Related
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.
Lets assume we have fixed amount of calculation work, without blocking, sleeping, i/o-waiting. The work can be parallelized very well - it consists of 100M small and independent calculation tasks.
What is faster for 4-core CPU - to run 4 threads or... lets say 50? Why second variant should be slover and how much slover?
As i assume: when you run 4 heavy threads on 4-core CPU without another CPU-consuming processes/threads, scheduler is allowed to not move the threads between cores at all; it has no reason to do that in this situation. Core0 (main CPU) will be responsible for executing interruption handler for hardware timer 250 times per second (basic Linux configuration) and other hardware interruption handlers, but another cores may not feel any worries.
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore CPU registers for different context? What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches, pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU? So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do together in comparison to their serial execution?
Question about caches and another hardware optimization in multithreading environment is the interesting question for me now.
As #Baile mentions in the comments, this is highly application, system, environment-specific.
And as such, I'm not going to take the hard-line approach of mentioning exactly 1 thread for each core. (or 2 threads/core in the case of Hyperthreading)
As an experienced shared-memory programmer, I have seen from my experience that the optimal # of threads (for a 4 core machine) can range anywhere from 1 to 64+.
Now I will enumerate the situations that can cause this range:
Optimal Threads < # of Cores
In certain tasks that are very fine-grained paralleled (such as small FFTs), the overhead of threading is the dominant performance factor. In some cases, it's it not helpful to parallelize at all. In some cases, you get speedup with 2 threads, but backwards scaling at 4 threads.
Another issue is resource contention. Even if you have a highly parallelizable task that can easily split across 4 cores/threads, you may be bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and cache effects. So often, you find that 2 threads will be just as fast as 4 threads. (as if often the case with very large FFTs)
Optimal Threads = # of Cores
This is the optimal case. No need to explain here - one thread per core. Most embarrassingly parallel applications that are not memory or I/O bound fit right here.
Optimal Threads > # of Cores
This is where it gets interesting... very interesting. Have you heard about load-imbalance? How about over-decomposition and work-stealing?
Many parallelizable applications are irregular - meaning that the tasks do not split into sub-tasks of equal size. So if you may end up splitting a large task into 4 unequal sizes, assign them to 4 threads and run them on 4 cores... the result? Poor parallel performance because 1 thread happened to get 10x more work than the other threads.
A common solution here is to over-decompose the task into many sub-tasks. You can either create threads for each one of them (so now you get threads >> cores). Or you can use some sort of task-scheduler with a fixed number of threads. Not all tasks are suited for both, so quite often, the approach of over-decomposing a task to 8 or 16 threads for a 4-core machine gives optimal results.
Although spawning more threads can lead to better load-balance, the overhead builds up. So there's typically an optimal point somewhere. I've seen as high as 64 threads on 4 cores. But as mentioned, it's highly application specific. And you need to experiment.
EDIT : Expanding answer to more directly answer the question...
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore
CPU registers for different context?
This is very dependent on the environment - and is somewhat difficult to measure directly. Short answer: Very Expensive This might be a good read.
What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside
CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches,
pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU?
Short answer: Yes When you context switch out, you likely flush your pipeline and mess up all the predictors. Same with caches. The new thread is likely to replace the cache with new data.
There's a catch though. In some applications where the threads share the same data, it's possible that one thread could potentially "warm" the cache for another incoming thread or another thread on a different core sharing the same cache. (Although rare, I've seen this happen before on one of my NUMA machines - superlinear speedup: 17.6x across 16 cores!?!?!)
So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do
together in comparison to their serial execution?
Depends, depends... Hyperthreading aside, there will definitely be overhead. But I've read a paper where someone used a second thread to prefetch for the main thread... Yes it's crazy...
Creating 50 threads will actually hurt performance, not improve it. It just doesn't make any sense.
Ideally you should make the 4 threads, not more, not less. There will be some overhead because of context switching, but that is unavoidable. The OS/services/other applications threads should too be executed. But nowadays with so powerful and lighting-fast CPUs this is of no concern since those OS threads will only take less that 2 % of the CPU's time. Almost all of them will be in blocked state while your program is running.
You might think that, since performance is of critical importance, you should code those small critical areas in low-level assembly language. Modern programming languages allow this.
But seriously... compilers and, in case of Java, the JVM, will optimize those portions so well that it just isn't worth it (unless you actually want to exercise something like this). Instead of your calculations finishing in 100 seconds, they'll finish in 97 or 98. The question you must ask yourself is: is it worth all those hours of coding and debugging ?
You asked about the time cost of context switching. These days, these are extremely low. Look at modern day dual-core CPUs that run Windows 7 for example. If you start an Apache web server on that machine and a MySQL database server, you will easily go over 800 threads. The machine just doesn't feel it. To see how low this cost is, read here: How to estimate the thread context switching overhead? . To spare you the searching/reading part: context switching can be done hundreds of thousands of times per second.
4 threads are faster if you can program your 40 tasks switching better than Operating System does.
If you can use 4 threads, use them. There's no way 50 will go faster than 4 on a 4-core machine. All you get is more overhead.
Of course, you're describing an ideal non-real-world situation, so whatever you are actually building, you'll need to measure in order to understand how the performance is affected.
There is Hyperthreading technology which can handle more that one thread per CPU, but it is hardly dependent on type of calculation you want to do. Consider using of GPU or very low assembly language to achieve maximum power.
Can someone please explain to me how a multi-threaded application can be faster when a single core cpu can only do a single thing at a time. If I have 10 threads then only 1 of those threads is really 'running' at any given moment on a single core cpu and all the extra threads just add context switching overhead. So if each thread has 10 instructions to process then in the end I'm still processing 100 instructions sequentially plus the context switching overhead. Am I missing something here?
A Helpful Analogy About Bananas
Imagine a supermarket with 4 checkout lanes. But there is only one cashier. Should she work on a single register or work on all 4 registers, moving between them?
The obvious answer is that she should stay on one register to avoid wasting time moving between checkout lanes.
But now imagine that when you buy fruit, the scale can take up to 5 minutes to re-calibrate for each specific type of fruit.
While the scale is recalibrating and the register is tied up, suddenly it becomes more efficient overall to rotate over to the next lane and ring up some items there rather than just waiting for the scale to be ready again.
The scale calibrating is non-CPU work (such as disk I/O, network latency, etc.). Rotating to the next register is switching to another thread. And there you have it.
Yes, you are missing the fact that a process might BLOCK to wait for I/O. So, if you use only ONE THREAD in your application, if it blocks to wait for I/O to finish, it will be extremely slow.
On the other hand, if you have multiple threads, your application might have a couple of them waiting for I/O to finish, but the rest of them "executing" while OS gives it access to the SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Do keep in mind that I/O operations compared to CPU operations are orders of magnitude slower.
And yes. Even in single cores, a multithreaded application will probably be faster than a single threaded one. Consider the case of a server process like APACHE running on a single thread. Every time there is a connection waiting for I/O to finish, the rest of the connection will halt waiting for that I/O operation to finish. Of course there is ASYNC-IO. But the programming model to make a huge server like Apache running on a single thread with ASYNC-IO, will be too complicated to maintain, improve or anything else.
You're right, it's not faster on a single-core processor. Most programs do many things at once. Most of these operations are 'bursty' for the processor. They do something, wait for input or output to finish, then do some more. Multithreaded programming allows another operation to use the processor during the wait. Remember, all processors basically do the same thing. The difference is the speed that they can do their operations. The goal then is to keep the processor busy doing useful stuff as much as possible. Multithreaded programming is just a method that makes it easier for programmers to get to that goal.
On a single core, of course it is not faster. But it can make the system more responsive, by not appearing dead to the world while doing a long-running task.
It really depends on that what the threads are doing. If there is a relative big amount of latency, another thread can do its job while other threads are waiting for "themselves".
I don’t want to make this subjective...
If I/O and other input/output-related bottlenecks are not of concern, then do we need to write multithreaded code? Theoretically the single threaded code will fare better since it will get all the CPU cycles. Right?
Would JavaScript or ActionScript have fared any better, had they been multithreaded?
I am just trying to understand the real need for multithreading.
I don't know if you have payed any attention to trends in hardware lately (last 5 years) but we are heading to a multicore world.
A general wake-up call was this "The free lunch is over" article.
On a dual core PC, a single-threaded app will only get half the CPU cycles. And CPUs are not getting faster anymore, that part of Moores law has died.
In the words of Herb Sutter The free lunch is over, i.e. the future performance path for computing will be in terms of more cores not higher clockspeeds. The thing is that adding more cores typically does not scale the performance of software that is not multithreaded, and even then it depends entirely on the correct use of multithreaded programming techniques, hence multithreading is a big deal.
Another obvious reason is maintaining a responsive GUI, when e.g. a click of a button initiates substantial computations, or I/O operations that may take a while, as you point out yourself.
The primary reason I use multithreading these days is to keep the UI responsive while the program does something time-consuming. Sure, it's not high-tech, but it keeps the users happy :-)
Most CPUs these days are multi-core. Put simply, that means they have several processors on the same chip.
If you only have a single thread, you can only use one of the cores - the other cores will either idle or be used for other tasks that are running. If you have multiple threads, each can run on its own core. You can divide your problem into X parts, and, assuming each part can run indepedently, you can finish the calculations in close to 1/Xth of the time it would normally take.
By definition, the fastest algorithm running in parallel will spend at least as much CPU time as the fastest sequential algorithm - that is, parallelizing does not decrease the amount of work required - but the work is distributed across several independent units, leading to a decrease in the real-time spent solving the problem. That means the user doesn't have to wait as long for the answer, and they can move on quicker.
10 years ago, when multi-core was unheard of, then it's true: you'd gain nothing if we disregard I/O delays, because there was only one unit to do the execution. However, the race to increase clock speeds has stopped; and we're instead looking at multi-core to increase the amount of computing power available. With companies like Intel looking at 80-core CPUs, it becomes more and more important that you look at parallelization to reduce the time solving a problem - if you only have a single thread, you can only use that one core, and the other 79 cores will be doing something else instead of helping you finish sooner.
Much of the multithreading is done just to make the programming model easier when doing blocking operations while maintaining concurrency in the program - sometimes languages/libraries/apis give you little other choice, or alternatives makes the programming model too hard and error prone.
Other than that the main benefit of multi threading is to take advantage of multiple CPUs/cores - one thread can only run at one processor/core at a time.
No. You can't continue to gain the new CPU cycles, because they exist on a different core and the core that your single-threaded app exists on is not going to get any faster. A multi-threaded app, on the other hand, will benefit from another core. Well-written parallel code can go up to about 95% faster- on a dual core, which is all the new CPUs in the last five years. That's double that again for a quad core. So while your single-threaded app isn't getting any more cycles than it did five years ago, my quad-threaded app has four times as many and is vastly outstripping yours in terms of response time and performance.
Your question would be valid had we only had single cores. The things is though, we mostly have multicore CPU's these days. If you have a quadcore and write a single threaded program, you will have three cores which is not used by your program.
So actually you will have at most 25% of the CPU cycles and not 100%. Since the technology today is to add more cores and less clockspeed, threading will be more and more crucial for performance.
That's kind of like asking whether a screwdriver is necessary if I only need to drive this nail. Multithreading is another tool in your toolbox to be used in situations that can benefit from it. It isn't necessarily appropriate in every programming situation.
Here are some answers:
You write "If input/output related problems are not bottlenecks...". That's a big "if". Many programs do have issues like that, remembering that networking issues are included in "IO", and in those cases multithreading is clearly worthwhile. If you are writing one of those rare apps that does no IO and no communication then multithreading might not be an issue
"The single threaded code will get all the CPU cycles". Not necessarily. A multi-threaded code might well get more cycles than a single threaded app. These days an app is hardly ever the only app running on a system.
Multithreading allows you to take advantage of multicore systems, which are becoming almost universal these days.
Multithreading allows you to keep a GUI responsive while some action is taking place. Even if you don't want two user-initiated actions to be taking place simultaneously you might want the GUI to be able to repaint and respond to other events while a calculation is taking place.
So in short, yes there are applications that don't need multithreading, but they are fairly rare and becoming rarer.
First, modern processors have multiple cores, so a single thraed will never get all the CPU cycles.
On a dualcore system, a single thread will utilize only half the CPU. On a 8-core CPU, it'll use only 1/8th.
So from a plain performance point of view, you need multiple threads to utilize the CPU.
Beyond that, some tasks are also easier to express using multithreading.
Some tasks are conceptually independent, and so it is more natural to code them as separate threads running in parallel, than to write a singlethreaded application which interleaves the two tasks and switches between them as necessary.
For example, you typically want the GUI of your application to stay responsive, even if pressing a button starts some CPU-heavy work process that might go for several minutes. In that time, you still want the GUI to work. The natural way to express this is to put the two tasks in separate threads.
Most of the answers here make the conclusion multicore => multithreading look inevitable. However, there is another way of utilizing multiple processors - multi-processing. On Linux especially, where, AFAIK, threads are implemented as just processes perhaps with some restrictions, and processes are cheap as opposed to Windows, there are good reasons to avoid multithreading. So, there are software architecture issues here that should not be neglected.
Of course, if the concurrent lines of execution (either threads or processes) need to operate on the common data, threads have an advantage. But this is also the main reason for headache with threads. Can such program be designed such that the pieces are as much autonomous and independent as possible, so we can use processes? Again, a software architecture issue.
I'd speculate that multi-threading today is what memory management was in the days of C:
it's quite hard to do it right, and quite easy to mess up.
thread-safety bugs, same as memory leaks, are nasty and hard to find
Finally, you may find this article interesting (follow this first link on the page). I admit that I've read only the abstract, though.
5, 100, 1000?
I guess, "it depends", but on what?
What is common in applications that run as server daemons / services?
What are hard limits?
Given that the machine can handle the overall workload, how do I determine at how many threads the overhead starts to have an impact on performance?
What are important differences between OS's?
What else should be considered?
I'm asking because I would like to employ threads in an application to organize subcomponents of my application that do not share data and are designed to do their work in parallel. As the application would also use thread pools for parallelizing some tasks, I was wondering at what point I should start to think about the number of threads that's going to run in total.
I know the n+1 rule as a guideline for determining the number of threads that simultaneously work on the same task to gain performance. However, I want to use threads like one might use processes in a larger scope, i. e. to organize independent tasks that should not interfere with each other.
In this related question, some people advise to minimise the number of threads because of the added complexity. To me it seems that threads can also help to keep things sorted more orderly and actually reduce interference. Isn't that correct?
I can't answer your question about "how much is many" but I agree that you should not use threads for every task possible.
The optimal amount of threads for performance of application is (n+1), where n is the amount of processors/cores your computer/claster has.
The more your actual thread amount differs from n+1, the less optimal it gets and gets your system resources wasted on thread calculations.
So usually you use 1 thread for the UI, 1 thread for some generic tasks, and (n+1) threads for some huge-calculation tasks.
Actually Ajmastrean is a little out of date. Quoting from his own link
The thread pool has a default size of
250 worker threads per available
processor, and 1000 I/O completion
threads. The number of threads in the
thread pool can be changed by using
the SetMaxThreads method.
But generally I think 25 is really where the law of diminishing returns (and programmers abilities to keep track of what is going on) starts coming into effect. Although Max is right, as long as all of the threads are performing non-blocking calculations n+1 is the optimal number, in the real world most of the threading tasks I perform tend to be done on stuff with some kind of IO.
Also depends on your architecture. E.g. in NVIDIA GPGPU lib CUDA you can put on an 8 thread multiprocessor 512 threads simoultanously. You may ask why assign each of the scalar processors 64 threads? The answer is easy: If the computation is not compute bound but memory IO bound, you can hide the mem latencies by executing other threads. Similar applies to normal CPUs. I can remember that a recommendation for the parallel option for make "-j" is to use approx 1.5 times the number of cores you got. Many of the compiling tasks are heavy IO burden and if a task has to wait for harddisk, mem ... whatever, CPU could work on a different thread.
Next you have to consider, how expensive a task/thread switch is. E.g. it is comes free, while CPU has to perform some work for a context switch. So in general you have to estimate if the penalty for two task switches is longer than the time the thread would block (which depends heavily on your applications).
Microsoft's ThreadPool class limits you to 25 threads per processor. The limit is based on context switching between threads and the memory consumed by each thread. So, that's a good guideline if you're on the Windows platform.