of multi threading is to take advantage of multiple CPUs/cores - one thread can only run at one processor/core at a time.
No. You can't continue to gain the new CPU cycles, because they exist on a different core and the core that your single-threaded app exists on is not going to get any faster. A multi-threaded app, on the other hand, will benefit from another core. Well-written parallel code can go up to about 95% faster- on a dual core, which is all the new CPUs in the last five years. That's double that again for a quad core. So while your single-threaded app isn't getting any more cycles than it did five years ago, my quad-threaded app has four times as many and is vastly outstripping yours in terms of response time and performance.
Your question would be valid had we only had single cores. The things is though, we mostly have multicore CPU's these days. If you have a quadcore and write a single threaded program, you will have three cores which is not used by your program.
So actually you will have at most 25% of the CPU cycles and not 100%. Since the technology today is to add more cores and less clockspeed, threading will be more and more crucial for performance.
That's kind of like asking whether a screwdriver is necessary if I only need to drive this nail. Multithreading is another tool in your toolbox to be used in situations that can benefit from it. It isn't necessarily appropriate in every programming situation.
Here are some answers:
You write "If input/output related problems are not bottlenecks...". That's a big "if". Many programs do have issues like that, remembering that networking issues are included in "IO", and in those cases multithreading is clearly worthwhile. If you are writing one of those rare apps that does no IO and no communication then multithreading might not be an issue
"The single threaded code will get all the CPU cycles". Not necessarily. A multi-threaded code might well get more cycles than a single threaded app. These days an app is hardly ever the only app running on a system.
Multithreading allows you to take advantage of multicore systems, which are becoming almost universal these days.
Multithreading allows you to keep a GUI responsive while some action is taking place. Even if you don't want two user-initiated actions to be taking place simultaneously you might want the GUI to be able to repaint and respond to other events while a calculation is taking place.
So in short, yes there are applications that don't need multithreading, but they are fairly rare and becoming rarer.
First, modern processors have multiple cores, so a single thraed will never get all the CPU cycles.
On a dualcore system, a single thread will utilize only half the CPU. On a 8-core CPU, it'll use only 1/8th.
So from a plain performance point of view, you need multiple threads to utilize the CPU.
Beyond that, some tasks are also easier to express using multithreading.
Some tasks are conceptually independent, and so it is more natural to code them as separate threads running in parallel, than to write a singlethreaded application which interleaves the two tasks and switches between them as necessary.
For example, you typically want the GUI of your application to stay responsive, even if pressing a button starts some CPU-heavy work process that might go for several minutes. In that time, you still want the GUI to work. The natural way to express this is to put the two tasks in separate threads.
Most of the answers here make the conclusion multicore => multithreading look inevitable. However, there is another way of utilizing multiple processors - multi-processing. On Linux especially, where, AFAIK, threads are implemented as just processes perhaps with some restrictions, and processes are cheap as opposed to Windows, there are good reasons to avoid multithreading. So, there are software architecture issues here that should not be neglected.
Of course, if the concurrent lines of execution (either threads or processes) need to operate on the common data, threads have an advantage. But this is also the main reason for headache with threads. Can such program be designed such that the pieces are as much autonomous and independent as possible, so we can use processes? Again, a software architecture issue.
I'd speculate that multi-threading today is what memory management was in the days of C:
it's quite hard to do it right, and quite easy to mess up.
thread-safety bugs, same as memory leaks, are nasty and hard to find
Finally, you may find this article interesting (follow this first link on the page). I admit that I've read only the abstract, though.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources.
But I'm probably wrong.
I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else.
When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to using Threads. If you have too many threads the processor will spend all its time generating and switching between them. Use too few threads you will not get the throughput you want in your application. Additionally using threads is not easy. A language like C# makes it easier on you because you have tools like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. This allows the system to manage thread creation and destruction. This helps mitigate the overhead of creating a new thread to pass the work onto. You have to remember that the creation of a thread is not an operation that you get for "free." There are costs associated with starting a thread so that should always be taken into consideration.
Depending upon the language you are using to write your application you will dictate how much you need to worry about using threads.
The times I find most often that I need to consider creating threads explicitly are:
Asynchronous operations
Operations that can be parallelized
Continual running background operations
The answer totally depends on what you're planning on doing. However, one for CPU resources is a bad move - your CPU may have up to six cores, plus hyperthreading, in a retail CPU, and most CPUs will have two or more. In this case, you should have as many threads as CPU cores, plus a few more for scheduling mishaps. The whole CPU is not a single-threaded beast, it may have many cores and need many threads for 100% utilization.
You should use threads if and only if your target demographic will virtually all have multi-core (as is the case in current desktop/laptop markets), and you have determined that one core is not enough performance.
Herb Sutter wrote an article for Dr. Dobb's Journal in which he talks about the three pillars of concurrency. This article does a very good job of breaking down which problems are good candidates for being solved via threading constructs.
From the SQLite FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid Them." Only use them when you absolutely have to.
If you have to, then take steps to avoid the usual carnage. Use thread pools to execute fine-grained tasks with no interdependencies, using GUI-framework-provided facilities to dispatch outcomes back to the UI. Avoid sharing data between long-running threads; use message queues to pass information between them (and to synchronise).
A more exotic solution is to use languages such as Erlang that are explicit designed for fine-grained parallelism without sacrificing safety and comprehensibility. Concurrency itself is of fundamental importance to the future of computation; threads are simply a horrible, broken way to express it.
The "ideal number of threads" depends on your particular problem and how much parallelism you can exploit. If you have a problem that is "embarassingly parallel" in that it can be subdivided into independent problems with little to no communication between them required, and you have enough cores that you can actually get true parallelism, then how many threads you use depends on things like the problem size, the cache line size, the context switching and spawning overhead, and various other things that is really hard to compute before hand. For such situations, you really have to do some profiling in order to choose an optimal sharding/partitioning of your problem across threads. It typically doesn't make sense, though, to use more threads than you do cores. It is also true that if you have lots of synchronization, then you may, in fact, have a performance penalty for using threads. It's highly dependent on the particular problem as well as how interdependent the various steps are. As a guiding principle, you need to be aware that spawning threads and thread synchronization are expensive operations, but performing computations in parallel can increase throughput if communication and other forms of synchronization is minimal. You should also be aware that threading can lead to very poor cache performance if your threads end up invalidating a mutually shared cache line.
As far as I know, the multi-core architecture in a processor does not effect the program. The actual instruction execution is handled in a lower layer.
my question is,
Given that you have a multicore environment, Can I use any programming practices to utilize the available resources more effectively? How should I change my code to gain more performance in multicore environments?
That is correct. Your program will not run any faster (except for the fact that the core is handling fewer other processes, because some of the processes are being run on the other core) unless you employ concurrency. If you do use concurrency, though, more cores improves the actual parallelism (with fewer cores, the concurrency is interleaved, whereas with more cores, you can get true parallelism between threads).
Making programs efficiently concurrent is no simple task. If done poorly, making your program concurrent can actually make it slower! For example, if you spend lots of time spawning threads (thread construction is really slow), and do work on a very small chunk size (so that the overhead of thread construction dominates the actual work), or if you frequently synchronize your data (which not only forces operations to run serially, but also has a very high overhead on top of it), or if you frequently write to data in the same cache line between multiple threads (which can lead to the entire cache line being invalidated on one of the cores), then you can seriously harm the performance with concurrent programming.
It is also important to note that if you have N cores, that DOES NOT mean that you will get a speedup of N. That is the theoretical limit to the speedup. In fact, maybe with two cores it is twice as fast, but with four cores it might be about three times as fast, and then with eight cores it is about three and a half times as fast, etc. How well your program is actually able to take advantage of these cores is called the parallel scalability. Often communication and synchronization overhead prevent a linear speedup, although, in the ideal, if you can avoid communication and synchronization as much as possible, you can hopefully get close to linear.
It would not be possible to give a complete answer on how to write efficient parallel programs on StackOverflow. This is really the subject of at least one (probably several) computer science courses. I suggest that you sign up for such a course or buy a book. I'd recommend a book to you if I knew of a good one, but the paralell algorithms course I took did not have a textbook for the course. You might also be interested in writing a handful of programs using a serial implementation, a parallel implementation with multithreading (regular threads, thread pools, etc.), and a parallel implementation with message passing (such as with Hadoop, Apache Spark, Cloud Dataflows, asynchronous RPCs, etc.), and then measuring their performance, varying the number of cores in the case of the parallel implementations. This was the bulk of the course work for my parallel algorithms course and can be quite insightful. Some computations you might try parallelizing include computing Pi using the Monte Carlo method (this is trivially parallelizable, assuming you can create a random number generator where the random numbers generated in different threads are independent), performing matrix multiplication, computing the row echelon form of a matrix, summing the square of the number 1...N for some very large number of N, and I'm sure you can think of others.
I don't know if it's the best possible place to start, but I've subscribed to the article feed from Intel Software Network some time ago and have found a lot of interesting thing there, presented in pretty simple way. You can find some very basic articles on fundamental concepts of parallel computing, like this. Here you have a quick dive into openMP that is one possible approach to start parallelizing the slowest parts of your application, without changing the rest. (If those parts present parallelism, of course.) Also check Intel Guide for Developing Multithreaded Applications. Or just go and browse the article section, the articles are not too many, so you can quickly figure out what suits you best. They also have a forum and a weekly webcast called Parallel Programming Talk.
Yes, simply adding more cores to a system without altering the software would yield you no results (with exception of the operating system would be able to schedule multiple concurrent processes on separate cores).
To have your operating system utilise your multiple cores, you need to do one of two things: increase the thread count per process, or increase the number of processes running at the same time (or both!).
Utilising the cores effectively, however, is a beast of a different colour. If you spend too much time synchronising shared data access between threads/processes, your level of concurrency will take a hit as threads wait on each other. This also assumes that you have a problem/computation that can relatively easily be parallelised, since the parallel version of an algorithm is often much more complex than the sequential version thereof.
That said, especially for CPU-bound computations with work units that are independent of each other, you'll most likely see a linear speed-up as you throw more threads at the problem. As you add serial segments and synchronisation blocks, this speed-up will tend to decrease.
I/O heavy computations would typically fare the worst in a multi-threaded environment, since access to the physical storage (especially if it's on the same controller, or the same media) is also serial, in which case threading becomes more useful in the sense that it frees up your other threads to continue with user interaction or CPU-based operations.
You might consider using programming languages designed for concurrent programming. Erlang and Go come to mind.