Related
Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 9 years ago.
Improve this question
Given a single core CPU, what is the benefit to coding using threads?
At least with the Java implementation, and it seems intuitive to naturally extend to any other language considering the single core restriction, you may have several threads performing various actions but the processes are time-limited and switched.
Given process A and process B:
What is the benefit of performing half of process A, finish process B, and then finish the second half of process A VS performing process A then B?
It seems that the switching between the threads would introduce time delays that would prolong the overall completion time of both processes VS not switching and just completing A then B.
The reason to use threads on a single-core system is simply to allow processes that would otherwise use all the CPU to be preempted by other tasks that need to get done sooner. The most common reason to make a system multi-threaded is to have a responsive user interface even while performing long calculations.
Of course, any operation can take a long time (reading a file, accessing a database, resizing a photo, recalculating a spreadsheet), and those operations can be performed on a separate thread to allow the thread responding to user input to operate the whole time.
Twenty years ago, for example, it was rare to have a multi-CPU system or an OS that allowed multi-threading, so nearly every program was single-threaded and there were many frameworks created to allow systems to have UIs and still do I/O. The standard mechanism for this is an event loop, where all events (UI, network, timers, etc.) are processed in a big loop.
This type of system means that the UI is held up during things like file I/O and calculations. In order to not hold up the UI too much, you have to do the I/O in chunks (say, read the file 4k at a time), processing any incoming UI events between chunks. This is really just a hack to keep the system running, but it's hard to make the system run smoothly like this because you don't know how often you need to process events.
The solution is to have a separate thread to recalculate your spreadsheet or write your file. That way the OS can give those threads fair timeslices while still preempting them to run the UI, allowing the UI to always be responsive.
An executing thread is not necessarily doing anything useful. The canonical example is reading from disk -- that data isn't going to be there for another few milliseconds, during which time the processor would be sitting unused. Threads allow one piece of the program to use the CPU while other pieces of the program are waiting for operations to complete.
There are many reasons. Wikipedia gives a decent overview on its page about threads.
Here's a few OTOH:
I/O bound tasks benefit from threading (especially network applications).
Hyperthreaded processors may speed up multithreaded applications even on a single core.
Threads can be instructed to wait (block) and wake up on specific events, enabling responsive event-driven programming.
If your program has to do several things "at the same time" then threads are a good way to go, particularly is some of those tasks are quite long running. Otherwise you find yourself writing code that looks like an operating system scheduler inside your program, which is always a waste of time if the OS underneath you has a perfectly good one already. You'd find that your source code was mostly 'scheduler' and not much 'program', which is very inelegant. A good threaded program can be very elegant and economic in source code, which makes oneself look good and saves time.
Some run times get/got it wrong. In the early days of Ada the runtime environment would do its own thread scheduling, and it was never very satisfactory. That was partly due to the fact that whilst the Ada language spec included the concept of threads, the OSes we had back then quite often didn't provide them. Ada got a lot better when the compiler writers started using the underlying OS threads instead.
Similarly Python doesn't really properly use the underlying OS threads; it spoils it with the Global Interpreter Lock. Python has sidestepped the whole issue by going for multiprocessing instead (not necessarily a good thing on Windows hosts...).
Early versions of Windows didn't do threads either, they did cooperative multitasking. This depended on each process in the whole machine calling any OS routine at least now and then. Each OS routine would first consult the 'scheduler' to see if anything else was waiting to run before getting on with whatever it was supposed to be doing on behalf of the program. There were many terrible programs back then that wouldn't play ball and hogged the entire machine. You couldn't get on with playing a game of Solitaire when something else embarked on a length calculation.
What's the mental model of your program?
IF it depends on multiple external inputs that can happen in unpredictable orders, and if what you want to do in response to those inputs is not simple and can overlap in time ...
THEN it makes sense to devote a separate thread to each input request, and have that thread perform the response needed by that request.
So, for example, if your program is waiting for input requests from an external channel, and each request must trigger its own protocol of outgoing and incoming messages, it can very much simplify the code to create a new thread (or re-use an old one) for each request.
Somehow people seem to enter the workforce thinking that threads are only there for speed (through parallelism).
That's one use, provided it allows multiple CPU chips to get cranking,
but it is by no means the only use.
I stumbled over node.js sometime ago and like it a lot. But soon I found out that it lacked badly the ability to perform CPU-intensive tasks. So, I started googling and got these answers to solve the problem: Fibers, Webworkers and Threads (thread-a-gogo). Now which one to use is a confusion and one of them definitely needs to be used - afterall what's the purpose of having a server which is just good at IO and nothing else? Suggestions needed!
UPDATE:
I was thinking of a way off-late; just needing suggestions over it. Now, what I thought of was this: Let's have some threads (using thread_a_gogo or maybe webworkers). Now, when we need more of them, we can create more. But there will be some limit over the creation process. (not implied by the system but probably because of overhead). Now, when we exceed the limit, we can fork a new node, and start creating threads over it. This way, it can go on till we reach some limit (after all, processes too have a big overhead). When this limit is reached, we start queuing tasks. Whenever a thread becomes free, it will be assigned a new task. This way, it can go on smoothly.
So, that was what I thought of. Is this idea good? I am a bit new to all this process and threads stuff, so don't have any expertise in it. Please share your opinions.
Thanks. :)
Node has a completely different paradigm and once it is correctly captured, it is easier to see this different way of solving problems. You never need multiple threads in a Node application(1) because you have a different way of doing the same thing. You create multiple processes; but it is very very different than, for example how Apache Web Server's Prefork mpm does.
For now, let's think that we have just one CPU core and we will develop an application (in Node's way) to do some work. Our job is to process a big file running over its contents byte-by-byte. The best way for our software is to start the work from the beginning of the file, follow it byte-by-byte to the end.
-- Hey, Hasan, I suppose you are either a newbie or very old school from my Grandfather's time!!! Why don't you create some threads and make it much faster?
-- Oh, we have only one CPU core.
-- So what? Create some threads man, make it faster!
-- It does not work like that. If I create threads I will be making it slower. Because I will be adding a lot of overhead to the system for switching between threads, trying to give them a just amount of time, and inside my process, trying to communicate between these threads. In addition to all these facts, I will also have to think about how I will divide a single job into multiple pieces that can be done in parallel.
-- Okay okay, I see you are poor. Let's use my computer, it has 32 cores!
-- Wow, you are awesome my dear friend, thank you very much. I appreciate it!
Then we turn back to work. Now we have 32 cpu cores thanks to our rich friend. Rules we have to abide have just changed. Now we want to utilize all this wealth we are given.
To use multiple cores, we need to find a way to divide our work into pieces that we can handle in parallel. If it was not Node, we would use threads for this; 32 threads, one for each cpu core. However, since we have Node, we will create 32 Node processes.
Threads can be a good alternative to Node processes, maybe even a better way; but only in a specific kind of job where the work is already defined and we have complete control over how to handle it. Other than this, for every other kind of problem where the job comes from outside in a way we do not have control over and we want to answer as quickly as possible, Node's way is unarguably superior.
-- Hey, Hasan, are you still working single-threaded? What is wrong with you, man? I have just provided you what you wanted. You have no excuses anymore. Create threads, make it run faster.
-- I have divided the work into pieces and every process will work on one of these pieces in parallel.
-- Why don't you create threads?
-- Sorry, I don't think it is usable. You can take your computer if you want?
-- No okay, I am cool, I just don't understand why you don't use threads?
-- Thank you for the computer. :) I already divided the work into pieces and I create processes to work on these pieces in parallel. All the CPU cores will be fully utilized. I could do this with threads instead of processes; but Node has this way and my boss Parth Thakkar wants me to use Node.
-- Okay, let me know if you need another computer. :p
If I create 33 processes, instead of 32, the operating system's scheduler will be pausing a thread, start the other one, pause it after some cycles, start the other one again... This is unnecessary overhead. I do not want it. In fact, on a system with 32 cores, I wouldn't even want to create exactly 32 processes, 31 can be nicer. Because it is not just my application that will work on this system. Leaving a little room for other things can be good, especially if we have 32 rooms.
I believe we are on the same page now about fully utilizing processors for CPU-intensive tasks.
-- Hmm, Hasan, I am sorry for mocking you a little. I believe I understand you better now. But there is still something I need an explanation for: What is all the buzz about running hundreds of threads? I read everywhere that threads are much faster to create and dumb than forking processes? You fork processes instead of threads and you think it is the highest you would get with Node. Then is Node not appropriate for this kind of work?
-- No worries, I am cool, too. Everybody says these things so I think I am used to hearing them.
-- So? Node is not good for this?
-- Node is perfectly good for this even though threads can be good too. As for thread/process creation overhead; on things that you repeat a lot, every millisecond counts. However, I create only 32 processes and it will take a tiny amount of time. It will happen only once. It will not make any difference.
-- When do I want to create thousands of threads, then?
-- You never want to create thousands of threads. However, on a system that is doing work that comes from outside, like a web server processing HTTP requests; if you are using a thread for each request, you will be creating a lot of threads, many of them.
-- Node is different, though? Right?
-- Yes, exactly. This is where Node really shines. Like a thread is much lighter than a process, a function call is much lighter than a thread. Node calls functions, instead of creating threads. In the example of a web server, every incoming request causes a function call.
-- Hmm, interesting; but you can only run one function at the same time if you are not using multiple threads. How can this work when a lot of requests arrive at the web server at the same time?
-- You are perfectly right about how functions run, one at a time, never two in parallel. I mean in a single process, only one scope of code is running at a time. The OS Scheduler does not come and pause this function and switch to another one, unless it pauses the process to give time to another process, not another thread in our process. (2)
-- Then how can a process handle 2 requests at a time?
-- A process can handle tens of thousands of requests at a time as long as our system has enough resources (RAM, Network, etc.). How those functions run is THE KEY DIFFERENCE.
-- Hmm, should I be excited now?
-- Maybe :) Node runs a loop over a queue. In this queue are our jobs, i.e, the calls we started to process incoming requests. The most important point here is the way we design our functions to run. Instead of starting to process a request and making the caller wait until we finish the job, we quickly end our function after doing an acceptable amount of work. When we come to a point where we need to wait for another component to do some work and return us a value, instead of waiting for that, we simply finish our function adding the rest of work to the queue.
-- It sounds too complex?
-- No no, I might sound complex; but the system itself is very simple and it makes perfect sense.
Now I want to stop citing the dialogue between these two developers and finish my answer after a last quick example of how these functions work.
In this way, we are doing what OS Scheduler would normally do. We pause our work at some point and let other function calls (like other threads in a multi-threaded environment) run until we get our turn again. This is much better than leaving the work to OS Scheduler which tries to give just time to every thread on system. We know what we are doing much better than OS Scheduler does and we are expected to stop when we should stop.
Below is a simple example where we open a file and read it to do some work on the data.
Synchronous Way:
Open File
Repeat This:
Read Some
Do the work
Asynchronous Way:
Open File and Do this when it is ready: // Our function returns
Repeat this:
Read Some and when it is ready: // Returns again
Do some work
As you see, our function asks the system to open a file and does not wait for it to be opened. It finishes itself by providing next steps after file is ready. When we return, Node runs other function calls on the queue. After running over all the functions, the event loop moves to next turn...
In summary, Node has a completely different paradigm than multi-threaded development; but this does not mean that it lacks things. For a synchronous job (where we can decide the order and way of processing), it works as well as multi-threaded parallelism. For a job that comes from outside like requests to a server, it simply is superior.
(1) Unless you are building libraries in other languages like C/C++ in which case you still do not create threads for dividing jobs. For this kind of work you have two threads one of which will continue communication with Node while the other does the real work.
(2) In fact, every Node process has multiple threads for the same reasons I mentioned in the first footnote. However this is no way like 1000 threads doing similar works. Those extra threads are for things like to accept IO events and to handle inter-process messaging.
UPDATE (As reply to a good question in comments)
#Mark, thank you for the constructive criticism. In Node's paradigm, you should never have functions that takes too long to process unless all other calls in the queue are designed to be run one after another. In case of computationally expensive tasks, if we look at the picture in complete, we see that this is not a question of "Should we use threads or processes?" but a question of "How can we divide these tasks in a well balanced manner into sub-tasks that we can run them in parallel employing multiple CPU cores on the system?" Let's say we will process 400 video files on a system with 8 cores. If we want to process one file at a time, then we need a system that will process different parts of the same file in which case, maybe, a multi-threaded single-process system will be easier to build and even more efficient. We can still use Node for this by running multiple processes and passing messages between them when state-sharing/communication is necessary. As I said before, a multi-process approach with Node is as well as a multi-threaded approach in this kind of tasks; but not more than that. Again, as I told before, the situation that Node shines is when we have these tasks coming as input to system from multiple sources since keeping many connections concurrently is much lighter in Node compared to a thread-per-connection or process-per-connection system.
As for setTimeout(...,0) calls; sometimes giving a break during a time consuming task to allow calls in the queue have their share of processing can be required. Dividing tasks in different ways can save you from these; but still, this is not really a hack, it is just the way event queues work. Also, using process.nextTick for this aim is much better since when you use setTimeout, calculation and checks of the time passed will be necessary while process.nextTick is simply what we really want: "Hey task, go back to end of the queue, you have used your share!"
(Update 2016: Web workers are going into io.js - a Node.js fork Node.js v7 - see below.)
(Update 2017: Web workers are not going into Node.js v7 or v8 - see below.)
(Update 2018: Web workers are going into Node.js Node v10.5.0 - see below.)
Some clarification
Having read the answers above I would like to point out that there is nothing in web workers that is against the philosophy of JavaScript in general and Node in particular regarding concurrency. (If there was, it wouldn't be even discussed by the WHATWG, much less implemented in the browsers).
You can think of a web worker as a lightweight microservice that is accessed asynchronously. No state is shared. No locking problems exist. There is no blocking. There is no synchronization needed. Just like when you use a RESTful service from your Node program you don't worry that it is now "multithreaded" because the RESTful service is not in the same thread as your own event loop. It's just a separate service that you access asynchronously and that is what matters.
The same is with web workers. It's just an API to communicate with code that runs in a completely separate context and whether it is in different thread, different process, different cgroup, zone, container or different machine is completely irrelevant, because of a strictly asynchronous, non-blocking API, with all data passed by value.
As a matter of fact web workers are conceptually a perfect fit for Node which - as many people are not aware of - incidentally uses threads quite heavily, and in fact "everything runs in parallel except your code" - see:
Understanding the node.js event loop by Mikito Takada
Understanding node.js by Felix Geisendörfer
Understanding the Node.js Event Loop by Trevor Norris
Node.js itself is blocking, only its I/O is non-blocking by Jeremy Epstein
But the web workers don't even need to be implemented using threads. You could use processes, green threads, or even RESTful services in the cloud - as long as the web worker API is used. The whole beauty of the message passing API with call by value semantics is that the underlying implementation is pretty much irrelevant, as the details of the concurrency model will not get exposed.
A single-threaded event loop is perfect for I/O-bound operations. It doesn't work that well for CPU-bound operations, especially long running ones. For that we need to spawn more processes or use threads. Managing child processes and the inter-process communication in a portable way can be quite difficult and it is often seen as an overkill for simple tasks, while using threads means dealing with locks and synchronization issues that are very difficult to do right.
What is often recommended is to divide long-running CPU-bound operations into smaller tasks (something like the example in the "Original answer" section of my answer to Speed up setInterval) but it is not always practical and it doesn't use more than one CPU core.
I'm writing it to clarify the comments that were basically saying that web workers were created for browsers, not servers (forgetting that it can be said about pretty much everything in JavaScript).
Node modules
There are few modules that are supposed to add Web Workers to Node:
https://github.com/pgriess/node-webworker
https://github.com/audreyt/node-webworker-threads
I haven't used any of them but I have two quick observations that may be relevant: as of March 2015, node-webworker was last updated 4 years ago and node-webworker-threads was last updated a month ago. Also I see in the example of node-webworker-threads usage that you can use a function instead of a file name as an argument to the Worker constructor which seems that may cause subtle problems if it is implemented using threads that share memory (unless the functions is used only for its .toString() method and is otherwise compiled in a different environment, in which case it may be fine - I have to look more deeply into it, just sharing my observations here).
If there is any other relevant project that implements web workers API in Node, please leave a comment.
Update 1
I didn't know it yet at the time of writing but incidentally one day before I wrote this answer Web Workers were added to io.js.
(io.js is a fork of Node.js - see: Why io.js decided to fork Node.js, an InfoWorld interview with Mikeal Rogers, for more info.)
Not only does it prove the point that there is nothing in web workers that is against the philosophy of JavaScript in general and Node in particular regarding concurrency, but it may result in web workers being a first class citizen in server-side JavaScript like io.js (and possibly Node.js in the future) just as it already is in client-side JavaScript in all modern browsers.
Update 2
In Update 1 and my tweet I was referring to io.js pull request #1159
which now redirects to
Node PR #1159
that was closed on Jul 8 and replaced with Node PR #2133 - which is still open.
There is some discussion taking place under those pull requests that may provide some more up to date info on the status of Web workers in io.js/Node.js.
Update 3
Latest info - thanks to NiCk Newman for posting it in
the comments: There is the workers: initial implementation commit by Petka Antonov from Sep 6, 2015
that can be downloaded and tried out in
this tree. See comments by NiCk Newman for details.
Update 4
As of May 2016 the last comments on the still open PR #2133 - workers: initial implementation were 3 months old. On May 30 Matheus Moreira asked me to post an update to this answer in the comments below and he asked for the current status of this feature in the PR comments.
The first answers in the PR discussion were skeptical but later
Ben Noordhuis wrote that "Getting this merged in one shape or another is on my todo list for v7".
All other comments seemed to second that and as of July 2016 it seems that Web Workers should be available in the next version of Node, version 7.0 that is planned to be released on October 2016 (not necessarily in the form of this exact PR).
Thanks to Matheus Moreira for pointing it out in the comments and reviving the discussion on GitHub.
Update 5
As of July 2016 there are few modules on npm that were not available before - for a complete list of relevant modules, search npm for workers, web workers, etc. If anything in particular does or doesn't work for you, please post a comment.
Update 6
As of January 2017 it is unlikely that web workers will get merged into Node.js.
The pull request #2133 workers: initial implementation by Petka Antonov from July 8, 2015 was finally closed by Ben Noordhuis on December 11, 2016 who commented that "multi-threading support adds too many new failure modes for not enough benefit" and "we can also accomplish that using more traditional means like shared memory and more efficient serialization."
For more information see the comments to the PR 2133 on GitHub.
Thanks again to Matheus Moreira for pointing it out in the comments.
Update 6
I'm happy to announce that few days ago, in June 2018 web workers appeared in Node v10.5.0 as an experimental feature activated with the --experimental-worker flag.
For more info, see:
Node v10.5.0 release blog post
Pull Request #20876 - worker: initial implementation by Anna Henningsen
My original tweet of happiness when I learned that this got into v10.5.0:
🎉🎉🎉 Finally! I can make the 7th update to my 3 year old Stack Overflow answer where I argue that threading a la web workers is not against Node philosophy, only this time saying that we finally got it! 😜👍
I come from the old school of thought where we used multi-threading to make software fast. For past 3 years i have been using Node.js and a big supporter of it. As hasanyasin explained in detail how node works and the concept of asyncrous functionality. But let me add few things here.
Back in the old days with single cores and lower clock speeds we tried various ways to make software work fast and parallel. in DOS days we use to run one program at a time. Than in windows we started running multiple applications (processes) together. Concepts like preemptive and non-preemptive (or cooperative) where tested. we know now that preemptive was the answer for better multi-processing task on single core computers. Along came the concepts of processes/tasks and context switching. Than the concept of thread to further reduce the burden of process context switching. Thread where coined as light weight alternative to spawning new processes.
So like it or not signal thread or not multi-core or single core your processes will be preempted and time sliced by the OS.
Nodejs is a single process and provides async mechanism. Here jobs are dispatched to under lying OS to perform tasks while we waiting in an event loop for the task to finish. Once we get a green signal from OS we perform what ever we need to do. Now in a way this is cooperative/non-preemptive multi-tasking, so we should never block the event loop for a very long period of time other wise we will degrade our application very fast.
So if there is ever a task that is blocking in nature or is very time consuming we will have to branch it out to the preemptive world of OS and threads.
there are good examples of this is in the libuv documentation. Also if you read the documentation further you find that FileI/O is handled in threads in node.js.
So Firstly its all in the design of our software. Secondly Context switching is always happening no matter what they tell you. Thread are there and still there for a reason, the reason is they are faster to switch in between then processes.
Under hood in node.js its all c++ and threads. And node provides c++ way to extend its functionality and to further speed out by using threads where they are a must i.e., blocking tasks such as reading from a source writing to a source, large data analysis so on so forth.
I know hasanyasin answer is the accepted one but for me threads will exist no matter what you say or how you hide them behind scripts, secondly no one just breaks things in to threads just for speed it is mostly done for blocking tasks. And threads are in the back bone of Node.js so before completely bashing multi-threading is in correct. Also threads are different from processes and the limitation of having node processes per core don't exactly apply to number of threads, threads are like sub tasks to a process. in fact threads won;t show up in your windows task manager or linux top command. once again they are more little weight then processes
I'm not sure if webworkers are relevant in this case, they are client-side tech (run in the browser), while node.js runs on the server. Fibers, as far as I understand, are also blocking, i.e. they are voluntary multitasking, so you could use them, but should manage context switches yourself via yield. Threads might be actually what you need, but I don't know how mature they are in node.js.
worker_threads has been implemented and shipped behind a flag in node#10.5.0. It's still an initial implementation and more efforts are needed to make it more efficient in future releases. Worth giving it a try in latest node.
In many Node developers' opinions one of the best parts of Node is actually its single-threaded nature. Threads introduce a whole slew of difficulties with shared resources that Node completely avoids by doing nothing but non-blocking IO.
That's not to say that Node is limited to a single thread. It's just that the method for getting threaded concurrency is different from what you're looking for. The standard way to deal with threads is with the cluster module that comes standard with Node itself. It's a simpler approach to threads than manually dealing with them in your code.
For dealing with asynchronous programming in your code (as in, avoiding nested callback pyramids), the [Future] component in the Fibers library is a decent choice. I would also suggest you check out Asyncblock which is based on Fibers. Fibers are nice because they allow you to hide callback by duplicating the stack and then jumping between stacks on a single-thread as they're needed. Saves you the hassle of real threads while giving you the benefits. The downside is that stack traces can get a bit weird when using Fibers, but they aren't too bad.
If you don't need to worry about async stuff and are more just interested in doing a lot of processing without blocking, a simple call to process.nextTick(callback) every once in a while is all you need.
Maybe some more information on what tasks you are performing would help. Why would you need to (as you mentioned in your comment to genericdave's answer) need to create many thousands of them? The usual way of doing this sort of thing in Node is to start up a worker process (using fork or some other method) which always runs and can be communicated to using messages. In other words, don't start up a new worker each time you need to perform whatever task it is you're doing, but simply send a message to the already running worker and get a response when it's done. Honestly, I can't see that starting up many thousands of actual threads would be very efficient either, you are still limited by you CPUs.
Now, after saying all of that, I have been doing a lot of work with Hook.io lately which seems to work very well for this sort of off-loading tasks into other processes, maybe it can accomplish what you need.
I'm planning to make a software with lot of peer to peer like network connections. Normally I would create an own thread for every connection to send and receive data, but in this case with 300-500+ connections it would mean continuously creating and destroying a lot of threads which would be a big overhead I guess. And making one thread that handles all the connections sequentially could probably slow down things a little. (I'm not really sure about this.)
The question is: how many threads would be optimal to handle this kind of problems? Would it be possible to calculate it in the software so it can decide itself to create less threads on an old computer with not as much resources and more on new ones?
It's a theoretical question, I wouldn't like to make it implementation or language dependant. However I think a lot of people would advice something like "Just use a ThreadPool, it will handle stuff like that" so let's say it will not be a .NET application. (I'll probably has to use some other parts of the code in an old Delphi project, so the language will be probably Delphi or maybe C++ but it's not decided yet.)
Understanding the performance of your application under load is key, as mentioned before profiling, measurements and re-testing is the way to go.
As a general guide Goetz talks about having
threads = number of CPUs + 1
for CPU bound applications, and
number of CPUs * (1 + wait time / service time)
for IO bound contexts
If this is Windows (you did mention .Net?), you should definitely implement this using I/O completion ports. This is the most efficient way to do Windows sockets I/O. There is an I/O-specific discussion of thread pool size at that documentation link.
The most important property of an I/O
completion port to consider carefully
is the concurrency value. The
concurrency value of a completion port
is specified when it is created with
CreateIoCompletionPort via the
NumberOfConcurrentThreads parameter.
This value limits the number of
runnable threads associated with the
completion port. When the total number
of runnable threads associated with
the completion port reaches the
concurrency value, the system blocks
the execution of any subsequent
threads associated with that
completion port until the number of
runnable threads drops below the
concurrency value.
Basically, your reads and writes are all asynchronous and are serviced by a thread pool whose size you can modify. But try it with the default first.
A good, free example of how to do this is at the Free Framework. There are some gotchas that looking at working code could help you short-circuit.
You could do a calculation based on cpu speed, cores, and memory space in your install and set a constant somewhere to tell your application how many threads to use. Semaphores and thread pools come to mind.
Personally I would separate the listening sockets from the sending ones and open sending sockets in runtime instead of running them as daemons; listening sockets can run as daemons.
Multithreading can be its own headache and introduce many bugs. The best thing to do is make a thread do one thing and block when processing to avoid undesired and unpredictable results.
Make the number of threads configurable.
Target a few specific configurations that are the most common ones that you expect to support.
Get a good performance profiler / instrument your code and then rigorously test with different values of 1. for all the different types of 2. till you find an optimal value that works for each configuration.
I know, this might seem like a not-so smart way to do things but i think when it comes to performance, benchmarking the results via testing is the only sure-fire way to really know how well / badly it will work.
Edit: +1 to the question whose link is posted by paxDiablo above as a comment. Its almost the same question and theres loads of information there including a very detailed reply by paxDiablo himself.
One thread per CPU, processing several (hundreds) connections.
What are some concrete examples of applications that need to be multi-threaded, or don't need to be, but are much better that way?
Answers would be best if in the form of one application per post that way the most applicable will float to the top.
There is no hard and fast answer, but most of the time you will not see any advantage for systems where the workflow/calculation is sequential. If however the problem can be broken down into tasks that can be run in parallel (or the problem itself is massively parallel [as some mathematics or analytical problems are]), you can see large improvements.
If your target hardware is single processor/core, you're unlikely to see any improvement with multi-threaded solutions (as there is only one thread at a time run anyway!)
Writing multi-threaded code is often harder as you may have to invest time in creating thread management logic.
Some examples
Image processing can often be done in parallel (e.g. split the image into 4 and do the work in 1/4 of the time) but it depends upon the algorithm being run to see if that makes sense.
Rendering of animation (from 3DMax,etc.) is massively parallel as each frame can be rendered independently to others -- meaning that 10's or 100's of computers can be chained together to help out.
GUI programming often helps to have at least two threads when doing something slow, e.g. processing large number of files - this allows the interface to remain responsive whilst the worker does the hard work (in C# the BackgroundWorker is an example of this)
GUI's are an interesting area as the "responsiveness" of the interface can be maintained without multi-threading if the worker algorithm keeps the main GUI "alive" by giving it time, in Windows API terms (before .NET, etc) this could be achieved by a primitive loop and no need for threading:
MSG msg;
while(GetMessage(&msg, hwnd, 0, 0))
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
// do some stuff here and then release, the loop will come back
// almost immediately (unless the user has quit)
}
Servers are typically multi-threaded (web servers, radius servers, email servers, any server): you usually want to be able to handle multiple requests simultaneously. If you do not want to wait for a request to end before you start to handle a new request, then you mainly have two options:
Run a process with multiple threads
Run multiple processes
Launching a process is usually more resource-intensive than lauching a thread (or picking one in a thread-pool), so servers are usually multi-threaded. Moreover, threads can communicate directly since they share the same memory space.
The problem with multiple threads is that they are usually harder to code right than multiple processes.
There are really three classes of reasons that multithreading would be applied:
Execution Concurrency to improve compute performance: If you have a problem that can be broken down into pieces and you also have more than one execution unit (processor core) available then dispatching the pieces into separate threads is the path to being able to simultaneously use two or more cores at once.
Concurrency of CPU and IO Operations: This is similar in thinking to the first one but in this case the objective is to keep the CPU busy AND also IO operations (ie: disk I/O) moving in parallel rather than alternating between them.
Program Design and Responsiveness: Many types of programs can take advantage of threading as a program design benefit to make the program more responsive to the user. For example the program can be interacting via the GUI and also doing something in the background.
Concrete Examples:
Microsoft Word: Edit document while the background grammar and spell checker works to add all the green and red squiggle underlines.
Microsoft Excel: Automatic background recalculations after cell edits
Web Browser: Dispatch multiple threads to load each of the several HTML references in parallel during a single page load. Speeds page loads and maximizes TCP/IP data throughput.
These days, the answer should be Any application that can be.
The speed of execution for a single thread pretty much peaked years ago - processors have been getting faster by adding cores, not by increasing clock speeds. There have been some architectural improvements that make better use of the available clock cycles, but really, the future is taking advantage of threading.
There is a ton of research going on into finding ways of parallelizing activities that we traditionally wouldn't think of parallelizing. Even something as simple as finding a substring within a string can be parallelized.
Basically there are two reasons to multi-thread:
To be able to do processing tasks in parallel. This only applies if you have multiple cores/processors, otherwise on a single core/processor computer you will slow the task down compared to the version without threads.
I/O whether that be networked I/O or file I/O. Normally if you call a blocking I/O call, the process has to wait for the call to complete. Since the processor/memory are several orders of magnitude quicker than a disk drive (and a network is even slower) it means the processor will be waiting a long time. The computer will be working on other things but your application will not be making any progress. However if you have multiple threads, the computer will schedule your application and the other threads can execute. One common use is a GUI application. Then while the application is doing I/O the GUI thread can keep refreshing the screen without looking like the app is frozen or not responding. Even on a single processor putting I/O in a different thread will tend to speed up the application.
The single threaded alternative to 2 is to use asynchronous calls where they return immediately and you keep controlling your program. Then you have to see when the I/O completes and manage using it. It is often simpler just to use a thread to do the I/O using the synchronous calls as they tend to be easier.
The reason to use threads instead of separate processes is because threads should be able to share data easier than multiple processes. And sometimes switching between threads is less expensive than switching between processes.
As another note, for #1 Python threads won't work because in Python only one python instruction can be executed at a time (known as the GIL or Global Interpreter Lock). I use that as an example but you need to check around your language. In python if you want to do parallel calculations, you need to do separate processes.
Many GUI frameworks are multi-threaded. This allows you to have a more responsive interface. For example, you can click on a "Cancel" button at any time while a long calculation is running.
Note that there are other solutions for this (for example the program can pause the calculation every half-a-second to check whether you clicked on the Cancel button or not), but they do not offer the same level of responsiveness (the GUI might seem to freeze for a few seconds while a file is being read or a calculation being done).
All the answers so far are focusing on the fact that multi-threading or multi-processing are necessary to make the best use of modern hardware.
There is however also the fact that multithreading can make life much easier for the programmer. At work I program software to control manufacturing and testing equipment, where a single machine often consists of several positions that work in parallel. Using multiple threads for that kind of software is a natural fit, as the parallel threads model the physical reality quite well. The threads do mostly not need to exchange any data, so the need to synchronize threads is rare, and many of the reasons for multithreading being difficult do therefore not apply.
Edit:
This is not really about a performance improvement, as the (maybe 5, maybe 10) threads are all mostly sleeping. It is however a huge improvement for the program structure when the various parallel processes can be coded as sequences of actions that do not know of each other. I have very bad memories from the times of 16 bit Windows, when I would create a state machine for each machine position, make sure that nothing would take longer than a few milliseconds, and constantly pass the control to the next state machine. When there were hardware events that needed to be serviced on time, and also computations that took a while (like FFT), then things would get ugly real fast.
Not directly answering your question, I believe in the very near future, almost every application will need to be multithreaded. The CPU performance is not growing that fast these days, which is compensated for by the increasing number of cores. Thus, if we will want our applications to stay on the top performance-wise, we'll need to find ways to utilize all your computer's CPUs and keep them busy, which is quite a hard job.
This can be done via telling your programs what to do instead of telling them exactly how. Now, this is a topic I personally find very interesting recently. Some functional languages, like F#, are able to parallelize many tasks quite easily. Well, not THAT easily, but still without the necessary infrastructure needed in more procedural-style environments.
Please take this as additional information to think about, not an attempt to answer your question.
The kind of applications that need to be threaded are the ones where you want to do more than one thing at once. Other than that no application needs to be multi-threaded.
Applications with a large workload which can be easily made parallel. The difficulty of taking your application and doing that should not be underestimated. It is easy when your data you're manipulating is not dependent upon other data but v. hard to schedule the cross thread work when there is a dependency.
Some examples I've done which are good multithreaded candidates..
running scenarios (eg stock derivative pricing, statistics)
bulk updating data files (eg adding a value / entry to 10,000 records)
other mathematical processes
E.g., you want your programs to be multithreaded when you want to utilize multiple cores and/or CPUs, even when the programs don't necessarily do many things at the same time.
EDIT: using multiple processes is the same thing. Which technique to use depends on the platform and how you are going to do communications within your program, etc.
Although frivolous, games, in general are becomming more and more threaded every year. At work our game uses around 10 threads doing physics, AI, animation, redering, network and IO.
Just want to add that caution must be taken with treads if your sharing any resources as this can lead to some very strange behavior, and your code not working correctly or even the threads locking each other out.
mutex will help you there as you can use mutex locks for protected code regions, a example of protected code regions would be reading or writing to shared memory between threads.
just my 2 cents worth.
The main purpose of multithreading is to separate time domains. So the uses are everywhere where you want several things to happen in their own distinctly separate time domains.
HERE IS A PERFECT USE CASE
If you like affiliate marketing multi-threading is essential. Kick the entire process off via a multi-threaded application.
Download merchant files via FTP, unzipping the files, enumerating through each file performing cleanup like EOL terminators from Unix to PC CRLF then slam each into SQL Server via Bulk Inserts then when all threads are complete create the full text search indexes for a environmental instance to be live tomorrow and your done. All automated to kick off at say 11:00 pm.
BOOM! Fast as lightening. Heck you have so much time left you can even download merchant images locally for the products you download, save the images as webp and set the product urls to use local images.
Yep I did it. Wrote it in C#. Works like a charm. Purchase a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 64-core with 256gb memory and fast drives like nvme, get lunch come back and see it all done or just stay around and watch all cores peg to 95%+, listen to the pc's fans kick, warm up the room and the look outside as the neighbors lights flicker from the power drain as you get shit done.
Future would be to push processing to GPU's as well.
Ok well I am pushing it a little bit with the neighbors lights flickering but all else was absolutely true. :)
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I was recently working on an application that sent and received messages over Ethernet and Serial. I was then tasked to add the monitoring of DIO discretes. I throught,
"No reason to interrupt the main
thread which is involved in message
processing, I'll just create
another thread that monitors DIO."
This decision, however, proved to be poor. Sometimes the main thread would be interrupted between a Send and a Receive serial message. This interruption would disrupt the timing and alas, messages would be lost (forever).
I found another way to monitor the DIO without using another thread and Ethernet and Serial communication were restored to their correct functionality.
The whole fiasco, however, got me thinking. Are their any general guidelines about when not to use multiple-threads and/or does anyone have anymore examples of situations when using multiple-threads is not a good idea?
**EDIT:Based on your comments and after scowering the internet for information, I have composed a blog post entitled When is multi-threading not a good idea?
On a single processor machine and a desktop application, you use multi threads so you don't freeze the app but for nothing else really.
On a single processor server and a web based app, no need for multi threading because the web server handles most of it.
On a multi-processor machine and desktop app, you are suggested to use multi threads and parallel programming. Make as many threads as there are processors.
On a multi-processor server and a web based app, no need again for multi threads because the web server handles it.
In total, if you use multiple threads for other than un-freezing desktop apps and any other generic answer, you will make the app slower if you have a single core machine due to the threads interrupting each other.
Why? Because of the hardware switches. It takes time for the hardware to switch between threads in total. On a multi-core box, go ahead and use 1 thread for each core and you will greatly see a ramp up.
To paraphrase an old quote: A programmer had a problem. He thought, "I know, I'll use threads." Now the programmer has two problems. (Often attributed to JWZ, but it seems to predate his use of it talking about regexes.)
A good rule of thumb is "Don't use threads, unless there's a very compelling reason to use threads." Multiple threads are asking for trouble. Try to find a good way to solve the problem without using multiple threads, and only fall back to using threads if avoiding it is as much trouble as the extra effort to use threads. Also, consider switching to multiple threads if you're running on a multi-core/multi-CPU machine, and performance testing of the single threaded version shows that you need the performance of the extra cores.
Multi-threading is a bad idea if:
Several threads access and update the same resource (set a variable, write to a file), and you don't understand thread safety.
Several threads interact with each other and you don't understand mutexes and similar thread-management tools.
Your program uses static variables (threads typically share them by default).
You haven't debugged concurrency issues.
Actually, multi threading is not scalable and is hard to debug, so it should not be used in any case if you can avoid it. There is few cases where it is mandatory : when performance on a multi CPU matters, or when you deal whith a server that have a lot of clients taking a long time to answer.
In any other cases, you can use alternatives such as queue + cron jobs or else.
You might want to take a look at the Dan Kegel's "The C10K problem" web page about handling multiple data sources/sinks.
Basically it is best to use minimal threads, which in sockets can be done in most OS's w/ some event system (or asynchronously in Windows using IOCP).
When you run into the case where the OS and/or libraries do not offer a way to perform communication in a non-blocking manner, it is best to use a thread-pool to handle them while reporting back to the same event loop.
Example diagram of layout:
Per CPU [*] EVENTLOOP ------ Handles nonblocking I/O using OS/library utilities
| \___ Threadpool for various blocking events
Threadpool for handling the I/O messages that would take long
Multithreading is bad except in the single case where it is good. This case is
The work is CPU Bound, or parts of it is CPU Bound
The work is parallelisable.
If either or both of these conditions are missing, multithreading is not going to be a winning strategy.
If the work is not CPU bound, then you are waiting not on threads to finish work, but rather for some external event, such as network activity, for the process to complete its work. Using threads, there is the additional cost of context switches between threads, The cost of synchronization (mutexes, etc), and the irregularity of thread preemption. The alternative in most common use is asynchronous IO, in which a single thread listens to several io ports, and acts on whichever happens to be ready now, one at a time. If by some chance these slow channels all happen to become ready at the same time, It might seem like you will experience a slow-down, but in practice this is rarely true. The cost of handling each port individually is often comparable or better than the cost of synchronizing state on multiple threads as each channel is emptied.
Many tasks may be compute bound, but still not practical to use a multithreaded approach because the process must synchronise on the entire state. Such a program cannot benefit from multithreading because no work can be performed concurrently. Fortunately, most programs that require enormous amounts of CPU can be parallelized to some level.
Multi-threading is not a good idea if you need to guarantee precise physical timing (like in your example). Other cons include intensive data exchange between threads. I would say multi-threading is good for really parallel tasks if you don't care much about their relative speed/priority/timing.
A recent application I wrote that had to use multithreading (although not unbounded number of threads) was one where I had to communicate in several directions over two protocols, plus monitoring a third resource for changes. Both protocol libraries required a thread to run the respective event loop in, and when those were accounted for, it was easy to create a third loop for the resource monitoring. In addition to the event loop requirements, the messages going through the wires had strict timing requirements, and one loop couldn't be risked blocking the other, something that was further alleviated by using a multicore CPU (SPARC).
There were further discussions on whether each message processing should be considered a job that was given to a thread from a thread pool, but in the end that was an extension that wasn't worth the work.
All-in-all, threads should if possible only be considered when you can partition the work into well defined jobs (or series of jobs) such that the semantics are relatively easy to document and implement, and you can put an upper bound on the number of threads you use and that need to interact. Systems where this is best applied are almost message passing systems.
In priciple everytime there is no overhead for the caller to wait in a queue.
A couple more possible reasons to use threads:
Your platform lacks asynchronous I/O operations, e.g. Windows ME (No completion ports or overlapped I/O, a pain when porting XP applications that use them.) Java 1.3 and earlier.
A third-party library function that can hang, e.g. if a remote server is down, and the library provides no way to cancel the operation and you can't modify it.
Keeping a GUI responsive during intensive processing doesn't always require additional threads. A single callback function is usually sufficient.
If none of the above apply and I still want parallelism for some reason, I prefer to launch an independent process if possible.
I would say multi-threading is generally used to:
Allow data processing in the background while a GUI remains responsive
Split very big data analysis onto multiple processing units so that you can get your results quicker.
When you're receiving data from some hardware and need something to continuously add it to a buffer while some other element decides what to do with it (write to disk, display on a GUI etc.).
So if you're not solving one of those issues, it's unlikely that adding threads will make your life easier. In fact it'll almost certainly make it harder because as others have mentioned; debugging mutithreaded applications is considerably more work than a single threaded solution.
Security might be a reason to avoid using multiple threads (over multiple processes). See Google chrome for an example of multi-process safety features.
Multi-threading is scalable, and will allow your UI to maintain its responsivness while doing very complicated things in the background. I don't understand where other responses are acquiring their information on multi-threading.
When you shouldn't multi-thread is a mis-leading question to your problem. Your problem is this: Why did multi-threading my application cause serial / ethernet communications to fail?
The answer to that question will depend on the implementation, which should be discussed in another question. I know for a fact that you can have both ethernet and serial communications happening in a multi-threaded application at the same time as numerous other tasks without causing any data loss.
The one reason to not use multi-threading is:
There is one task, and no user interface with which the task will interfere.
The reasons to use mutli-threading are:
Provides superior responsiveness to the user
Performs multiple tasks at the same time to decrease overall execution time
Uses more of the current multi-core CPUs, and multi-multi-cores of the future.
There are three basic methods of multi-threaded programming that make thread safety implemented with ease - you only need to use one for success:
Thread Safe Data types passed between threads.
Thread Safe Methods in the threaded object to modify data passed between.
PostMessage capabilities to communicate between threads.
Are the processes parallel? Is performance a real concern? Are there multiple 'threads' of execution like on a web server? I don't think there is a finite answer.
A common source of threading issues is the usual approaches employed to synchronize data. Having threads share state and then implement locking at all the appropriate places is a major source of complexity for both design and debugging. Getting the locking right to balance stability, performance, and scalability is always a hard problem to solve. Even the most experienced experts get it wrong frequently. Alternative techniques to deal with threading can alleviate much of this complexity. The Clojure programming language implements several interesting techniques for dealing with concurrency.