can any one please tell me. Are all term "kernel thread", "native thread" and "Os thread" represent kernel thread? Or they are different? If they are different what is relationship among all?
There's no real standard for that. Terminology varies depending on context. However I'll try to explain the different kind of threads that I know of (and add fibers just for completeness as I've seen people call them threads).
-- Threading within the kernel
These are most likely what your kernel thread term refers to. They only exist at the kernel level. They allow (a somewhat limited) parallel execution of the kernel code itself.
-- Application threading
These are what the term thread generally means. They are separate threads of parallel execution which may be scheduled on different processors, that share the same address space and are handled as a single process by the operating system.
The POSIX standard defines the properties threads should have in POSIX compliant systems (in fact the libraries and how each library entry is supposed to behave). Windows threading model is extremely similar to the POSIX one and, AFAIK, it's safe to talk of threading in general the way I did: parallel execution that happens within the same process and can be scheduled on different processors.
-- Ancient linux threading
In the early days the linux kernel did not support threading. However it did support creating two different processes that shared the same address space. There was a project (LinuxThreads) that tried to use this to implement some sort of threading abilities.
The problem was, of course, that the kernel would still treat them as separate processes. The result was therefore not POSIX compliant. For example the treatment of signals was problematic (as signals are a process level concept). It was IN THIS VERY SPECIFIC CONTEXT that the term "native" started to become common. It refers to "native" as in "kernel level" support for threading.
With help from the kernel actual support for POSIX compliant threading was finally implemented. Today that's the only kind of threading that really deserves the name. The old way is, in fact, not real threading at all. It's a sharing of the address space by multiple processes, and as such should be referred to. But there was a time when that was referred to as threading (as it was the only thing you could do with Linux).
-- User level and Green threading
This is another context where "native" is often used to contrast to another threading model. Green threads and userl level threads are threads that do happen within the same process, but they are totally handled at userlevel. Green threads are used in virtual machines (especially those that implement pcode execution, as is the case for the java virtual machine), and they are also implemented at library level by many languages (examples: Haskell, Racket, Smalltalk).
These threads do not need to rely on any threading facilities by the kernel (but often do rely on asynchronous I/O). As such they generally cannot schedule on separate processors. In these contexts "native thread" or "OS thread" could be used to refer to the actual kernel scheduled threads in contrast to the green/user level threads.
Note that "cannot be scheduled on separate processors" is only true if they are used alone. In an hybrid system that has both user level/green threads and native/os threads, it may be possible to create exactly one native/os thread for each processor (and on some systems to set the affinity mask so that each only runs on a specific processor) and then effectively assign the userlevel threads to these.
-- Fibers and cooperative multitasking
I have seen some people call these threads. It's improper, the correct name is fibers. They are also a model of parallel execution, but contrary to threads (and processes) they are cooperative. Which means that whenever a fiber is running, the other fibers will not run until the running fiber voluntarily "yields" execution accepting to be suspended and eventually resumed later.
Related
I'm studying thread and multithreading concepts and I ran into different kinds of thread:
User thread: supported above the kernel and are managed without the kernel.
Kernel thread: supported and managed directly by the operating system.
Software thread: threads of execution managed by the operating system.
Hardware thread: a feature of some processors that allow better utilization of the processor under some circumstances.
Can anyone clarify the difference between these types of threads (I'm confused)?
Thanks
Hardware thread is what allows you to actually run things in parallel (which is not the same as concurrently). These corresspond to number of your CPU cores (with nuances like hyperthreading, which can double the number of cores).
On top of that are OS (kernel) threads. Its an abstraction provided by your OS. The OS will map them to hardware threads. It does this via internal scheduler, and we have little to no control over that. Note that in theory there may be arbitrarily many OS threads (if there are not enough cores to handle them they simply wait for CPU), although the price for so called context switch limits it to few thousands, maybe more.
User threads (a.k.a. green threads, coroutines, etc. they have many names) is an abstraction provided by your software (e.g. programming language and its runtime). They run on top of OS threads, and are mapped to them via internal (but in user space) scheduler. They tend to perform better than OS threads (especially with i/o bound tasks) because they have lower context switch overhead, plus they can take advantage of async apis (e.g. nonblocking sockets) without spawning OS threads (which is costly as well). Since they are lightweight, you can spawn lots of them. Some people claim to run millions of such threads at a time. I've seen tens of thousands without issues.
I've never seen the term "software thread" though. But depending on context it means either user or kernel thread. Unlikely it means anything else.
Btw no real code can run without some OS support. It can be limited, if for example you don't want things to run in parallel. But as soon as you want true parallelism there is no escape from OS threads. The internal scheduler for user threads have to spawn OS threads and map user threads to them in some way. Although typically it is an invisible implemention detail.
"Hardware thread" is a bad name. It was chosen as a term of art by CPU designers, without much regard for what software developers think "thread" means.
When an operating system interrupts a running thread so that some other thread may be allowed to use the CPU, it must save enough of the state of the CPU so that the thread can be resumed again later on. Mostly that saved state consists of the program counter, the stack pointer, and other CPU registers that are part of the programmer's model of the CPU.
A so-called "hyperthreaded CPU" has two or more complete sets of those registers. That allows it to execute instructions on behalf of two or more program threads without any need for the operating system to intervene.
Experts in the field like nice, short names for things. Instead of talking about "complete sets of context registers," they just call them "hardware threads."
I have been studying multithreading in python for a while, however I was confused on a few issues-
Firstly, are the threads created by the python threading library user level or kernel level threads?
Books say that user level threads must be mapped to kernel threads and
the operating system only creates and maintains kernel level threads.
Which thread model will be used in the python threading library? Further, who makes the choice between kernel and user level threads? Is it the operating system or can the programmer have a say?
If the many-to-one model (illustrated in the picture) is used, I think it is not real multithreading, since all the threads map to a single kernel thread.
Is there a way to direct the operating system to adhere to a certain threading model in my python program?
Can all running threads for a process be shown with their state separately marked as either kernel or user level. Also can the mappings between the two levels (user and kernel) be shown?
Usually, you never create 'kernel level threads' directly - everything you do in user space executes in user space, otherwise even a random browser JavaScript would be executing at the kernel level guaranteeing that within seconds the whole internet would go dark.
Thus, in most languages, a threading interface (if supported) is far removed from the actual 'kernel threads' and depending on implementation it will either link to a lower-level threading interface (pthreads for example) or just simulate threading unbeknownst to the user. Going down that chain, pthreads may or may not link to actual 'kernel' threads (it happens to be true on Linux, but on Windows there is another level of separation) but even then, the code executes in the user space - the 'supporting' kernel thread is there to control the scheduling the code runs separately.
When it comes to CPython, its threading interface links to pthreads so, technically, there is a chain from a Python thread all the way down to the kernel threads. However, Python also has the dreaded GIL pretty much guaranteeing that, with some rare exceptions mostly related to I/O, no two threads ever execute at the same time, pretty much making its threads operate in a cooperative multitasking mode. However, since on most systems processes are also backed by kernel threads, you can still utilize them in all their glory by using the multiprocessing interface.
Also, until you have multiple cores/CPUs on your system even kernel threads execute in a cooperative multitasking mode so, technically, kernel threads don't guarantee actual multi-threading as you're describing it.
As for how to list threads and their dependencies, you can use top -H -p <pid> to show the thread tree of a process.
While going through OPERATING SYSTEM PRINCIPLES, 7TH ED
(By Abraham Silberschatz, Peter Baer Galvin, Greg Gagne), i encountered a
statement in Thread Scheduling Section.It is given as -:
To run on a CPU, user-level threads must ultimately be mapped
to an associated kernel-level thread, although this mapping may
be indirect and may use a lightweight process (LWP).
The first half of the statement i.e
To run on a CPU, user-level threads must ultimately be mapped to an associated kernel-level
is trying to say that When a user level thread is executed ,it will need support from kernel thread like system calls.
But i am completely stuck in other half i.e
although this mapping may
be indirect and may use a lightweight process (LWP)
What does it really mean ???
Please help me out !
You're reading a book that is notoriously crapola. Threads are implemented in two ways.
In the olde days (and still persists on some operating systems) there were just processes. A process consisted of an execution stream and an address space.
When languages that needed thread support (e.g., Ada—"tasks") there was a need to create libraries to implement threads. The libraries used timers to switch among the various threads within the process. This is poor man's threading. The major drawback here is that, even when you have multiple processors, all the threads of a process run on the same processor. The threads are just interleaved execution within a single process that executes on one processors.
These are sometimes called "user level threads." Some books call this the "many-to-one model."
To say
To run on a CPU, user-level threads must ultimately be mapped to an associated kernel-level thread
is highly misleading. There [usually] ARE no kernel threads in this model; just processes. Multiple threads run interleaved in a process. To call this a mapping "to an associated kernel-level thread" is misleading and overly theoretical.
This is mumbo jumbo.
although this mapping may be indirect and may use a lightweight process (LWP)
The next stage in operating system evolution here was for the operating system to support threads directly. Instead of a process being an execution stream + address-space, a process became one-or-more-threads + address-space. Instead of scheduling processes for execution, the OS schedules threads for execution.
Those are kernel threads.
Your book is making the simple complex.
These days the term Light Weight Processes and threads are used interchangeably.
although this mapping may be indirect and may use a lightweight
process (LWP)
I know the above statement is confusing(Notice the 2 mays). I can think only 1 thing which the above statement signifies is that:
Earlier when linux supported only user-level threads, the kernel was unaware of the fact that there are multiple user-level threads, and the way it handled these multiple threads was by associating all of them to a light weight process(which kernel sees as a single scheduling and execution unit) at kernel level.
So associating a kernel-level thread with each user-level thread is kind of direct mapping and associating a single light weight process with each user-level thread is indirect mapping.
I was looking at the differences between user-level threads and kernel-level threads, which I basically understood.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
An answer to a previously asked question (similar to mine) was something like:
No modern operating system actually maps n user-level threads to 1
kernel-level thread.
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
Could you help me understand this, please?
I strongly recommend Modern Operating Systems 4th Edition by Andrew S. Tanenbaum (starring in shows such as the debate about Linux; also participating: Linus Torvalds). Costs a whole lot of bucks but it's definitely worth it if you really want to know stuff. For eager students and desperate enthusiasts it's great.
Your questions answered
[...] what's not clear to me is the point of implementing User-level threads
at all.
Read my post. It is comprehensive, I daresay.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a
single process, then which benefits could I experience?
Read the section "Disadvantages" below.
I have read a couple of articles that stated that user-level
implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not
perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to
block).
Read the subsection "No coordination with system calls" in "Disadvantages."
All citations are from the book I recommended in the top of this answer, Chapter 2.2.4, "Implementing Threads in User Space."
Advantages
Enables threads on systems without threads
The first advantage is that user-level threads are a way to work with threads on a system without threads.
The first, and most obvious, advantage is that
a user-level threads package can be implemented on an operating system that does not support threads. All operating systems used to
fall into this category, and even now some still do.
No kernel interaction required
A further benefit is the light overhead when switching threads, as opposed to switching to the kernel mode, doing stuff, switching back, etc. The lighter thread switching is described like this in the book:
When a thread does something that may cause it to become blocked
locally, for example, waiting for another thread in its process to
complete some work, it calls a run-time system procedure. This
procedure checks to see if the thread must be put into blocked state.
If, so it stores the thread’s registers (i.e., its own) [...] and
reloads the machine registers with the new thread’s saved values. As soon as the stack
pointer and program counter have been switched, the new thread comes
to life again automatically. If the machine happens to have an
instruction to store all the registers and another one to load them
all, the entire thread switch can be done in just a handful of in-
structions. Doing thread switching like this is at least an order of
magnitude—maybe more—faster than trapping to the kernel and is a
strong argument in favor of user-level threads packages.
This efficiency is also nice because it spares us from incredibly heavy context switches and all that stuff.
Individually adjusted scheduling algorithms
Also, hence there is no central scheduling algorithm, every process can have its own scheduling algorithm and is way more flexible in its variety of choices. In addition, the "private" scheduling algorithm is way more flexible concerning the information it gets from the threads. The number of information can be adjusted manually and per-process, so it's very finely-grained. This is because, again, there is no central scheduling algorithm needing to fit the needs of every process; it has to be very general and all and must deliver adequate performance in every case. User-level threads allow an extremely specialized scheduling algorithm.
This is only restricted by the disadvantage "No automatic switching to the scheduler."
They [user-level threads] allow each process to have its own
customized scheduling algorithm. For some applications, for example,
those with a garbage-collector thread, not having to worry about a
thread being stopped at an inconvenient moment is a plus. They also
scale better, since kernel threads invariably require some table space
and stack space in the kernel, which can be a problem if there are a
very large number of threads.
Disadvantages
No coordination with system calls
The user-level scheduling algorithm has no idea if some thread has called a blocking read system call. OTOH, a kernel-level scheduling algorithm would've known because it can be notified by the system call; both belong to the kernel code base.
Suppose that a thread reads from the keyboard before any keys have
been hit. Letting the thread actually make the system call is
unacceptable, since this will stop all the threads. One of the main
goals of having threads in the first place was to allow each one to
use blocking calls, but to prevent one blocked thread from affecting
the others. With blocking system calls, it is hard to see how this
goal can be achieved readily.
He goes on that system calls could be made non-blocking but that would be very inconvenient and compatibility to existing OSes would be drastically hurt.
Mr Tanenbaum also says that the library wrappers around the system calls (as found in glibc, for example) could be modified to predict when a system cal blocks using select but he utters that this is inelegant.
Building upon that, he says that threads do block often. Often blocking requires many system calls. And many system calls are bad. And without blocking, threads become less useful:
For applications that are essentially entirely CPU bound and rarely
block, what is the point of having threads at all? No one would
seriously propose computing the first n prime numbers or playing chess
using threads because there is nothing to be gained by doing it that
way.
Page faults block per-process if unaware of threads
The OS has no notion of threads. Therefore, if a page fault occurs, the whole process will be blocked, effectively blocking all user-level threads.
Somewhat analogous to the problem of blocking system calls is the
problem of page faults. [...] If the program calls or jumps to an
instruction that is not in memory, a page fault occurs and the
operating system will go and get the missing instruction (and its
neighbors) from disk. [...] The process is blocked while the necessary
instruction is being located and read in. If a thread causes a page
fault, the kernel, unaware of even the existence of threads, naturally
blocks the entire process until the disk I/O is complete, even though
other threads might be runnable.
I think this can be generalized to all interrupts.
No automatic switching to the scheduler
Since there is no per-process clock interrupt, a thread acquires the CPU forever unless some OS-dependent mechanism (such as a context switch) occurs or it voluntarily releases the CPU.
This prevents usual scheduling algorithms from working, including the Round-Robin algorithm.
[...] if a thread starts running, no other thread in that process
will ever run unless the first thread voluntarily gives up the CPU.
Within a single process, there are no clock interrupts, making it
impossible to schedule processes round-robin fashion (taking turns).
Unless a thread enters the run-time system of its own free will, the scheduler will never get a chance.
He says that a possible solution would be
[...] to have the run-time system request a clock signal (interrupt) once a
second to give it control, but this, too, is crude and messy to
program.
I would even go on further and say that such a "request" would require some system call to happen, whose drawback is already explained in "No coordination with system calls." If no system call then the program would need free access to the timer, which is a security hole and unacceptable in modern OSes.
What's not clear to me is the point of implementing user-level threads at all.
User-level threads largely came into the mainstream due to Ada and its requirement for threads (tasks in Ada terminology). At the time, there were few multiprocessor systems and most multiprocessors were of the master/slave variety. Kernel threads simply did not exist. User threads had to be created to implement languages like Ada.
If the kernel is unaware of the existence of multiple threads within a single process, then which benefits could I experience?
If you have kernel threads, threads multiple threads within a single process can run simultaneously. In user threads, the threads always execute interleaved.
Using threads can simplify some types of programming.
I have read a couple of articles that stated user-level implementation of threads is advisable only if such threads do not perform blocking operations (which would cause the entire process to block).
That is true on Unix and maybe not all unix implementations. User threads on many operating systems function perfectly fine with blocking I/O.
This being said, what's the difference between a sequential execution of all the threads and a "parallel" execution of them, considering they cannot take advantage of multiple processors and independent scheduling?
In user threads. there is never parallel execution. In kernel threads, the can be parallel execution IF there are multiple processors. On a single processor system, there is not much advantage to using kernel threads over single threads (contra: note the blocking I/O issue on Unix and user threads).
But for some reason, many people on the Internet state that user-level threads can never take advantage of multiple processors.
In user threads, the process manages its own "threads" by interleaving execution within itself. The process can only have a thread run in the processor that the process is running in.
If the operating system provides system services to schedule code to run on a different processor, user threads could run on multiple processors.
I conclude by saying that for practicable purposes there are no advantages to user threads over kernel threads. There are those that will assert that there are performance advantages, but for there to be such an advantage it would be system dependent.
My CS professor told to the class that the OS has no idea that an application has launched threads. Is this true?
It depends on the type of thread. Threads implemented purely at user-level would be unknown to the operating system. This can be done with signals and setjmp and longjmp (see www.gnu.org/s/pth/rse-pmt.ps for details). Alternatively, if you are talking about something such as Linux pthreads, which only implements of subset of the pthreads specification, specifically the part that involves create new threads of execution that the kernel are aware of and schedules then the kernel is aware.
If you want to see more detail about how the kernel is aware you can look at the the clone system call. This system call can be used to create a new thread of execution that shares the address space of the calling process.
Also in the case of user-space implemented threading you will not get true parallelism, in the sense that two threads will be executing at the exact same time on different cores/hardware threads, because the operating system, which does the scheduling, does not know about the multiple threads.
It depends upon the operating system. Older operating system had no threads. Programming libraries would implement threads (e.g., Ada tasks) with timers. The library included a thread scheduler.
It is increasingly common now for operating systems to schedule threads for execution. There, the OS is aware of threads.