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 2 years ago.
Improve this question
How many tasks can a single thread execute simultaneously?
Concurrently: Zero or one. A thread is a thread. Not a magic yarn.
If by "in parallel" you mean "processed in parallel" and if you consider awaited Tasks, then there is no upper-bound limit on how many tasks are being awaited - but only one will actually be executed per a single CPU hardware-thread (usually 2x the CPU core count due to superscalar simultaneous multithreading, aka Hyper-Threading).
Also remember that Task is very abstract. It does not refer only to concurrently executing/executed (non-blocking) code, but can also refer to pending IO (e.g. disk IO, network IO, etc) that is being handled asynchronously by the host environment (e.g. the operating system) rather than it blocking the thread if it used a "traditional" (non-asynchronous) OS API call.
Re: comment
I just have a problem with handling multiple (it can be 5000, for instance) clients on the server and for each of them, I need to run a separate handling loop. But I'm concerned about the fact that the thread can handle either 0 or 1 tasks. Does it mean I should create a new thread for every new client? I know it does not matter how much threads I'll create, it won't change speed. But speed does not matter - the loop just should be executed independently for each client.
Ugh, this is not quite the same thing as your question - but I'll try my best to explain...
for each of them, I need to run a separate handling loop
Not necessarily. Just because you need to maintain state for each connected client does not mean you need a separate "loop" (i.e. a thread of execution).
In computers today fundamentally almost all network IO goes through the BSD Sockets API ("WinSock" on Windows, and in .NET this is represented via System.Net.Sockets.Socket). Remember that all kinds of computers work with sockets, including simple single-threaded computers. They don't need a blocking-loop for each connection: instead they use select to get information about socket status without blocking and only read data from the socket's input buffer if safe to do so. Voila! Only a single thread is needed. You can do this in .NET by checking Socket.Available, Socket.Select, or better yet: using the newer NetworkStream.ReadAsync method, for example.
If you're using BSD Sockets API (System.Net.Sockets) then you should use Socket.Select
Does it mean I should create a new thread for every new client?
*NOOOOONONONONONNONONO - no, you do not. Creating and running a new Thread for each connected client (Socket, NetworkStream, TcpClient, etc) is an anti-pattern that will quickly exhaust your available process memory (as each Thread costs 1MB just for its default stack on Windows desktop, ~250KB within IIS).
I know it does not matter how much threads I'll create
YES IT DOES!. Spawning lots of threads is a good way to torpedo your application's network performance and consume unnecessarily large amounts of memory.
the loop just should be executed independently for each client.
Please learn about Asynchronous Sockets. By using the async feature in C# with NetworkStream or Socket's async methods your code will use as few threads as necessary to handle network data.
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.
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 8 years ago.
Improve this question
I wish to know how multi-threading in a uniprocessor system is helpful my doubt is
when you create the thread it is going to take the execution time slice from the main thread only and other thing is scheduling of threads (context switch between the threads) will also takes considerable amount of time (preemptive kernel) and at a time processor is going to execute only one thread.
Many processes have their speed bound by the slow speed of I/O devices such as disks. Using multiple threads, you can do useful work even while waiting for a slow disk access to complete. Of course, if your process is not I/O bound, then multi-threading on a single processor can cause slow-downs, rather than speed-ups - it's a question of horses for courses.
It can also be helpful to the user experience to use multiple threads, even if things don't actually run faster because of it.
Nothing worse than seeing an entire window refuse to repaint when an operation is going off in the background, especially when there's a progress bar which of course becomes useless.
Because sometimes threading is the most natural way to express your program. Threads provide a way for you to represent tasks that should conceptually run at the same time. Even though, on single processors they obviously can't run at the same time.
One common area to use threading is GUIs, for example. You don't want your GUI to be unresponsive just because there is a lot of work going on in another area of the program. So by splitting off the GUI into another thread, you can still have your GUI responsive despite a lot of computation somewhere else in your program.
If you put the heavy work in separate threads, the gui is still responsive.
Multithreading was invented because it was found that most of the time a program is waiting for I/O. If the processor is shared among other programs this idle time can be made use of. Even though some processor time is spent managing thread/processes this practice was found to be more productive than running one program at a time to the end in sequence.
It depends on the OS, but the scheduler usually considers thread priority as well. For example, for 'real-time' audio applications (e.g. recording the audio with some processing), the processing and recording is more important than the UI refreshment, since the audio signal is lost forever if you miss even a few samples.
Most "pro-grade" audio applications used multi-threading long before multi-core CPU became common-place.
With Uniprocessor systems, multithreading helps in sharing the CPU among multiple tasks so that no one task hogs the CPU till it gets completed.
A good example is a game, where you have to do many things concurrently.
The common approach is to have a main loop where you process events, game logic, physics, graphics and sound; but if those task need to be interleaved in a non static-deterministic way, because some of them take more than one iteration to complete (for example, you're dropping some frames, but the game logic is still running) or you need to sample sound more frequently because otherwise glitches can be heard; the scheduler of you game is likely to become more and more complex...
In that case, you could just split your tasks in threads and let the OS to do the scheduling job for you. But you'll need to design that very carefully because it's very probable that all the threads have to read the same data (the world state) and one or two of them also write it (the game logic and physics) so it's imperative to stablish the proper locks.
Interestingly, when I tried a PLINQ sample (Parallel LINQ i.e. automatic multithreading expressed using LINQ expressions) on my uniprocessor PC, I still gained a roughly 2x speed increase. This baffles me, but my best guess is that it's to do with Hyperthreading. So a single-core CPU can apparently behave as though it is using simultaneous multithreaded execution. I don't really understand hyperthreading, but what I guess is happening is that a second thread is fitted into some time that the first thread would see as the CPU idling.
Worth experimenting.
Multi threading is useful in uniprocessors because a process can be run simultaneously on I/O devices and CPU with the help of multiple threads.
It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 14 years ago.
In your work, what specifically have you used threads for?
(Please give a description of the application and how the thread helped/enhanced the application.)
Threads are critical for most UI work. Otherwise, any time you want to do a calculation or anything that takes a while, you will freeze the UI.
Therefore, most GUI frameworks have UI threads that handles the event loop (and some drawing activities), but most user code takes place in another thread.
Threads are also useful for occasionally checking things or making episodic changes to the state of the system.
(Less serious answer) I like to use threads in any situation where I want the system to fall on its arse in interesting and unobvious ways, while still having plausible deniability as to how I could have let the problem slip through.
Or, in the words of Rasmus Lerdorf, "People aren't smart enough to write thread-safe code".
Handling concurrent client requests in a server.
Threads are fundamental for most I/O bound applications, and for any reasonably complex server side application. Consider an application that acts as an exchange for information with multiple sources of data. You need to be able to deal with this information in independent threads, in particular if operations on this data is subject to latencies or require a signifigant amount of time to complete.
In most occasions threads often help to decouple various concerns within the application. A single thread dispatching events to interested parties will not scale well in the vast majority of occasions.
All but the simplest of applications will require threading to some degree.
Most common use is for resposive UI like showing a progress bar for a long running background task.
Background tasks:
Handling network connections and protocols.
Doing Sound Synthesis running in the background of a multimedia application.
Doing File-loading in the background in a multimedia application (CD streaming)
Other uses:
Accelerating certain algorithms by running two instances of the same code in two different threads.
I know that most of the time I use threads, what I actually want to do is to launch some asynchronous lump of work - i.e. I want something to happen in the mythical "background". Unfortunately thinking about threads isn't really the correct level of abstraction for doing "launch some lump of work", because you're not putting something into the background. With a thread API you're creating another place to run stuff as a sibling of the process's original thread, and need to worry about what information is shared between them, and how, and so on. That's why I'm enjoying newer API such as Cocoa's NSOperation and NSOperationQueue. In the case of that API, launching some lump of work is just some single line, and the library takes care of whether a new thread should be launched or an old one reused.
To scan directories looking for changed files. It is a lot quicker to spawn a thread per sub directory then do it in a single thread.
We have been using threads for several applications where the main screen was comprised of a workflow tailored to the currently logged on user.
Getting the workflow can be time intensive. Various parts of the workflow get loaded by different threads. For our main application BP/GeNA, about 11 threads are fired, each running a database query.
Regards,
Lieven
I most commonly use threads when I want to do something with a bunch of resources that I know will take a long time, when there's no interdependence between the work to process the elements, and particularly if the bottleneck isn't a local resource (like CPU of disk). For example, if I've got a bunch of URLs to retrieve, each of those will go into a separate thread.
This is a very general question. I've used "threads" to take potentially blocking work off of the UI thread, whether that work is local or network i/o or that work is computationally intensive tasks which will tend to "block" depending on the hardware it is run on.
I think it is more interesting to ask about a particular problem or pattern which help alleviates it and the applicability on threads, i.e.:
how are threads relevant to model
view controller?
how or why should I
take work off of a UI thread to
ensure that the UI doesn't even think
of blocking?
how can a threadpool be
useful for recursive (network)
directory traversal as someone else
alluded to?
Should I be affinitizing
threads for cooperative scheduling of
computationally intensive tasks, or
should I be using a ThreadPool and
let the OS preemptively schedule the
threads as it sees fit.
It's a pretty broad space and more clarity would likely help.
I build web applications, so all code that I write is executed in multiple threads.
Our app is a web service, so we spawn off a thread per request. Technically, JNI spawns off the thread, but the code has to be thread-safe regardless. We've run into some interesting (FSVO) issues with both Hibernate and our ESB-based infrastructure, but for the most part keeping things in ThreadLocals and synchronizing on subsystem entry points has worked pretty well. We haven't tried more than a couple dozen simultaneous requests, so there may well be some race conditions we haven't identified yet, but overall we're performant and give the right answers.
I wrote a function that spawns a thread that beeps (from the speaker) at regular intervals to alert a test operator that something needs attention. After the modal dialog is responded to, the thread is killed.
Not employment related, but I'm doing some side work on the Netflix Prize. My computer has 8 cores and 20 GB of RAM ... running only 1 thread would be an utter waste, so I typically start 16 threads or so.
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.