Objective:
I am trying to estimate how fast my code will execute when run concurrently in multiple threads.
Question 1)
If I know exactly how fast my code runs for a single request in one thread is their any way of estimating how fast it will run amongst multiple threads?
Question 2)
What impact, if any, does the presence of other threads effect the execution speed of each other thread?
My Situation:
I traverse a graph in memory of worst case size 1 million nodes. It's simply accessing 1 million memory addresses 1 at a time. Takes Half a second on 1 thread and I was worried how this will scale with multiple users performing the same query. Every user requests is handled by a separate thread so 100 simultaneous users will require 100 simultaneous threads. Each thread is sharing the same resource but read only. No writing. Is there any chance I could get each user to see roughly the same execution time?
Note: I know it will depend upon a number of factors but surely there must be some way of identifying whether or not your code will scale if you find it takes x amount of time for a single thread given x hardware. As final note I'd like to add I have limited experience with computer hardware architecture and how multi-threading works under the hood.
These are all interesting questions, but there is, unfortunately, no straightforward answer, because the answer will depend on a lot of different factors.
Most modern machines are multi-core: in an ideal situation, a four-thread process has the ability to scale up almost linearly in a four-core machine (i.e. run four times as fast).
Most programs, though, spend most of their time waiting for things: disk or database access, the memory bus, network I/O, user input, and other resources. Faster machines don't generally make these things appreciably faster.
The way that most modern operating systems, including Windows, Unix/Linux, and MacOS, use the processor is by scheduling processor time to processes and threads in a more-or-less round-robin manner: at any given time there may be threads that are waiting for processor time (this is a bit simplistic, as they all have some notions of process prioritization, so that high-criticality processes get pushed up the queue earlier than less important ones).
When a thread is using a processor core, it gets it all for as long as its time slice lasts: indeed, only one thing at a time is actually running on a single core. When the process uses up its time slice, or requests some resource that isn't immediately available, it its turn at the processor core is ended, and the next scheduled task will begin. This tends to make pretty optimal use of the processor resources.
So what are the factors that determine how well a process will scale up?
What portion of its run time does a single process spend waiting for
I/O and user input?
Do multiple threads hit the same resources, or different ones?
How much communication has to happen between threads? Between individual threads and your processes main thread? This takes synchronization, and introduces waiting.
How "tight" are the hotspots of the active thread? Can the body of it fit into the processor's memory, or does the (much slower) bus memory have to be accessed?
As a general rule, the more independent individual threads are of one another, the more linearly your application will scale. In real-world business applications, though, that is far from the case. The best way to increase the scaling ability of your process is to understand it--and its dependencies--well, and then use a profiler to find out where the most waiting occurs, and see if you can devise technical strategies to obviate them.
If I know exactly how fast my code runs for a single request in one thread is their any way of estimating how fast it will run amongst multiple threads?
No, you should determine it empirically.
What impact, if any, does the presence of other threads effect the execution speed of each other thread?
Computation-bound tasks will likely scale very well and be mostly independent of other threads. Interestingly enough, some CPU manufacturers implement features which can increase the clock of a lone-busy CPU core to compensate for the all the idle cores. This sort of feature might confound your measurements and expectations about scaling.
Cache/Memory/disk-bound tasks will start to contend with each other except for where resource partitions exist.
I know it will depend upon a number of factors
Absolutely! So I recommend that you prototype it and measure it. And then find out why it didn't scale as well as you'd hoped and try a different algorithm. Iterate.
but surely there must be some way of identifying whether or not your code will scale
Yes, but unfortunately it requires a detailed description of the algorithm implemented by the code. Your results will be heavily dependent on the ratio of your code's activity among these general regions, and your target's capability for these:
disk I/O
network I/O
memory I/O
computation
My Situation: My application runs in an app server that assigns one thread for every user request. If my application executes in 2 seconds for 1 user I can't assume it will be always take 2 seconds if say 100 users are simultaneously running the same operation correct?
If your app server computes pi to 100 digits for each user request, it will likely scale reasonably well until you encounter the core limit of your target.
If your app server does database queries for each user request, it will likely scale only as well as the target hardware can sustain the necessary load.
EDIT given specifics:
I traverse a graph in memory of worst case size 1 million nodes. It's simply accessing 1 million memory addresses 1 at a time.
Your problem sounds memory+cache-bound. You should study the details of your target CPU/mem deployment or if you are designing it, opt for high memory throughput.
A NUMA system ("resource partitioning" for memory) can likely maximize your overall concurrent memory throughput. Note that since your problem seems to dictate concurrent access to the same memory pages, a NUMA system would penalize the process doing remote memory accesses. In this case, consider creating multiple copies of the data at initialization time.
Depending on the pattern of traversal, TLB pressure might be a factor. Consider experimenting with huge (aka "large") pages.
Cache contention may be a factor in scaling as well.
Your specific algorithm could easily end up dominating over any of the specific system effects, depending on how far apart the best and worst cases are.
limited experience with computer hardware architecture and how multi-threading works under the hood.
Profile the query using CPU performance counters with a tool like Intel's VTune, perf, or oprofile. It can tell you where expensive operations are executing in your code. With this information you can optimize your query to perform well (individually and in aggregate).
Related
I am working with Rust but this question would also apply to many other situations.
Suppose you have M available vCPUs and N threads (including the main thread) to schedule, and that N > M. Each thread does approximately equal amounts of work.
Is there any good reason then to pin threads to specific cores? I've written a number of toy benchmarks and it seems like the answer is no, as I cannot make a program under these assumptions that performs better with thread affinity; in fact, it always does much worse.
if your application is working on a system with a lot of cores and heavily relies on the core cache, a context switch will be too expensive, so pinning tasks to cores reduces the context switches and improves throughput.
but in an "average pc" running plain RAM-bound tasks then your OS scheduler will be much better at load balancing the cores than you ever will.
pinning threads to cores is also useful if you care about latency instead of throughput, in a heavily loaded system if you have a time-critical task then you want it to have its own core which won't be contented by other tasks on the system, hence it makes sense to pin it to a certain core, an example will be an in-memory Database that needs to responds to request in under a millisecond latency.
so the answer is, it's only useful for certain apps.
Is it recommended that the number of threads in a java application should be less than the number of cpu cores?
If so why is this the case and what are the implications of using threads greater than the number of cpu cores ?
You will probably not get any definitive answer on the question of knowing, generally speaking, how many threads an app should have, in relation to the number of core(s) the underlying computer has.
One may also argue that, at the time of PaaS software design and/or elastic clusters, the notion of a fixed number of cores for any given process might be overrated.
Still, the first part of your question :
Is it recommended that the number of threads in a java application should be less than the number of cpu cores?
This has a definitive answer, which is a "no" (once more : as a general rule). And the reason why, shortly, it that all created threads are not typically running (and maybe more importantly runable) at once, meaning there is an opportunity to optimize here.
As a support to this discussion, I'll oppose two ways of creating apps, you could call it "classical" versus "reactive", although this is not a generally acceptable division. Yet, let's use this as a support.
Classical application design
I label as classical applications that rely mostly on "blocking" calls and/or "thread per request" pattern. Consider the traditional way I/Os are done (socket communication like HTTP or Database connection, hard drive based file reading, ...) : your app thread calls some kind of read or write method, which usually triggers an OS level call, that blocks your app thread, fills some device buffer at the OS level (say, read from a disk). Once the buffer has received enough data, the OS signals your java app and thread to resume activity, and the read method returns with the data from the buffer.
The whole time the OS is working (usually just a tiny fraction of a second, but still some large amount of time compared to your typical GHz CPU speed), your Java thread is in state BLOCKED_WAITING, waiting for the OS to signal it can resume. This happens all the time. A code profiler tool, like JProfiler, or YourKit, can help you measure this time. If you do so, you'll notice that in many apps doing I/O, this is a significant part of the so-called "wall time" or "clock time" that is spent... waiting.
So we have one thread waiting, meaning it is not using any CPU time. It can be scheduled out, and the OS is free to give CPU time to anybody else.
Suppose this is a one core CPU, then NOW would be a good time to have another thread to feed the CPU. Meaning having two or more threads could be a good design to maximize CPU usage even on a single core CPU, and get the most out of your hardware.
Most "classical" web applications are typically subject to this type of CPU underuse if you follow the rule of "one thread per CPU core", because Socket communications (or more typically : the time spent waiting for a response to your SQL queries) will incur so much blocking.
If you raise the number of threads your app has, then even if one or two long running requests remain waiting, other faster requests will have runnable threads to run them, and you'll get better CPU usage, and better performance (number of concurrent requests). That is... untill something else reaches saturation (too many heavy requests on your DB, too many simultaneous hard drive reads/writes...)
Reactive app design
Recognizing this typical behavior of apps, and using different sets of OS features, some application frameworks now use non blocking patterns (even for I/O) to mitigate the above issues. Examples in the Java ecosystem are NIO based networking stacks like Netty, or actor pattern implementations like Akka.
In a typical "reactive" app, one usually abandons the "thread per request" pattern that we have in classical apps (meaning one thread is responsible for handling everything from start to finish of a given user request, and waiting when need be for external resources to become available), in favor of a vastly more modular, and non-blocking approach.
Threads are given more technical-grained bits of work to do, and each thread will hand-off work to one another and callbacks to hear back when work they depend upon is done. This "handing of" of units of work means each thread can quickly grab new units of work it is able to handle. Meaning one of two things : you achieve higher CPU usage with far fewer threads in your app (because each can grab work more efficiently, instead of just sitting "waiting") ; or you can instantiate many many more threads because they'll mostly be waiting (not saturating the CPUs), and the dynamical hand-off will still allow for good CPU usage.
Conclusion
Anyway, you don't design the number of threads solely based on the number of available cores. The nature of your implementation and work dictates the number of optimal threads to create.
On a classical app-design philosophy, the two numbers are more closely related than on a reactive one, but still, we have different profiles :
a very simple server app can accomodate many more threads than CPU cores, because it will allow for better throughput (the limit being, say, the output network bandwidth).
a SQL heavy app, should be scalled to the point where your app server will saturate the SQL backend. As your app server will be mostly waiting for your SQL server, then this is the limit
a mixed application consisting of some SQL heavy work, and some lightweight work, will need precision tuning, because you don't want the stuck threads (those blocked waiting for the DB) starving the light requests that would be served more rapidly
a compute intensive program (say, a cryptography service) will probably benefit from a number of threads close to the number CPU cores (if your algorithm is implemented in a classical way), because creating more threads than you are able to run is pointless. In an actor based implementation, creating more threads could actually be a win.
I understand how to create a thread in my chosen language and I understand about mutexs, and the dangers of shared data e.t.c but I'm sure about how the O/S manages threads and the cost of each thread. I have a series of questions that all relate and the clearest way to show the limit of my understanding is probably via these questions.
What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software? One of the costs to creating a thread must be its own stack pointer and process counter, then space to copy all of the working registers to as it is moved on and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between threads of a process or on a first come first served?
Can I somehow check the hardware on start up (of the program) for number of cores. If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of threads to N-1?
then space to copy all of the working registeres to as it is moved on
and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
One less evident cost is the strain imposed on the scheduler which may start to choke if it needs to juggle thousands of threads. The memory isn't really the issue. With the right tweaking you can get a "thread" to occupy very little memory, little more than its stack. This tweaking could be difficult (i.e. using clone(2) directly under linux etc) but it can be done.
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between
threads of a process or on a first come first served
Each thread gets its own stack, and typically you can control its size.
If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of
threads to N-1
Checking the number of cores is easy, but environment-specific. However, limiting the number of threads to the number of cores only makes sense if your workload consists of CPU-intensive operations, with little I/O. If I/O is involved you may want to have many more threads than cores.
You should be as thoughtful as possible in everything you design and implement.
I know that a Java thread stack takes up about 1MB each time you create a thread. , so they add up.
Threads make sense for asynchronous tasks that allow long-running activities to happen without preventing all other users/processes from making progress.
Threads are managed by the operating system. There are lots of schemes, all under the control of the operating system (e.g. round robin, first come first served, etc.)
It makes perfect sense to me to assign one thread per core for some activities (e.g. computationally intensive calculations, graphics, math, etc.), but that need not be the deciding factor. One app I develop uses roughly 100 active threads in production; it's not a 100 core machine.
To add to the other excellent posts:
'What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software?'
It is if one of your design choices is doing such a thing often. A good way of avoiding this issue is to create threads once, at app startup, by using pools and/or app-lifetime threads dedicated to operations. Inter-thread signaling is much quicker than continual thread creation/termination/destruction and also much safer/easier.
The number of posts concerning problems with thread stopping, terminating, destroying, thread count runaway, OOM failure etc. is ledgendary. If you can avoid doing it at all, great.
I am currently thinking of reasons why multi threaded applications may not scale well.
Two reasons I am aware of and that I have been fighting with are:
Communication between threads is not done well and slows down the speed
Number of cores on a chip and memory bandwith to the cpu do not increase proportionally. This leads to a slower memory bandwith per core the more cores on a chip are heavily used.
What else are problems?
For point 1), they are not necessarily 'not done well', but in most cases there are critical sections that processes/threads have to wait for each other, e.g. update some critical data. This is described well by Amdahl's law.
Another point I'd like to add is the scalability of the task itself. If the task (the input) is not scalable, then increasing processing power (cores/threads) cannot improve the whole throughput. For example, an application is to handle data flows, but there is a constraint that data packets from same flow can not be handled in parallel (due to ordering consideration), then the scalability will be limited by the number of flows.
In addition, the scalability of the algorithm is even more fundamental, considering the difference between O(1) and O(n) algorithms. Of course, maybe the topic here focus on scalability of processing power, rather than data size.
I think that, in (1), you've nailed one of most important factors that can negatively influence the performance of multithreaded apps. Esp. Google for 'false sharing'.
(2), however only affects a set of multithreaded apps - those that that run CPU-bound threads in parallel. If an app uses many threads that are I/O bound, (2) does not matter too much.
Looking at my box here, it has 100 processes and 1403 threads, CPU use 3%. Only 7 out of the 100 processes are single-threaded. Most of the apps, therefore, are multithreaded but I/O waiting.
My box would work reasonably well, at the moment, if it had only one core. Sure, hitting a link that winds up my browser would probably be a bit slower to bring up a complex page, but not much.
In the commonest case then, where apps are multithreaded to take avantage of the high I/O performance of preemptive multitaskers, apps scale very well indeed, even on a single-core CPU.
Try not to fall into the trap of thinking that preemptive multitasking OS are all about 'doing CPU-bound tasks in parallel' - they actually make this difficult by forcing the need for locking, synchro, signalling etc. It's much more about high-performance I/O, something that a cooperative scheduler is spectacularly bad at.
Many multi-threaded applications are built around the "one user one thread" concept which means that once a user or chore needs to be handled a thread is allocated to the task. Every extra thread increases the load on the scheduler leading up to the point where all processing is done trying to determine which thread should be run at this moment. Call this "scheduler saturation."
Windows (the multi-threaded engine, not 95/98/Me etc) has a mechanism called I/O Completion ports which recommend one thread per processor for best performance. IOCP-based applications are usually tremendously fast though, as always, the bottlenecks instead appear in other places such as running out of certain types of OS memory or waiting on the communications medium.
You can search for IOCP here at SO, it has its own tag.
I would add:
The more threads, the smaller their share of CPU cache. A typical modern CPU's might have 3 levels of cache: L1, L2 and L3. L1 might be private to that core, but L2 and L3 might be shared between cores on the die or something. So a single thread can use the entire L2 & L3, but if you have many threads then you get many more cache misses, depending on the profile of your algorithm.
See also:
many-core CPU's: Programming techniques to avoid disappointing scalability
It could be limited by the fixed maximum bandwidth of main memory, where your program has run out of the memory bandwidth, and however you make more thread can't create more available memory bandwidth. This is related to your specific application, whether is a memory bounded one or a compute bounded one, see roofline model.
If you're spawning multiple threads (or processes) concurrently, is it better to spawn as many as the number of physical processors or the number of logical processors, assuming the task is CPU-bound? Or is it better to do something in between (say, 3 threads)?
Does the performance depend on the kind of instructions that are getting executed (say, would non-local memory access be much different from cache hits)? If so, in which cases is it better to take advantage of hyperthreading?
Update:
The reason I'm asking is, I remember reading somewhere that if you have as many tasks as the number of virtual processors, tasks on the same physical core can sometimes starve some CPU resources and prevent each other from getting as many resources as needed, possibly decreasing performance. That's why I'm wondering if having as many threads as virtual cores is a good idea.
The performance depends on a huge variety of factors. Most tasks are not strictly CPU bound, since even if all of the data is in memory it is usually not on-board in the processor cache. I have seen examples (like this one) where memory access patterns can dramatically change the performance profile of a given 'parallel' process.
In short, there is no perfect number for all situations.
Chances are pretty good that you will see a performance improvement running 2 threads per core with HyperThreading enabled. Jobs that appear to be entirely CPU bound usually aren't, and HyperThreading can extract a few "extra" cycles out of the occasional interrupt or context switch.
On the other hand, with a core iX processor that has Turbo Boost, you might actually do better running 1 thread per core to encourage the CPU to overclock itself.
At work, we routinely run many-core servers at full CPU doing various kinds of calculation for days at a time. A while back we measured the performance difference with and without HT. We found that on average, with HyperThreading, and running twice as many jobs at once, we could complete the same amount of jobs about 10% faster than than without HyperThreading.
Assume that 2 × cores is a good place to start, but the bottom line is: measure!
I remember info that hyperthreading can give you up to 30% of performance boost. in general you'd better to treat them as 4 different cores. of course in some specific circumstances (e.g. having the same long running task bound to each core) you can divide your processing better taking into account that some cores are just logical ones
more info about hyperthreading itself here
Using Hyperthreading to run two threads on the same core, when both threads have similar memory access patterns but access disjoint data structures, would be very roughly equivalent to running them on two separate cores each with half the cache. If the memory-access patterns are such that half the cache would be sufficient to prevent thrashing, performance may be good. If the memory-access patterns are such that halving the cache induces thrashing, there may be a ten-fold performance hit (implying one would have been much better off without hyperthreading).
On the other hand, there are some situations where hyperthreading may be a huge win. If many threads will all be reading and writing the same shared data using lock-free data structures, and all threads must see a consistent view of the data, trying to run threads on disjoint processor may cause thrashing since only one processor at a time may have read-write access to any given cache line; running such a threads on two cores may take longer than running only one at a time. Such cache arbitration is not required, however, when a piece of data is accessed by multiple threads on a single core. In those cases, hyperthreading can be a huge win.
Unfortunately, I don't know any way to give the scheduler any "hints" to suggest that some threads should share a core when possible, while others should run separately when possible.
HT allows a boost of approximately 10-30% for mostly cpu-bound tasks that use the extra virtual cores. Although these tasks may seem CPU-bound, unless they are custom made assembly, they will usually suffer from IO waits between RAM and local cache. This allows one thread running on a physical HT-enabled core to work while the other thread is waiting for IO. This does come with a disadvantage though, as two threads share the same cache/bus, which will result in less resources each which may cause both threads to pause while waiting for IO.
In the last case, running a single thread will decrease the maximum simultaneous theoretical processing power(by 10-30%) in favor of running a single thread without the slowdown of cache thrashing which may be very significant in some applications.
Choosing which cores to use is just as important as choosing how many threads to run. If each thread is CPU-bound for roughly the same duration it is best to set the affinity such that threads using mostly different resources find themselves on different physical cores and threads using common resources be grouped to the same physical cores(different virtual core) so that common resources can be used from the same cache without extra IO wait.
Since each program has different CPU-usage characteristics and cache thrashing may or may not be a major slowdown(it usually is) it is impossible to determine what the ideal number of threads should be without profiling first. One last thing to note is that the OS/Kernel will also require some CPU and cache space. It is usually ideal to keep a single (physical)core set aside for the OS if real-time latency is required on CPU-bound threads so as to avoid sharing cache/cpu resources. If threads are often waiting for IO and cache thrashing is not an issue, or if running a real-time OS specifically designed for the application, you can skip this last step.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_(computer_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_affinity
All of the other answers already give lots of excellent info. But, one more point to consider is that the SIMD unit is shared between logical cores on the same die. So, if you are running threads with SSE code, do you run them on all 4 logical cores, or just spawn 2 threads (assuming you have two chips)? For this odd case, best to profile with your app.