AFAIK, as opposed to time-slice based scheduler preemption, pure User-level threads(ULTs) have the property of yielding the processor to the other threads. However, from my surfing on internet I see that we have several preemptive User Thread mechanisms now.
Keeping this in mind, wanted to start a discussion on benefits of Lock-free programming on User level threads. My understanding is that irrespective of presence of preemptive scheduler performance of Lock free programming should surpass that of mutex/semaphore based programs.
However, I am still confused; since acquire operation on mutex also takes fast-path in the absence of contention, performance gain need not be attractive enough to migrate to Lock-free approach.
In case of semaphores, there is a invocation to system call leading to context switch and hence lock-free approaches can be seen as much better option.
Please suggest for both the situations - ULT equipped with preemptive mechanism and the one without it.
This is not an easy question to answer, as it is very general, it will boil down to what your requirements are.
I have recently been working with systems where the use of lock free structures was considered, but when we sat down and wrote out our requirements, we realized that they are in fact not what we want. Our system didn't really require them, and in fact locking helps us because we typically have a producer/consumer architecture where if there is nothing being produced (i.e. nothing being added to a queue) then the consumer should be idle (i.e. blocked).
I recently wrote about this in more detail:
http://blog.chrisd.info/a-simple-thread-safe-queue-for-use-in-multi-threaded-c-applications/
Related
I am wondering which are the advantages of lock-free programming over spin lock？ I think that when we do lock free programming using CAS mechanism in a thread(called A), if other thread change the value in CAS, A thread still need to loop again. And I think it just like we use spin lock!
I am so confused about this. Although I know that CAS and spin-lock are suitable to use when the lock contention is not fierce, can someone explain in which scenarios lock free should be used and spin lock should be used?
Lock-freedom provides what is called progress guarantee. You are right that in your example thread A has do perform a retry (i.e., loop again), but only if some other thread changed the value, which implies that that thread was able to make progress.
In contrast, a thread (let's call it X) that holds a spin-lock prevents all other threads from making progress until the lock is released. So if thread X is preempted, execution of all threads waiting for the lock is effectively stalled until X can resume execution and finally release the lock. If X were to be stalled indefinitely, then all other threads would also be blocked indefinitely.
Such a situation is not possible with lock-free algorithms, since it is guaranteed that at any time at least one thread can make progress.
Which should be used depends on the situation. Lock-free algorithms are inherently difficult to design, especially for more complex data structures like trees. And even if you have a lock-free algorithm, it is almost always slower than a serial one, so a serial version protected by a lock might perform better. Then again, if the data structure is heavily contended, a lock-free version will scale better than one protected by a lock. However, if your workload is mostly read-only, a read-write-lock will also provide good scalability. Unfortunately, there is no general rule here...
If you want to learn more about lock-freedom (and more) I recommend the book The Art of Multiprocessor Programming.
If you prefer free alternatives I recommend Is Parallel Programming Hard, And, If So, What Can You Do About It? by Paul McKenney or Practicallock-freedom by Keir Fraser.
In most languages/frameworks, there exists a way for a thread to yield control to other threads. However, I can't really think of a time when yielding from a thread was the correct solution to a given problem. When, in general, should one use Thread.yield(), sleep(0), etc?
One use case could be for testing concurrent programs, try to find interleavings that reveal flaws in your synchronization patterns. For instance in Java:
A useful trick for increasing the number of interleavings, and
therefore more effectively exploring the state space of your programs,
is to use Thread.yield to encourage more context switches during
operations that access shared state. (The effectiveness of this
technique is platform-specific, since the JVM is free to treat
THRead.yield as a no-op [JLS 17.9]; using a short but nonzero sleep
would be slower but more reliable.) — JCIP
Also interesting from the Java point of view is that their semantics are not defined:
The semantics of Thread.yield (and Thread.sleep(0)) are undefined
[JLS 17.9]; the JVM is free to implement them as no-ops or treat them
as scheduling hints. In particular, they are not required to have the
semantics of sleep(0) on Unix systemsput the current thread at the end
of the run queue for that priority, yielding to other threads of the
same prioritythough some JVMs implement yield in this way. — JCIP
This makes them, of course, rather unreliable. This is very Java specific, however, in generally I believe following is true:
Both are low-level mechanism which can be used to influence the scheduling order. If this is used to achieve a certain functionality then this functionality is based on the probability of the OS scheduler which seems a rather bad idea. This should be managed by higher-level synchronization constructs instead.
For testing purpose or for forcing the program into a certain state it seems a handy tool.
When, in general, should one use Thread.yield(), sleep(0), etc?
It depends on the VM are thread model we are talking about. For me the answer is rarely if ever.
Traditionally some thread models were non-preemptive and others are (or were) not mature hence the need for Thread.yield().
I feel that Thread.yield() is like using register in C. We used to rely on it to improve the performance of our programs because in many cases the programmer was better at this than the compiler. But modern compilers are much smarter and in much fewer cases these days can the programmer actually improve the performance of a program with the use of register and Thread.yield().
Keep your OS scheduler decide for you ?
So never yield, and never sleep(0) until you match a case where sleep(0) is absolutly necessary and document it here.
Also context switch are costy so I don't think a lot of people want more context switches.
I know this is old, but you didn't get any good answers here.
In general yielding is a way to be polite to other threads/processes and give them a chance to run on the same CPU with minimal delay to the yielding thread.
Not all yielding is equal either. On Windows SwitchToThread() only releases CPU if another thread of equal or greater priority was scheduled to run on the same CPU which means it very possibly will simply resume the calling thread while Sleep(0) has looser scheduler semantics; on Linux sched_yield() is similar to SwitchToThread() while nanosleep() with a 0 timespec seemingly marks the thread as unready for whatever period the timer slack is set to (inferred from profiling and substantiated here ). Behavior on MacOS is seemingly similar to Linux, but with much less timer slack - haven't looked into it that much though.
Yielding was way more useful in the days when uniprocessor systems were abundant because it really helped keep the system moving, but for example on Windows where by default Sleep(1) is actually predictably at least a 15.6ms delay (note that this is nearly an entire frame at 60fps if you're making a game or media player or something) it's still pretty valid although MessageWaitForMultipleObjectsEx should be preferred in general UI applications. Windows 10 added a new type of high resolution waitable timer with microsecond granularity that should probably be preferred over other methods, so hopefully that kind of yielding won't be so necessary anymore either.
In the context of N:1 and N:M cooperative threading models (not common at the OS level anymore, but still employed at the application-level through libraries providing Fibers and Coroutines often enough) yielding is still also definitely useful to keep things moving.
Unfortunately it's also abused pretty often, for example yielding in a busy loop rather than waiting on a synchronization primitive because the appropriate primitive isn't obvious or because the developer is overly optimistic about how long their threads will wait for / overly pessimistic about the scheduler. But in practice on most modern multitasking OSes unless the system is extremely busy, threads waiting on a synchronization primitive will get run almost instantly when the primitive is triggered/released/whatever.
You should try to avoid yielding, especially as an alternative to using a proper synchronization method. When you do need to yield, a zero sleep or waiting on a high resolution time source is probably better than a normal yield - I call the prior a "long yield" as opposed to a "short yield" - but unless you're using the system interface the implementation of sleep in your programming language/framework of choice might "optimize" sleep(0) into a short yield or even a no-op for you, sadly.
Apple's Threading Programming Guide states that:
Although good for occasional
communication between threads, you
should not use the
performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone:
method for time critical or frequent
communication between threads.
Which begs the questions: Which is, then, the acceptable method for frequent inter-thread communication, and why is performSelector:onThread:withObject:waitUntilDone: specifically not recommended.
ps: Not waiting until done, naturally.
The reason they don’t recommend using that probably is because this has a lot of overhead. Also it works only with threads that have a NSRunloop running. It’s really good for updating the UI from a secondary thread though.
For more heavy duty lifting you should use shared memory (with locks or lockless algorithms) for inter-thread-communication. Or even better use something like NSOperationQueue or Grand Central Dispatch and don’t worry about doing the communication and synchronization yourself, if your problem permits that.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources.
But I'm probably wrong.
I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else.
When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to using Threads. If you have too many threads the processor will spend all its time generating and switching between them. Use too few threads you will not get the throughput you want in your application. Additionally using threads is not easy. A language like C# makes it easier on you because you have tools like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. This allows the system to manage thread creation and destruction. This helps mitigate the overhead of creating a new thread to pass the work onto. You have to remember that the creation of a thread is not an operation that you get for "free." There are costs associated with starting a thread so that should always be taken into consideration.
Depending upon the language you are using to write your application you will dictate how much you need to worry about using threads.
The times I find most often that I need to consider creating threads explicitly are:
Asynchronous operations
Operations that can be parallelized
Continual running background operations
The answer totally depends on what you're planning on doing. However, one for CPU resources is a bad move - your CPU may have up to six cores, plus hyperthreading, in a retail CPU, and most CPUs will have two or more. In this case, you should have as many threads as CPU cores, plus a few more for scheduling mishaps. The whole CPU is not a single-threaded beast, it may have many cores and need many threads for 100% utilization.
You should use threads if and only if your target demographic will virtually all have multi-core (as is the case in current desktop/laptop markets), and you have determined that one core is not enough performance.
Herb Sutter wrote an article for Dr. Dobb's Journal in which he talks about the three pillars of concurrency. This article does a very good job of breaking down which problems are good candidates for being solved via threading constructs.
From the SQLite FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid Them." Only use them when you absolutely have to.
If you have to, then take steps to avoid the usual carnage. Use thread pools to execute fine-grained tasks with no interdependencies, using GUI-framework-provided facilities to dispatch outcomes back to the UI. Avoid sharing data between long-running threads; use message queues to pass information between them (and to synchronise).
A more exotic solution is to use languages such as Erlang that are explicit designed for fine-grained parallelism without sacrificing safety and comprehensibility. Concurrency itself is of fundamental importance to the future of computation; threads are simply a horrible, broken way to express it.
The "ideal number of threads" depends on your particular problem and how much parallelism you can exploit. If you have a problem that is "embarassingly parallel" in that it can be subdivided into independent problems with little to no communication between them required, and you have enough cores that you can actually get true parallelism, then how many threads you use depends on things like the problem size, the cache line size, the context switching and spawning overhead, and various other things that is really hard to compute before hand. For such situations, you really have to do some profiling in order to choose an optimal sharding/partitioning of your problem across threads. It typically doesn't make sense, though, to use more threads than you do cores. It is also true that if you have lots of synchronization, then you may, in fact, have a performance penalty for using threads. It's highly dependent on the particular problem as well as how interdependent the various steps are. As a guiding principle, you need to be aware that spawning threads and thread synchronization are expensive operations, but performing computations in parallel can increase throughput if communication and other forms of synchronization is minimal. You should also be aware that threading can lead to very poor cache performance if your threads end up invalidating a mutually shared cache line.
I was reading the SQLite FAQ, and came upon this passage:
Threads are evil. Avoid them.
I don't quite understand the statement "Thread are evil". If that is true, then what is the alternative?
My superficial understanding of threads is:
Threads make concurrence happen. Otherwise, the CPU horsepower will be wasted, waiting for (e.g.) slow I/O.
But the bad thing is that you must synchronize your logic to avoid contention and you have to protect shared resources.
Note: As I am not familiar with threads on Windows, I hope the discussion will be limited to Linux/Unix threads.
When people say that "threads are evil", the usually do so in the context of saying "processes are good". Threads implicitly share all application state and handles (and thread locals are opt-in). This means that there are plenty of opportunities to forget to synchronize (or not even understand that you need to synchronize!) while accessing that shared data.
Processes have separate memory space, and any communication between them is explicit. Furthermore, primitives used for interprocess communication are often such that you don't need to synchronize at all (e.g. pipes). And you can still share state directly if you need to, using shared memory, but that is also explicit in every given instance. So there are fewer opportunities to make mistakes, and the intent of the code is more explicit.
Simple answer the way I understand it...
Most threading models use "shared state concurrency," which means that two execution processes can share the same memory at the same time. If one thread doesn't know what the other is doing, it can modify the data in a way that the other thread doesn't expect. This causes bugs.
Threads are "evil" because you need to wrap your mind around n threads all working on the same memory at the same time, and all of the fun things that go with it (deadlocks, racing conditions, etc).
You might read up about the Clojure (immutable data structures) and Erlang (message passsing) concurrency models for alternative ideas on how to achieve similar ends.
What makes threads "evil" is that once you introduce more than one stream of execution into your program, you can no longer count on your program to behave in a deterministic manner.
That is to say: Given the same set of inputs, a single-threaded program will (in most cases) always do the same thing.
A multi-threaded program, given the same set of inputs, may well do something different every time it is run, unless it is very carefully controlled. That is because the order in which the different threads run different bits of code is determined by the OS's thread scheduler combined with a system timer, and this introduces a good deal of "randomness" into what the program does when it runs.
The upshot is: debugging a multi-threaded program can be much harder than debugging a single-threaded program, because if you don't know what you are doing it can be very easy to end up with a race condition or deadlock bug that only appears (seemingly) at random once or twice a month. The program will look fine to your QA department (since they don't have a month to run it) but once it's out in the field, you'll be hearing from customers that the program crashed, and nobody can reproduce the crash.... bleah.
To sum up, threads aren't really "evil", but they are strong juju and should not be used unless (a) you really need them and (b) you know what you are getting yourself into. If you do use them, use them as sparingly as possible, and try to make their behavior as stupid-simple as you possibly can. Especially with multithreading, if anything can go wrong, it (sooner or later) will.
I would interpret it another way. It's not that threads are evil, it's that side-effects are evil in a multithreaded context (which is a lot less catchy to say).
A side effect in this context is something that affects state shared by more than one thread, be it global or just shared. I recently wrote a review of Spring Batch and one of the code snippets used is:
private static Map<Long, JobExecution> executionsById = TransactionAwareProxyFactory.createTransactionalMap();
private static long currentId = 0;
public void saveJobExecution(JobExecution jobExecution) {
Assert.isTrue(jobExecution.getId() == null);
Long newId = currentId++;
jobExecution.setId(newId);
jobExecution.incrementVersion();
executionsById.put(newId, copy(jobExecution));
}
Now there are at least three serious threading issues in less than 10 lines of code here. An example of a side effect in this context would be updating the currentId static variable.
Functional programming (Haskell, Scheme, Ocaml, Lisp, others) tend to espouse "pure" functions. A pure function is one with no side effects. Many imperative languages (eg Java, C#) also encourage the use of immutable objects (an immutable object is one whose state cannot change once created).
The reason for (or at least the effect of) both of these things is largely the same: they make multithreaded code much easier. A pure function by definition is threadsafe. An immutable object by definition is threadsafe.
The advantage processes have is that there is less shared state (generally). In traditional UNIX C programming, doing a fork() to create a new process would result in shared process state and this was used as a means of IPC (inter-process communication) but generally that state is replaced (with exec()) with something else.
But threads are much cheaper to create and destroy and they take less system resources (in fact, the operating itself may have no concept of threads yet you can still create multithreaded programs). These are called green threads.
The paper you linked to seems to explain itself very well. Did you read it?
Keep in mind that a thread can refer to the programming-language construct (as in most procedural or OOP languages, you create a thread manually, and tell it to executed a function), or they can refer to the hardware construct (Each CPU core executes one thread at a time).
The hardware-level thread is obviously unavoidable, it's just how the CPU works. But the CPU doesn't care how the concurrency is expressed in your source code. It doesn't have to be by a "beginthread" function call, for example. The OS and the CPU just have to be told which instruction threads should be executed.
His point is that if we used better languages than C or Java with a programming model designed for concurrency, we could get concurrency basically for free. If we'd used a message-passing language, or a functional one with no side-effects, the compiler would be able to parallelize our code for us. And it would work.
Threads aren't any more "evil" than hammers or screwdrivers or any other tools; they just require skill to utilize. The solution isn't to avoid them; it's to educate yourself and up your skill set.
Creating a lot of threads without constraint is indeed evil.. using a pooling mechanisme (threadpool) will mitigate this problem.
Another way threads are 'evil' is that most framework code is not designed to deal with multiple threads, so you have to manage your own locking mechanisme for those datastructures.
Threads are good, but you have to think about how and when you use them and remember to measure if there really is a performance benefit.
A thread is a bit like a light weight process. Think of it as an independent path of execution within an application. The thread runs in the same memory space as the application and therefore has access to all the same resources, global objects and global variables.
The good thing about them: you can parallelise a program to improve performance. Some examples, 1) In an image editing program a thread may run the filter processing independently of the GUI. 2) Some algorithms lend themselves to multiple threads.
Whats bad about them? if a program is poorly designed they can lead to deadlock issues where both threads are waiting on each other to access the same resource. And secondly, program design can me more complex because of this. Also, some class libraries don't support threading. e.g. the c library function "strtok" is not "thread safe". In other words, if two threads were to use it at the same time they would clobber each others results. Fortunately, there are often thread safe alternatives... e.g. boost library.
Threads are not evil, they can be very useful indeed.
Under Linux/Unix, threading hasn't been well supported in the past although I believe Linux now has Posix thread support and other unices support threading now via libraries or natively. i.e. pthreads.
The most common alternative to threading under Linux/Unix platforms is fork. Fork is simply a copy of a program including it's open file handles and global variables. fork() returns 0 to the child process and the process id to the parent. It's an older way of doing things under Linux/Unix but still well used. Threads use less memory than fork and are quicker to start up. Also, inter process communications is more work than simple threads.
In a simple sense you can think of a thread as another instruction pointer in the current process. In other words it points the IP of another processor to some code in the same executable. So instead of having one instruction pointer moving through the code there are two or more IP's executing instructions from the same executable and address space simultaneously.
Remember the executable has it's own address space with data / stack etc... So now that two or more instructions are being executed simultaneously you can imagine what happens when more than one of the instructions wants to read/write to the same memory address at the same time.
The catch is that threads are operating within the process address space and are not afforded protection mechanisms from the processor that full blown processes are. (Forking a process on UNIX is standard practice and simply creates another process.)
Out of control threads can consume CPU cycles, chew up RAM, cause execeptions etc.. etc.. and the only way to stop them is to tell the OS process scheduler to forcibly terminate the thread by nullifying it's instruction pointer (i.e. stop executing). If you forcibly tell a CPU to stop executing a sequence of instructions what happens to the resources that have been allocated or are being operated on by those instructions? Are they left in a stable state? Are they properly freed? etc...
So, yes, threads require more thought and responsibility than executing a process because of the shared resources.
For any application that requires stable and secure execution for long periods of time without failure or maintenance, threads are always a tempting mistake. They invariably turn out to be more trouble than they are worth. They produce rapid results and prototypes that seem to be performing correctly but after a couple weeks or months running you discover that they have critical flaws.
As mentioned by another poster, once you use even a single thread in your program you have now opened a non-deterministic path of code execution that can produce an almost infinite number of conflicts in timing, memory sharing and race conditions. Most expressions of confidence in solving these problems are expressed by people who have learned the principles of multithreaded programming but have yet to experience the difficulties in solving them.
Threads are evil. Good programmers avoid them wherever humanly possible. The alternative of forking was offered here and it is often a good strategy for many applications. The notion of breaking your code down into separate execution processes which run with some form of loose coupling often turns out to be an excellent strategy on platforms that support it. Threads running together in a single program is not a solution. It is usually the creation of a fatal architectural flaw in your design that can only be truly remedied by rewriting the entire program.
The recent drift towards event oriented concurrency is an excellent development innovation. These kinds of programs usually prove to have great endurance after they are deployed.
I've never met a young engineer who didn't think threads were great. I've never met an older engineer who didn't shun them like the plague.
Being an older engineer, I heartily agree with the answer by Texas Arcane.
Threads are very evil because they cause bugs that are extremely difficult to solve. I have literally spent months solving sporadic race-conditions. One example caused trams to suddenly stop about once a month in the middle of the road and block traffic until towed away. Luckily I didn't create the bug, but I did get to spend 4 months full-time to solve it...
It's a tad late to add to this thread, but I would like to mention a very interesting alternative to threads: asynchronous programming with co-routines and event loops. This is being supported by more and more languages, and does not have the problem of race conditions like multi-threading has.
It can replace multi-threading in cases where it is used to wait on events from multiple sources, but not where calculations need to be performed in parallel on multiple CPU cores.