If a process have more no of thread i say 100 and other process have less no of threads
i say only 2 so both will get equal time or a process with more no of threads gets more
time
It depends how much processing time they need. So long as sufficient resources are available, the scheduler will give each thing it schedules however much CPU time it requires.
It's a common misconception that it's somehow "fairer" to give each process equal CPU time. For one thing, that unfairly rewards creating large numbers of processes. It's no more inherently fair to treat every process equally than it is to treat every thread equally.
Related
This question is not a duplicate of any question related to why multithreading is not faster on single-core, read the rest to figure out what I actually want to know
As far as I know, multithreading is only faster on a CPU with multiple cores, since each thread can run in parallel. However, as my understanding of how preemption and multithreading on single-core works, it should also be faster. The image below can describe what I mean better. Consider that our app is a simple loop that takes exactly 4 seconds to execute. In this example, the time slice is constant, but, I don't think it makes any difference because, in the end, all threads with the same priority will get equal time by the scheduler. The first timeline is single-threaded, but the second one has 4 threads. The cycle also means when the preemption ends and the scheduler goes back to the queue of threads from start. I/O has also been removed since that just adds complexity and even if it changes the results, let's assume I'm talking about some code that does not require any sort of I/O.
The red threads are threads related to my process, and others (black) are the ones for other processes and apps
There are a couple of questions here:
Why isn't it faster? What's wrong with my timeline?
What's that cycle point called?
Since the time slice is not fixed, does that means the Cycle time is fixed, or the time slice gets calculated and the cycle will be as much time required to spend the calculated time slice on each thread?
Is the slice time based on time or instruction? I mean, is it like 0.1 sec for each thread or like 10 instructions for each thread?
The CPU utilization is based on CPU time, so why isn't it always on 100% because when a thread's time reaches, it moves to the next thread, and if a thread stops on I/O, it does not wait but executes the next one, so the CPU always tries to find a thread to execute and minimalize the time spent IDLE. Is the time for I/O so significant that more than 50% of CPU time is spent doing nothing because all threads are waiting for something, mostly I/O and the CPU time is elapsed waiting for a thread to become in a ready state?
Note: This timeline is simplified, the time spent on I/O, thread creation, etc. is not calculated and it's assumed that other threads do not finish before the end of the timeline and have the same priority/nice value as our process
Every process has at least one thread of execution and I read somewhere that modern Operating Systems only schedule Thread and not process.
So if there are two processes running in the system - P1 with 1 thread and P2 with 100 threads, how will OS scheduling algorithm ensure that both P1 and P2 get approximately same amount of CPU time? If OS blindly schedules threads, P2 will get 100 times more CPU time than P1.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Wrong question. Consider two jobs that are trying to solve the exact same problem by doing the same work and are perfectly identical except for one thing -- one uses dozens of threads, the other uses dozens of processes. Why should the one that uses dozens of processes get more CPU time than the one that uses dozens of threads?
Your notion of fairness is not really a sensible one.
Instead, scheduling is more designed around trying to get as much work done as possible per unit time. The assumption is that everything the computer is doing is useful and it benefits competing tasks to have other tasks competing with them finish as quickly as possible too.
This is actually all you need the vast majority of the time. But occasionally you have special situations where this doesn't work. One is ultra-high-priority tasks like keeping video or audio flowing or keeping a user interface responsive. Another is ultra-low-priority tasks where there's an enormous amount of work you want done and you don't want the system to be slow for a long time while you're working on it. Priorities are used for this, and generally the system allows higher-priority threads to interrupt lower-priority ones to keep responsiveness.
In general, "fair thread scheduling" attempts to give each thread an equal amount of CPU time (regardless of how much CPU time all threads in a process get); and "fair process scheduling" attempts to give each process the same amount of CPU time (e.g. by giving threads belonging to different processes unequal amounts of CPU time). These are mutually exclusive - you can't have both (unless each process has the same number of threads).
Note that it's all a broken joke anyway. For example, if one thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running slow due to thermal throttling (and/or because another logical CPU in the same core is busy) and another thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running faster than normal (e.g. due to "turbo-boost" and/or because the other logical CPU in the core is not being used); then these threads have received an equal amount of CPU time but have not received anything that could be considered "fair" (because one thread might be able to get 20 times as much work done than the other).
Note that it's all unwanted anyway. For example, for a good OS threads would be given a priority to indicate how important the work they do is, and you don't want a high priority thread (doing very important work) to get the same "fair share" of CPU time as a low priority thread (doing irrelevant/unimportant work). For cases where two threads have equal priority you might (in theory) want them to get an "equal" amount of CPU time; but in practice this isn't common and threads block and unblock so often that it isn't worth caring about; and in practice it can lead to "two half finished jobs instead of one completed job and one unstarted job" scenarios that increases the average amount of time a job (e.g. request for work) takes to complete.
If the thread is the basic unit of scheduling (a generally safe assumption these days) then the process scheduler is the one to decide who to allocate the CPUs. How (and whether) it takes thread usage into account is entirely system specific. AND the behavior ma depends upon the type of process. For example, in VMS (and adopted in Windoze) realtime processes are treated differently than other types of processes.
In the VMS-type scheduling, a process with more threads gets more CPU by design. Better for an application to use more threads and for it to use more processes.
Keep in mind that a system may impose limits on the number of threads in a process.
In general what is the relation between CPU usage and number of threads in a program.
Assumptions:
Multi-core CPU
Threads do the exact same job (assume they fetch identical work items from a queue and process them)
It depends on the nature of the application.
An application that mostly do calculations - a ratio of 1 thread per
core is a reasonable decision, since you don't want to spawn too many threads due to overhead, and you want to take advantage of all your cores.
An application that mostly do IO operations (like http requests) can spawn much more threads then the #cores and still increase efficiency, since the bottleneck is the waiting time per IO request, and you want to gain as much information as possible in each time you need to wait.
That said, the CPU-usage you are going to get is still dependent on many factors (IO, synchronization, non parallel parts in your program).
If you are interested in the speed the application will take - always remember Amdahl's law, which gives you a strict bound on the time (speed-up) your application is going to take, even when having infinite number of working cores.
There is no such general relationship, except for the obvious ones:
an application can't use more CPU time (CPU seconds) than the number of available cores multiplied by the number of (wall clock) seconds that it runs, and
a single thread can't use more than one CPU second per second.
The actual amount of CPU that a multi-threaded application depends mostly on the nature of the application, and the way that you've implemented it:
If the computation performed by each thread does not generate contention with other threads for locks, memory access and so on, then you should be able to approach the theoretical limit of available CPU resources.
Contention is liable to reduce effective CPU usage, sometimes dramatically.
But there are no general formulae that will tell you how much speed-up you can get.
I think there is no relation or not easy one. It depends on the jobs the threads are doing. A program with one thread can consume 100% of CPU and a program with lots of threads can consume less.
If you are looking for an optimized relation between threads and job done, you must study your case, and possibly found an empiric solution.
As the other answers already state, "it depends". In an ideal world, for n cores, you would get a throughput of factor n, given that you do the same job in a separate thread on each core (which already contains a false assumption, since you need to somehow synchronize the threads when they read from the same queue).
Understanding the Disruptor, a Beginner's Guide to Hardcore Concurrency gives some nice examples what you need to consider when parallezing tasks, and also shows some cases where the attempt to parallelize leads to a longer execution time.
I'm performing an operation, lets call it CalculateSomeData. CalculateSomeData operates in successive "generations", numbered 1..x. The number of generations in the entire run is fixed by the input parameters to CalculateSomeData and is known a priori. A single generation takes anywhere from 30 minutes to 2 hours to complete. Some of that variability is due to the input parameters and that cannot be controlled. However, a portion of that variability is due to things like hardware capacities, CPU load from other processes, network bandwidth load, etc. One parameter that can be controlled per-generation is the number of threads that CalculateSomeData uses. Right now that's fixed and likely non-optimal. I'd like to track the time each generation takes and then have some algorithm by which I tweak the number of threads so that each successive generation improves upon the prior generation's calculation time (minimizing time). What approach should I use? How applicable are genetic algorithms? Intuition tells me that the range is going to be fairly tight - maybe 1 to 16 threads on a dual quad-core processor machine.
any pointers, pseudocode, etc. are much appreciated.
How about an evolutionary algorithm.
Start with a guess. 1 thread per CPU core seems good, but depends on the task at hand.
Measure the average time for each task in the generation. Compare it to the time taken by the previous generation. (Assume effectively infinite time and 0 threads for generation 0).
If the most recent generation tasks averaged a better time than the one before, continue to change the number of threads in the same direction as you did last step (so if the last generation had more threads than the previous thread, then add a thread for the new generation, but if it had fewer, then use one fewer (obviously with a lower limit of 1 thread).
If the most recent generation tasks took longer, on average, than the previous generation, then change the number of threads in the opposite direction (so if increasing the number of threads resulted in worse time, use one fewer thread next time).
As long as the optimal number of threads isn't too close to 1, then you'll probably end up oscillating between 3 values that are all reasonably close to optimal. You may want to explicitly detect this case and lock yourself into the central value, if you have a large number of generations to deal with.
If the calculations are completely CPU bound the number of threads should be equal to the number of cores on the machine. That way you minimize the number of context switches.
If your calculations involve I/O, network, synchronization or something else that blocks execution you must find the limiting resource and measure the utilization. You need to monitor the utilization and slowly add more threads until the utilization gets close to 100%. You should have as few threads as possible to saturate your limiting resource.
You should divide up your generations into lots of small tasks and put them in a queue. Spawn one thread per core and have each thread grab a task to do, run it to completion, and repeat.
You want lots more tasks than cores to make sure that you don't end up with just one task running at the end of the generation and all other threads idle. This is what is likely to happen if you set #tasks = #threads = #cores as Albin suggests (unless you can ensure that all tasks take precisely the same amount of time).
You also probably don't want more threads than cores. Context switching isn't terribly expensive, but the larger cache footprint that comes with having more than #cores tasks simultaneously active could hurt you (unless your tasks use very little memory).
Given a machine with 1 CPU and a lot of RAM. Besides other kinds of applications (web server etc.), there are 2 other server applications running on that machine doing the exact same kind of processing although one uses 10 threads and the other users 1 thread. Assume the processing logic for each request is 100% CPU-bound and typically takes no longer than 2 seconds to finish. The question is whose throughput, in terms of transactions processed per minute, might be better? Why?
Note that the above is not a real environment, I just make up the data to make the question clear. My current thinking is that there should be no difference because the apps are 100% CPU-bound and therefore if the machine can handle 30 requests per minute for the 2nd app, it will also be able to handle 3 requests per minute for each of the 10 threads of the 1st app. But I'm glad to be proven wrong, given the fact that there are other applications running in the machine and one application might not be always given 100% CPU time.
There's always some overhead involved in task switching, so if the threads aren't blocking on anything, fewer threads is generally better. Also, if the threads aren't executing the same part of code, you'll get some cache flushing each time you swtich.
On the other hand, the difference might not be measurable.
Interesting question.
I wrote a sample program that does just this. It has a class that will go do some processor intensive work, then return. I specify the total number of threads I want to run, and the total number of times I want the work to run. The program will then equally divide the work between all the threads (if there's only one thread, it just gets it all) and start them all up.
I ran this on a single proc VM since I could find a real computer with only 1 processor in it anymore.
Run independently:
1 Thread 5000 Work Units - 50.4365sec
10 Threads 5000 Work Units - 49.7762sec
This seems to show that on a one proc PC, with lots of threads that are doing processor intensive work, windows is smart enough not to rapidly switch them back and fourth, and they take about the same amount of time.
Run together (or as close as I could get to pushing enter at the same time):
1 Thread 5000 Work Units - 99.5112sec
10 Threads 5000 Work Units - 56.8777sec
This is the meat of the question. When you run 10 threads + 1 thread, they all seem to be scheduled equally. The 10 threads each took 1/10th longer (because there was an 11th thread running) while the other thread took almost twice its time (really, it got 1/10th of its work done in the first 56sec, then did the other 9/10ths in the next 43sec...which is about right).
The result: Window's scheduler is fair on a thread level, but not on a process level. If you make a lot of threads, it you can leave the other processes that weren't smart enought to make lots of threads high and dry. Or just do it right and us a thread pool :-)
If you're interested in trying it for yourself, you can find my code:
http://teeks99.com/ThreadWorkTest.zip
The scheduling overhead could make the app with 10 threads slower than the one with 1 thread. You won't know for sure unless you create a test.
For some background on multithreading see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science)
This might very well depend on the operating system scheduler. For example, back in single-thread days the scheduler knew only about processes, and had measures like "niceness" to figure out how much to allocate.
In multithreaded code, there is probably a way in which one process that has 100 threads doesn't get 99% of the CPU time if there's another process that has a single thread. On the other hand, if you have only two processes and one of them is multithreaded I would suspect that the OS may give it more overall time. However, AFAIK nothing is really guaranteed.
Switching costs between threads in the same process may be cheaper than switching between processes (e.g., due to cache behavior).
One thing you must consider is wait time on the other end of the transaction. Having multiple threads will allow you to be waiting for a response on one while preparing the next transaction on the next. At least that's how I understand it. So I think a few threads will turn out better than one.
On the other hand you must consider the overhead involved with dealing on multiple threads. The details of the application are important part of the consideration here.