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.
Related
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
This computer has eight cores and so should work best with 8/16 threads then, yet many applications use several times that, especially Dropbox.
It also uses 95 threads while idling on my laptop, which only has 4 cores.
Why is this the case? Does it have so many threads for programming convenience, have I misunderstood threading efficiency or is it something else entirely?
I took a peek at the Mac version of the client, and it seems to be written in Python and it uses several frameworks.
A bunch of threads seem to be used in some in house actor system
They use nucleus for app analytics
There seems to be a p2p network
some networking threads (one per hype core)
a global pool (one per physical core)
many threads for file monitoring and thumbnail generation
task schedulers
logging
metrics
db checkpointing
something called infinite configuration
etc.
Most are idle.
It looks like a hodgepodge of subsystems, each starting their own threads, but they don't seem too expensive in terms of memory or CPU.
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
Nope, this is not true. I'm not sure why you think that, but it's not true.
As just the most obvious way to show that it's false, suppose you had that number of threads and one of them accessed a page of memory that wasn't in RAM and had to be loaded to disk. If you don't have any other threads that can run, then one core is wasted for the entire time it takes to read that page of memory from disk.
It's hard to address the misconception directly without knowing what flawed chain of reasoning led to it. But the most common one is that if you have more threads ready-to-run than you can execute at once, then you have lots of context switches and context switches are expensive.
But that is obviously wrong. If all the threads are ready-to-run, then no context switches are necessary. A context switch is only necessary if a running thread stops being ready-to-run.
If all context switches are voluntary, then the implementation can select the optimum number of context switches. And that's precisely what it does.
Having large numbers of threads causes you to lose efficiency if, and only if, lots of threads do a small amount of work and then become no longer ready-to-run while other waiting threads are ready-to-run. That forces the implementation to do a context even where it is not optimal.
Some applications that use lots of threads do in fact do this. And that does result in poor performance. But Dropbox doesn't.
I'm working with a Delphi application and I have created two threads to sync with different databases, one to read and other to write. I would like to know if Delphi is actually using all potential of each core (running on an i5 with 4 cores for example) or if I need to write a specific code to distribute the threads to each core.
I have no idea how to find this.
There's nothing you need to do. The operating system schedules ready-to-run threads on available cores.
There is nothing to do. The OS will choose the best place to run each of your threads taking into account a large number of factors completely beyond your control. The OS manages your threads in conjunction with all other threads in all other processes on the system.
Don't forget that if your threads aren't particularly busy, there will be absolutely no need to run them on different cores.
Sometimes moving code to a separate core can introduce unexpected inefficiencies. Remember CPU's have high speed memory caches; and if certain data is not available in the cache of one core, moving to it could incur relatively slower RAM access.
The point I'm trying to make here, is that you trying to second-guess all these scenarios and permutations is premature optimisation. Rather let the OS do the work for you. You have other things you should rather focus on as indicated below.
However, that said any interaction between your threads can significantly affect the OS's ability to run them on separate cores. E.g.
At one extreme: if each of your threads do a lot of work through a shared lock (perhaps the reader thread places data in a shared location that the writer consumes, so a lock is used to avoid race conditions), then it's likely that both threads will run on the same core.
The best case scenario would be when there is zero interaction between the threads. In this case the OS can easily run the threads on separate cores.
One thing to be aware of is that the threads can interact even if you didn't explicitly code anything to do so. The default memory manger is shared between all threads. So if you do a lot of dynamic memory allocation in each thread, you can experience contention limiting scalability across large numbers of cores.
So the important thing for you to focus on is getting your design "correct":
Ensure a "clean" separation of concerns.
Eliminate unnecessary interaction between threads.
Ensure whatever interaction is needed uses the most appropriate technique for your requirements.
Get the above right, and the OS will schedule your threads as efficiently as it can.
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).
There are many solutions geared toward implementing "user-space" threads. Be it golang.org goroutines, python's green threads, C#'s async, erlang's processes etc. The idea is to allow concurrent programming even with a single or limited number of threads.
What I don't understand is, why are the OS threads so expensive? As I see it, either way you have to save the stack of the task (OS thread, or userland thread), which is a few tens of kilobytes, and you need a scheduler to move between two tasks.
The OS provides both of this functions for free. Why should OS threads be more expensive than "green" threads? What's the reason for the assumed performance degradation caused by having a dedicated OS thread for each "task"?
I want to amend Tudors answer which is a good starting point. There are two main overheads of threads:
Starting and stopping them. Involves creating a stack and kernel objects. Involves kernel transitions and global kernel locks.
Keeping their stack around.
(1) is only a problem if you are creating and stopping them all the time. This is solved commonly using thread pools. I consider this problem to be practically solved. Scheduling a task on a thread pool usually does not involve a trip to the kernel which makes it very fast. The overhead is on the order of a few interlocked memory operations and a few allocations.
(2) This becomes important only if you have many threads (> 100 or so). In this case async IO is a means to get rid of the threads. I found that if you don't have insane amounts of threads synchronous IO including blocking is slightly faster than async IO (you read that right: sync IO is faster).
Saving the stack is trivial, no matter what its size - the stack pointer needs to be saved in the Thread Info Block in the kernel, (so usualy saving most of the registers as well since they will have been pushed by whatever soft/hard interrupt caused the OS to be entered).
One issue is that a protection level ring-cycle is required to enter the kernel from user. This is an essential, but annoying, overhead. Then the driver or system call has to do whatever was requested by the interrupt and then the scheduling/dispatching of threads onto processors. If this results in the preemption of a thread from one process by a thread from another, a load of extra process context has to be swapped as well. Even more overhead is added if the OS decides that a thread that is running on another processor core than the one handling the interrupt mut be preempted - the other core must be hardware-interrupted, (this is on top of the hard/soft interrupt that entred the OS in the first place.
So, a scheduling run may be quite a complex operation.
'Green threads' or 'fibers' are, (usually), scheduled from user code. A context-change is much easier and cheaper than an OS interrupt etc. because no Wagnerian ring-cycle is required on every context-change, process-context does not change and the OS thread running the green thread group does not change.
Since something-for-nothing does not exist, there are problems with green threads. They ar run by 'real' OS threads. This means that if one 'green' thread in a group run by one OS thread makes an OS call that blocks, all green threads in the group are blocked. This means that simple calls like sleep() have to be 'emulated' by a state-machine that yields to other green threads, (yes, just like re-implementing the OS). Similarly, any inter-thread signalling.
Also, of course, green threads cannot directly respond to IO signaling, so somewhat defeating the point of having any threads in the first place.
There are many solutions geared toward implementing "user-space" threads. Be it golang.org goroutines, python's green threads, C#'s async, erlang's processes etc. The idea is to allow concurrent programming even with a single or limited number of threads.
It's an abstraction layer. It's easier for many people to grasp this concept and use it more effectively in many scenarios. It's also easier for many machines (assuming a good abstraction), since the model moves from width to pull in many cases. With pthreads (as an example), you have all the control. With other threading models, the idea is to reuse threads, for the process of creating a concurrent task to be inexpensive, and to use a completely different threading model. It's far easier to digest this model; there's less to learn and measure, and the results are generally good.
What I don't understand is, why are the OS threads so expensive? As I see it, either way you have to save the stack of the task (OS thread, or userland thread), which is a few tens of kilobytes, and you need a scheduler to move between two tasks.
Creating a thread is expensive, and the stack requires memory. As well, if your process is using many threads, then context switching can kill performance. So lightweight threading models became useful for a number of reasons. Creating an OS thread became a good solution for medium to large tasks, ideally in low numbers. That's restrictive, and quite time consuming to maintain.
A task/thread pool/userland thread does not need to worry about much of the context switching or thread creation. It's often "reuse the resource when it becomes available, if it's not ready now -- also, determine the number of active threads for this machine".
More commmonly (IMO), OS level threads are expensive because they are not used correctly by the engineers - either there are too many and there is a ton of context switching, there is competition for the same set of resources, the tasks are too small. It takes much more time to understand how to use OS threads correctly, and how to apply that best to the context of a program's execution.
The OS provides both of this functions for free.
They're available, but they are not free. They are complex, and very important to good performance. When you create an OS thread, it's given time 'soon' -- all the process' time is divided among the threads. That's not the common case with user threads. The task is often enqueued when the resource is not available. This reduces context switching, memory, and the total number of threads which must be created. When the task exits, the thread is given another.
Consider this analogy of time distribution:
Assume you are at a casino. There are a number people who want cards.
You have a fixed number of dealers. There are fewer dealers than people who want cards.
There is not always enough cards for every person at any given time.
People need all cards to complete their game/hand. They return their cards to the dealer when their game/hand is complete.
How would you ask the dealers to distribute cards?
Under the OS scheduler, that would be based on (thread) priority. Every person would be given one card at a time (CPU time), and priority would be evaluated continually.
The people represent the task or thread's work. The cards represent time and resources. The dealers represent threads and resources.
How would you deal fastest if there were 2 dealers and 3 people? and if there were 5 dealers and 500 people? How could you minimize running out of cards to deal? With threads, adding cards and adding dealers is not a solution you can deliver 'on demand'. Adding CPUs is equivalent to adding dealers. Adding threads is equivalent to dealers dealing cards to more people at a time (increases context switching). There are a number of strategies to deal cards more quickly, especially after you eliminate the people's need for cards in a certain amount of time. Would it not be faster to go to a table and deal to a person or people until their game is complete if the dealer to people ratio were 1/50? Compare this to visiting every table based on priority, and coordinating visitation among all dealers (the OS approach). That's not to imply the OS is stupid -- it implies that creating an OS thread is an engineer adding more people and more tables, potentially more than the dealers can reasonably handle. Fortunately, the constraints may be lifted in many cases by using other multithreading models and higher abstractions.
Why should OS threads be more expensive than "green" threads? What's the reason for the assumed performance degradation caused by having a dedicated OS thread for each "task"?
If you developed a performance critical low level threading library (e.g. upon pthreads), you would recognize the importance of reuse (and implement it in your library as a model available for users). From that angle, the importance of higher level multithreading models is a simple and obvious solution/optimization based on real world usage as well as the ideal that the entry bar for adopting and effectively utilizing multithreading can be lowered.
It's not that they are expensive -- the lightweight threads' model and pool is a better solution for many problems, and a more appropriate abstraction for engineers who do not understand threads well. The complexity of multithreading is greatly simplified (and often more performant in real world usage) under this model. With OS threads, you do have more control, but several more considerations must be made to use them as effectively as possible -- heeding these consideration can dramatically reflow a program's execution/implementation. With higher level abstractions, many of these complexities are minimized by completely altering the flow of task execution (width vs pull).
The problem with starting kernel threads for each small task is that it incurs a non-negligible overhead to start and stop, coupled with the stack size it needs.
This is the first important point: thread pools exist so that you can recycle threads, in order to avoid wasting time starting them as well as wasting memory for their stacks.
Secondly, if you fire off threads to do asynchronous I/O, they will spend most of their time blocked waiting for the I/O to complete, thus effectively not doing any work and wasting memory. A much better option is to have a single worker handle multiple async calls (through some under-the-hood scheduling technique, such as multiplexing), thus again saving memory and time.
One thing that makes "green" threads faster than kernel threads is that they are user-space objects, managed by a virtual machine. Starting them is a user space call, while starting a thread is a kernel-space call that is much slower.
A person in Google shows an interesting approach.
According to him, kernel mode switching itself is not the bottleneck, and the core cost happen on SMP scheduler. And he claims M:N schedule assisted by kernel wouldn't be expensive, and this makes me to expect general M:N threading to be available on every languages.
Because the OS. Imagine that instead of asking you to clean the house your grandmother has to call the social service that does some paperwork and a week after assigns a social worker for helping her. The worker can be called off at any time and replaced with another one, which again takes several days.
That's pretty ineffective and slow, huh?
In this metaphor you are a userland coroutine scheduler, the social service is an OS with its kernel-level thread scheduler, and a social worker is a fully-fledged thread.
I think the two things are in different levels.
Thread or Process is an instance of the program which is being executed. In a process/thread there is much more things in it. Execution stack, opening files, signals, processors status, and a many other things.
Greentlet is different, it is runs in vm. It supplies a light-weight thread. Many of them supply a pseudo-concurrently (typically in a single or a few OS-level threads). And often they supply a lock-free method by data-transmission instead of data sharing.
So, the two things focus different, so the weight are different.
And In my mind, the greenlet should be finished in the VM not the OS.
Earlier I asked about processing a datastream and someone suggested to put data in a queue and processing this data on a different thead. If this was to slow, I should use multiple threads.
However, i'm using a system that has one core.
So my question is: why not up the prio of my app, so it gets more CPU time from the OS?
I'm writing a server based app and it will be the only big thing running on there.
What would be the pro's and con's of putting the prio up?:)
If you have only one core, then the only way that multi-threading can help you is if chunks of that work depends on something other than CPU, so one thread can get some work done while another is waiting for data from a disk or network connection.
If your application has a GUI, then it can benefit from multi-threading in that while it would be no quicker to do the processing (slower in fact, though probably negligibly so if the task is very long), it can still react to user input in the meantime.
If you have two or more cores, then you can also gain in CPU-bound operations though doing so varies from trivial to impossible depending on just what that operation is. This is irrelevant to your case, but worth considering generally if code you write could later be run on a multi-core system.
Upping the priority is probably a bad idea though, especially if you have only one core (one advantage of multi-core systems is that people who up priorities can't do as much damage).
All threads have priorities which is a factor of both their process' priority and their priority within that process. A low-priority thread in a high priority process trumps a high-priority thread in a low-priority process.
The scheduler doles out CPU slices in a round-robin fashion to the highest priority threads that have work to do. If there are CPUs left over (which in your case means if there are zero threads at that priority that need to run), then it doles out slices to the next lowest priority, and so on.
Most of the time, most threads aren't doing much anyway, which can be seen from the fact that most of the time CPU usage on most systems is below the 100% mark (hyperthreading skews this, the internal scheduling within the cores means a hyperthreaded system can be fully saturated and seem to be only running at as little as 70%). Anyway, generally stuff gets done and a thread that suddenly has lots to do will do so at normal priority in pretty much the same time it would at a higher.
However, while the benefit to that busy thread of higher priority is generally little or nothing, the decrement is great. Since it's the only thread that gets any CPU time, all other threads are stuck. All other processes therefore hang for a while. Eventually the scheduler notices that they've all been waiting for around 3seconds, and fixes this by boosting them all to highest priority and giving them larger slices than normal. Now we have a burst of activity as threads that got no time are all suddenly highest-priority threads that all want CPU time. There's a spurt of every thread except the high-priority one running, and the system stops from keeling over, though there's likely still a lot of applications showing "Not Responding" in their title bars. It's far from ideal, but it is an effective way to deal with a thread of higher than usual priority grabbing the core for so long.
The threads gradually drop down in priority, and eventually we're back to the situation where the single higher priority thread is the only one that can work.
For extra fun, if our high priority thread in any way depended upon services provided by the lower priority threads, it would have ended up being stuck waiting on them. Hopefully in a way that made it block and stopped itself from doing any damage, but probably not.
In all, thread priorities are to be approached with great caution, and process priorities even more so. They're only really valid if they'll yield quickly and are either essential to the workings of other threads (e.g. some OS processes will be done at a higher priority, finaliser threads in .NET will be higher than the rest of the process, etc) or if sub-millisecond delays can mess things up (some intensive media work requires this).
If you have multiple cores/processors in your system, upping the priority of a single threaded program will not improve your performance by much, because the other cores would still be unused.
The only way to take advantage of multiple processing units is to write your program using multiple threads/processes.
Having said this, setting your multithreaded application to very high priority may lead to some performance improvement, but I really never saw it to be significant, at least in my own tests.
Edit: I see now that you are using only one core. Basically your program will be able to run more often on the CPU than the rest of the processes that are of lower priority. This may bring you a marginal improvement, but not a dramatic one. Since we cannot know what other applications are running at the same time on your system, the golden rule here is to try it yourself with various priority levels and see what happens. It's the only valid way to see if things will be faster or not.
It all depends on why the data processing is slow.
If the data processing is slow because it is a genuinely cpu intensive operation then splitting it out into multiple threads on a single core system is not going to get you any benefit. In this case increasing the task priority would provide some benefit, assuming that there is (user) cpu time being used by other processes.
However, if the data processing operation is slow because of some non-cpu restriction (eg. if it is I/O bound, or relying on another process), then:
Increasing the task priority is going to have negligible impact. Task priority won't affect I/O times and if there is a dependency on another process on the system you may actually harm performance.
Splitting the data processing out into multiple threads can allow the cpu intensive areas to continue processing while waiting for the non-cpu intensive (eg. I/O) areas to complete.
Increasing the priority of a single-threaded process just gives you more (or bigger) time slices on the one core the process is running on. The core can still only do one thing at a time.
If you spin off a thread to handle the data processing, it can run on a different processor core (assuming a multi-core system), and it and your main thread are actually executing at the same time. Much more efficient.
If you use only one thread your server app will only be able to service one request at a time, no matter what its priority. If you use multiple threads you could service many at the same time.