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.
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 understand how to create a thread in my chosen language and I understand about mutexs, and the dangers of shared data e.t.c but I'm sure about how the O/S manages threads and the cost of each thread. I have a series of questions that all relate and the clearest way to show the limit of my understanding is probably via these questions.
What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software? One of the costs to creating a thread must be its own stack pointer and process counter, then space to copy all of the working registers to as it is moved on and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between threads of a process or on a first come first served?
Can I somehow check the hardware on start up (of the program) for number of cores. If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of threads to N-1?
then space to copy all of the working registeres to as it is moved on
and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
One less evident cost is the strain imposed on the scheduler which may start to choke if it needs to juggle thousands of threads. The memory isn't really the issue. With the right tweaking you can get a "thread" to occupy very little memory, little more than its stack. This tweaking could be difficult (i.e. using clone(2) directly under linux etc) but it can be done.
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between
threads of a process or on a first come first served
Each thread gets its own stack, and typically you can control its size.
If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of
threads to N-1
Checking the number of cores is easy, but environment-specific. However, limiting the number of threads to the number of cores only makes sense if your workload consists of CPU-intensive operations, with little I/O. If I/O is involved you may want to have many more threads than cores.
You should be as thoughtful as possible in everything you design and implement.
I know that a Java thread stack takes up about 1MB each time you create a thread. , so they add up.
Threads make sense for asynchronous tasks that allow long-running activities to happen without preventing all other users/processes from making progress.
Threads are managed by the operating system. There are lots of schemes, all under the control of the operating system (e.g. round robin, first come first served, etc.)
It makes perfect sense to me to assign one thread per core for some activities (e.g. computationally intensive calculations, graphics, math, etc.), but that need not be the deciding factor. One app I develop uses roughly 100 active threads in production; it's not a 100 core machine.
To add to the other excellent posts:
'What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software?'
It is if one of your design choices is doing such a thing often. A good way of avoiding this issue is to create threads once, at app startup, by using pools and/or app-lifetime threads dedicated to operations. Inter-thread signaling is much quicker than continual thread creation/termination/destruction and also much safer/easier.
The number of posts concerning problems with thread stopping, terminating, destroying, thread count runaway, OOM failure etc. is ledgendary. If you can avoid doing it at all, great.
Suppose I have a multi-threaded application (say ~40 threads) running on a multiprocessor system (say 8 cores) with Linux as the operating system where different threads are more essentially LWP (Light Weight Processes) being scheduled by the kernel.
What would be benefits/drawbacks of using the CPU affinity? Whether CPU affinity is going to help by localizing the threads to a subset of cores thus minimizing cache sharing/misses?
If you use strict affinity, then a particular thread MUST run on that processor (or set of processors). If you have many threads that work completely independently, and they work on larger chunks of memory than a few kilobytes, then it's unlikely you'll benefit much from running on one particular core - since it's quite possible the other threads running on this particular CPU would have thrown out any L1 cache, and quite possibly L2 caches too. Which is more important for performance - cahce content or "getting to run sooner"? Are some CPU's always idle, or is the CPU load 100% on every core?
However, only you know (until you tell us) what your threads are doing. How big is the "working set" (how much memory - code and data) are they touching each time they get to run? How long does each thread run when they are running? What is the interaction with other threads? Are other threads using shared data with "this" thread? How much and what is the pattern of sharing?
Finally, the ultimate answer is "What makes it run faster?" - an answer you can only find by having good (realistic) benchmarks and trying the different possible options. Even if you give us every single line of code, running time measurements for each thread, etc, etc, we could only make more or less sophisticated guesses - until these have been tried and tested (with VARYING usage patterns), it's almost impossible to know.
In general, I'd suggest that having many threads either suggest that each thread isn't very busy (CPU-wise), or you are "doing it wrong"... More threads aren't better if they are all running flat out - better to have fewer threads in that case, because they are just going to fight each other.
The scheduler already tries to keep threads on the same cores, and to avoid migrations. This suggests that there's probably not a lot of mileage in managing thread affinity manually, unless:
you can demonstrate that for some reason the kernel is doing a bad a job for your particular application; or
there's some specific knowledge about your application that you can exploit to good effect.
localizing the threads to a subset of cores thus minimizing cache
sharing/misses
Not necessarily, you have to consider cache coherence too, if two or more threads access a shared memory buffer and each one is bound to a different CPU core their caches have to be synchronized if one thread writes to a shared cache line there will be a significant overhead to invalidate other caches.
What are the main advantages of using a model for concurrency based on processes over one
based on threads and in what contexts is the latter appropriate?
Fault-tolerance and scalability are the main advantages of using Processes vs. Threads.
A system that relies on shared memory or some other kind of technology that is only available when using threads, will be useless when you want to run the system on multiple machines. Sooner or later you will need to communicate between different processes.
When using processes you are forced to deal with communication via messages, for example, this is the way Erlang handles communication. Data is not shared, so there is no risk of data corruption.
Another advantage of processes is that they can crash and you can feel relatively safe in the knowledge that you can just restart them (even across network hosts). However, if a thread crashes, it may crash the entire process, which may bring down your entire application. To illustrate: If an Erlang process crashes, you will only lose that phone call, or that webrequest, etc. Not the whole application.
In saying all this, OS processes also have many drawbacks that can make them harder to use, like the fact that it takes forever to spawn a new process. However, Erlang has it's own notion of processes, which are extremely lightweight.
With that said, this discussion is really a topic of research. If you want to get into more of the details, you can give Joe Armstrong's paper on fault-tolerant systems]1 a read, it explains a lot about Erlang and the philosophy that drives it.
The disadvantage of using a process-based model is that it will be slower. You will have to copy data between the concurrent parts of your program.
The disadvantage of using a thread-based model is that you will probably get it wrong. It may sound mean, but it's true-- show me code based on threads and I'll show you a bug. I've found bugs in threaded code that has run "correctly" for 10 years.
The advantages of using a process-based model are numerous. The separation forces you to think in terms of protocols and formal communication patterns, which means its far more likely that you will get it right. Processes communicating with each other are easier to scale out across multiple machines. Multiple concurrent processes allows one process to crash without necessarily crashing the others.
The advantage of using a thread-based model is that it is fast.
It may be obvious which of the two I prefer, but in case it isn't: processes, every day of the week and twice on Sunday. Threads are too hard: I haven't ever met anybody who could write correct multi-threaded code; those that claim to be able to usually don't know enough about the space yet.
In this case Processes are more independent of eachother, while Threads shares some resources e.g. memory. But in a general case Threads are more light-weight than Processes.
Erlang Processes is not the same thing as OS Processes. Erlang Processes are very light-weight and Erlang can have many Erlang Processes within the same OS Thread. See Technically why is processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads?
First and foremost, processes differ from threads mostly in the way their memory is handled:
Process = n*Thread + memory region (n>=1)
Processes have their own isolated memory.
Processes can have multiple threads.
Processes are isolated from each other on the operating system level.
Threads share their memory with their peers in the process.
(This is often undesirable. There are libraries and methods out there to remedy this, but that is usually an artificial layer over operating system threads.)
The memory thing is the most important discerning factor, as it has certain implications:
Exchanging data between processes is slower than between threads. Breaking the process isolation always requires some involvement of kernel calls and memory remapping.
Threads are more lightweight than processes. The operating system has to allocate resources and do memory management for each process.
Using processes gives you memory isolation and synchronization. Common problems with access to memory shared between threads do not concern you. Since you have to make a special effort to share data between processes, you will most likely sync automatically with that.
Using processes gives you good (or ultimate) encapsulation. Since inter process communication needs special effort, you will be forced to define a clean interface. It is a good idea to break certain parts of your application out of the main executable. Maybe you can split dependencies like that.
e.g. Process_RobotAi <-> Process_RobotControl
The AI will have vastly different dependencies compared to the control component. The interface might be simple: Process_RobotAI --DriveXY--> Process_RobotControl.
Maybe you change the robot platform. You only have to implement a new RobotControl executable with that simple interface. You don't have to touch or even recompile anything in your AI component.
It will also, for the same reasons, speed up compilation in most cases.
Edit: Just for completeness I will shamelessly add what the others have reminded me of :
A crashing process does not (necessarily) crash your whole application.
In General:
Want to create something highly concurrent or synchronuous, like an algorithm with n>>1 instances running in parallel and sharing data, use threads.
Have a system with multiple components that do not need to share data or algorithms, nor do they exchange data too often, use processes. If you use a RPC library for the inter process communication, you get a network-distributable solution at no extra cost.
1 and 2 are the extreme and no-brainer scenarios, everything in between must be decided individually.
For a good (or awesome) example of a system that uses IPC/RPC heavily, have a look at ros.
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.