Related
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
In computer science, a thread of execution is the smallest unit of processing that can be scheduled by an operating system.
This is very abstract!
What would be real world/tangible/physical interpretation of threads?
How could I tell if an application (by looking at its code) is a single threaded or multi threaded?
Are there any benefits in making an application multi threaded? In which cases could one do that?
Is there anything like multi process application too?
Is technology a limiting factor to decide if it could be made multi threaded os is it just the design choice? e.g. is it possible to make multi threaded applications in flex?
If anyone can could give me an example or an analogy to explain these things, it would be very helpful.
What would be real world/tangible/physical interpretation of threads?
Think about a thread as an independent unit of execution that can be executed concurrently (at the same time) on a given CPU(s). A good analogy would be multiple cars driving around independently on the same road. Here a "car" is a thread, and a road is that CPU. So the function of all these cars is somewhat the same: "drive people around", but the kicker is that people should not stand in line to wait for a single car => they can drive at the same time in different cars (threads).
Technically, however, depending on number of CPU cores, and overall hardware / OS architecture there will be some context switching, where CPU would make it seem it happens simultaneously, but in reality it switches from one thread to another.
How could I tell if an application (by looking at its code) is a single threaded or multi threaded?
This depends on several things, a language the code is written in, your understanding of the language, what code is trying to accomplish, etc.. Usually you can tell, but I do not believe this will solve anything. If you already have access to the code, it's a lot simpler to just ask the developer, or, in case it is an open source product, read documentation, post on user forums to figure it out.
Are there any benefits in making an application multi threaded? In which cases could one do that?
Yes, think about the car example above. The benefit = at the same time and decoupled execution of things. For example, you need to calculate how many starts are in a known universe. You can either have a single process go over all the stars and count them, or you can "spawn" multiple threads, and give each thread a galaxy to solve: "thread 1 counts all the stars in Milky Way, thread 2 counts all the starts in Andromeda, etc.."
Is there anything like multi process application too?
That is a matter of terminology, but the cleanest answer would be yes. For example, in Erlang, VM is capable of starting many very lightweight processes very fast, where each process does its own thing. On Unix servers if you do "ps -aux / ps -ef", for example, you'd see multiple "processes" executin, where each process may in fact have many threads doing its job.
Is technology a limiting factor to decide if it could be made multi threaded os is it just the design choice? e.g. is it possible to make multi threaded applications in flex?
2 threaded application is already multithreaded. You most likely already have 2 or more cores on your laptop / PC, so technology would pretty always encourage you to utilize those cores, rather than limit you. Having said that, the problem and requirements should drive the decision. Not the technology or tools. But if you do decide write a multithreaded application, make sure you understand all the gotchas and solutions to them. The best language I used so far to solve concurrency is Erlang, since concurrency is just built in to it. However, other languages like Scala, Java, C#, and mostly functional languages, where shared state is not a problem would also be a good choice.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 11 years ago.
What are the anti-patterns of node.js, what should you avoid when developing with node.js?
Dangers like GC, closure, error handling, OO and so on.
Anti patterns:
Synchronous execution:
We avoid all synchronous execution, this is also known as blocking IO. node.js builds on top of non-blocking IO and any single blocking call will introduce an immediate bottleneck.
fs.renameSync
fs.truncateSync
fs.statSync
path.existsSync
...
Are all blocking IO calls and these must be avoided.
They do exist for a reason though. They may and may only be used during the set up phase of your server. It is very useful to use synchronous calls during the set up phase so you can have control over the order of execution and you don't need to think very hard about what callbacks have or have not executed yet by the time you handle your first incoming request.
Underestimating V8:
V8 is the underlying JavaScript interpreter that node.js builds on. (Yes spidernode is in the works!) V8 is fast, it's GC is very good, it knows exactly what's it doing. There is no need to micro optimise or under estimate V8.
Memory Leaks:
If you come from a strong browser based JavaScript background then you don't care that much about memory leaks because the lifetime of a single page ranges from seconds to a few hours. Where as the lifetime of a single node.js server ranges from days to months.
Memory leaks is just not something you think about when you come from a non server-side JS background. It's very important to get a strong understanding of memory leaks.
Some resources:
How to prevent memory leaks in node.js?
Debugging memory leaks with Node.js server
Currently I myself don't know how to pre-emptively defend againts them.
JavaScript
All the anti-patterns of JavaScript apply. The main damaging ones in my opinion are treating JavaScript like C (writing only procedural code) or like C#/Java (faking classical inheritance).
JavaScript should be treated as a prototypical OOP langauge or as a functional language. I personally recommend you use the new ES5 features and also use underscore as an utility belt. If you use those two to their full advantage you'll automatically start writing your code in a functional style that is suited to JavaScript.
I personally don't have any good recommendation on how to write proper prototypical OOP code because I never got the hang of it.
Modular code:
node.js has the great require statement, this means you can modularize all your code.
There is no need for global state in node.js. Actually you need to specifically go global.foo = ... to hoist into global state and this is always an anti-pattern.
Generally code should be weakly coupled, EventEmitter's allow for great decoupling of your modules and for writing an easy to implement / replace API.
Code Complete:
Anything in the Code Complete 2 book applies and I won't repeat it.
While reading up on SQLite, I stumbled upon this quote in the FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid them."
I have a lot of respect for SQLite, so I couldn't just disregard this. I got thinking what else I could, according to the "avoid them" policy, use instead in order to parallelize my tasks. As an example, the application I'm currently working on requires a user interface that is always responsive, and needs to poll several websites from time to time (a process which takes at least 30 seconds for each website).
So I opened up the PDF linked from that FAQ, and essentially it seems that the paper suggests several techniques to be applied together with threads, such as barriers or transactional memory - rather than any techniques to replace threads altogether.
Given that these techniques do not fully dispense with threads (unless I misunderstood what the paper is saying), I can see two options: either the SQLite FAQ does not literally mean what it says, or there exist practical approaches that actually avoid the use of threads altogether. Are there any?
Just a quick note on tasklets/cooperative scheduling as an alternative - this looks great in small examples, but I wonder whether a large-ish UI-heavy application can be practically parallelized in a solely cooperative way. If you have done this successfully or know of such examples this certainly qualifies as a valid answer!
Note: This answer no longer accurately reflects what I think about this subject. I don't like its overly dramatic, somewhat nasty tone. Also, I am not so certain that the quest for provably correct software has been so useless as I seemed to think back then. I am leaving this answer up because it is accepted, and up-voted, and to edit it into something I currently believe would pretty much vandalize it.
I finally got around to reading the paper. Where do I start?
The author is singing an old song, which goes something like this: "If you can't prove the program is correct, we're all doomed!" It sounds best when screamed loudly accompanied by over modulated electric guitars and a rapid drum beat. Academics started singing that song when computer science was in the domain of mathematics, a world where if you don't have a proof, you don't have anything. Even after the first computer science department was cleaved from the mathematics department, they kept singing that song. They are singing that song today, and nobody is listening. Why? Because the rest of us are busy creating useful things, good things out of software that can't be proved correct.
The presence of threads makes it even more difficult to prove a program correct, but who cares? Even without threads, only the most trivial of programs can be proved correct. Why do I care if my non-trivial program, which could not be proved correct, is even more unprovable after I use threading? I don't.
If you weren't sure the author was living in an academic dreamworld, you can be sure of it after he maintains that the coordination language he suggests as an alternative to threads could best be expressed with a "visual syntax" (drawing graphs on the screen). I've never heard that suggestion before, except every year of my career. A language that can only be manipulated by GUI and does not play with any of the programmer's usual tools is not an improvement. The author goes on to cite UML as a shining example of a visual syntax which is "routinely combined with C++ and Java." Routinely in what world?
In the mean time, I and many other programmers go on using threads without all that much trouble. How to use threads well and safely is pretty much a solved problem, as long as you don't get all hung up on provability.
Look. Threading is a big kid's toy, and you do need to know some theory and usage patterns to use them well. Just as with databases, distributed processing, or any of the other beyond-grade-school devices that programmers successfully use every day. But just because you can't prove it correct doesn't mean it's wrong.
The statement in the SQLite FAQ, as I read it, is just a comment on how difficult threading can be to the uninitiated. It is the author's opinion, and it might be a valid one. But saying you should never use threads is throwing the baby out with the bath water, in my opinion. Threads are a tool. Like all tools, they can be used and they can be abused. I can read his paper and be convinced that threads are the devil, but I have used them successfully, without killing kittens.
Keep in mind that SQLite is written to be as lightweight and easy to understand (from a coding standpoint) as possible, so I would imagine that threading is kind of the antithesis to this lightweight approach.
Also, SQLite is not meant to be used in a highly-concurrent environment. If you have one of these, you might be better off working with a more enterprisey database like Postgres.
Evil, but a necessary evil. High level abstractions of threads (Tasks in .NET for example) are becoming more common but for the most part the industry is not trying to find a way to avoid threads, just making it easier to deal with the complexities that come with any kind of concurrent programming.
One trend I've noticed, at least in the Cocoa domain, is help from the framework. Apple has gone to great lengths to help developers with the relatively difficult concept of concurrent programming. Some things I've seen:
Different granularity of threading. Cocoa supports everything from posix threads (low level) to object oriented threading with NSLock and NSThread, to high level parellelism such as NSOperation. Depending on your task, using a high level tool like NSOperation is easier and gets the job done.
Threading behind the scenes via an API. Lots of the UI and animation stuff in cocoa is hidden behind an API. You are responsible for calling an API method and providing an asynchronous callback this executed when the secondary thread completes (for example the end of some animation).
openMP. There are tools like openMP that allow you to provide pragmas that describe to the compiler that some task may be safely parelellized. For example iterating a set of items in an independent way.
It seems like a big push in this industry is to make things simple for the Application developers and leave the gory thread details to the system developers and framework developers. There is a push in academia for formalizing parellel patterns. As mentioned you cant always avoid threading, but there are an increasing number of tools in your arsenal to make it as painless as possible.
If you really want to live without threads, you can, so long as you don't call any functions that can potentially block. This may not be possible.
One alternative is to implement the tasks you would have made into threads as finite state machines. Basically, the task does what it can do immediately, then goes to its next state, waiting for an event, such as input arriving on a file or a timer going off. X Windows, as well as most GUI toolkits, support this style. When something happens, they call a callback, which does what it needs to do and returns. For a FSM, the callback checks to see what state the task is in and what the event is to determine what to do immediately and what the next state will be.
Say you have an app that needs to accept socket connections, and for each connection, parse command lines, execute some code, and return the results. A task would then be what listens to a socket. When select() (or Gtk+, or whatever) tells you the socket has something to read, you read it into a buffer, then check to see if you have enough input buffered to do something. If so, you advance to a "start doing something" state, otherwise you stay in the "reading a line" state. (What you "do" could be multiple states.) When done, your task drops the line from the buffer and goes back to the "reading a line" state. No threads or preemption needed.
This lets you act multithreaded by way of being event-driven. If your state machines are complicated, however, your code can get hard to maintain pretty fast, and you'll need to work up some kind of FSM-management library to separate the grunt work of running the FSM from the code that actually does things.
P.S. Another way to get threads without really using threads is the GNU Pth library. It doesn't do preemption, but it is another option if you really don't want to deal with threads.
Another approach to this may be to use a different concurrency model rather than avoid multithreading altogether (you have to utilize all these CPU cores in parallel somehow).
Take a look at mechanisms used in Clojure (e.g. agents, software transactional memory).
Software Transactional Memory (STM) is a good alternative concurrency control. It scales well with multiple processors and do not have most of the problems of conventional concurrency control mechanisms. It is implemented as part of the Haskell language. It worths giving a try. Although, I do not know how this is applicable in the context of SQLite.
Alternatives to threads:
coroutines
goroutines
mapreduce
workerpool
apple's grand central dispatch+lambdas
openCL
erlang
(interesting to note that half of those technologies were invented or popularised by google.)
Another thing is many web frameworks transparently use multiple threads/processes for handling requests, and usually in such a way that mostly eliminates the problems associated with multithreading (for the user of the framework), or at least makes the threading rather invisible. The web being stateless, the only shared state is session state (which isn't really a problem since by definition, a single session isn't going to be doing concurrent things), and data in a database that already has its multithreading nonsense sorted out for you.
It's somewhat important to note though that these are all abstractions. The underlying implementations of these things still use threads. But this is still incredibly useful. In the same way you wouldn't use assembler to write a web application, you wouldn't use threads directly to write any important application. Designing an application to use threads is too complicated to leave for a human to deal with.
Threading is not the only model of concurrency. The actors model (Erlang, Scala) is an example of a somewhat different approach.
http://www.scala-lang.org/node/242
If your task is really, really easily isolatable, you can use processes instead of threads, like Chrome does for its tabs.
Otherwise, inside a single process, there is no way to achieve real parallelism without threads, because you need at least two coroutines if you want two things to happen at the same time (assuming you're having multiple processors/cores at hand, of course; otherwise real parallelism is simply not possible).
The complexity of threading a program is always relative to the degree of isolation of the tasks the threads will perform. There's no trouble in running several threads if you know for sure these will never use the same variables. Then again, multiple high-level constructs exist in modern languages to help synchronize access to shared resources.
It's really a matter of application. If your task is simple enough to fit in some kind of high-level Task object (depends on your development platform; your mileage may vary), then using a task queue is your best bet. My rule of the thumb is that if you can't find a cool name to your thread, then its task is not important enough to justify a thread (instead of task going on an operation queue).
Threads give you the opportunity to do some evil things, specifically sharing state among different execution paths. But they offer a lot of convenience; you don't have to do expensive communication across process boundaries. Plus, they come with less overhead. So I think they're perfectly fine, used correctly.
I think the key is to share as little data as possible among the threads; just stick to synchronization data. If you try to share more than that, you have to engage in complex code that is hard to get right the first time around.
One method of avoiding threads is multiplexing - in essence you make a lightweight mechanism similar to threads which you manage yourself.
Thing is this is not always viable. In your case the 30s polling time per website - can it be split into 60 0.5s pieces, in between which you can stuff calls to the UI? If not, sorry.
Threads aren't evil, they are just easy to shoot your foot with. If doing Query A takes 30s and then doing Query B takes another 30s, doing them simultaneously in threads will take 120s instead of 60 due to thread overhead, fighting for disk access and various bottlenecks.
But if Operation A consists of 5s of activity and 55 seconds of waiting, mixed randomly, and Operation B takes 60s of actual work, doing them in threads will take maybe 70s, compared to plain 120 when you execute them in sequence.
The rule of thumb is: threads should idle and wait most of the time. They are good for I/O, slow reads, low-priority work and so on. If you want performance, use multiplexing, which requires more work but is faster, more efficient and has way less caveats. (synchronizing threads and avoiding race conditions is a whole different chapter of thread headaches...)
Many projects I work on have poor threading implementations and I am the sucker who has to track these down. Is there an accepted best way to handle threading. My code is always waiting for an event that never fires.
I'm kinda thinking like a design pattern or something.
(Assuming .NET; similar things would apply for other platforms.)
Well, there are lots of things to consider. I'd advise:
Immutability is great for multi-threading. Functional programming works well concurrently partly due to the emphasis on immutability.
Use locks when you access mutable shared data, both for reads and writes.
Don't try to go lock-free unless you really have to. Locks are expensive, but rarely the bottleneck.
Monitor.Wait should almost always be part of a condition loop, waiting for a condition to become true and waiting again if it's not.
Try to avoid holding locks for longer than you need to.
If you ever need to acquire two locks at once, document the ordering thoroughly and make sure you always use the same order.
Document the thread-safety of your types. Most types don't need to be thread-safe, they just need to not be thread hostile (i.e. "you can use them from multiple threads, but it's your responsibility to take out locks if you want to share them)
Don't access the UI (except in documented thread-safe ways) from a non-UI thread. In Windows Forms, use Control.Invoke/BeginInvoke
That's off the top of my head - I probably think of more if this is useful to you, but I'll stop there in case it's not.
Learning to write multi-threaded programs correctly is extremely difficult and time consuming.
So the first step is: replace the implementation with one that doesn't use multiple threads at all.
Then carefully put threading back in if, and only if, you discover a genuine need for it, when you've figured out some very simple safe ways to do so. A non-threaded implementation that works reliably is far better than a broken threaded implementation.
When you're ready to start, favour designs that use thread-safe queues to transfer work items between threads and take care to ensure that those work items are accessed only by one thread at a time.
Try to avoid just spraying lock blocks around your code in the hope that it will become thread-safe. It doesn't work. Eventually, two code paths will acquire the same locks in a different order, and everything will grind to a halt (once every two weeks, on a customer's server). This is especially likely if you combine threads with firing events, and you hold the lock while you fire the event - the handler may take out another lock, and now you have a pair of locks held in a particular order. What if they're taken out in the opposite order in some other situation?
In short, this is such a big and difficult subject that I think it is potentially misleading to give a few pointers in a short answer and say "Off you go!" - I'm sure that's not the intention of the many learned people giving answers here, but that is the impression many get from summarised advice.
Instead, buy this book.
Here is a very nicely worded summary from this site:
Multithreading also comes with
disadvantages. The biggest is that it
can lead to vastly more complex
programs. Having multiple threads does
not in itself create complexity; it's
the interaction between the threads
that creates complexity. This applies
whether or not the interaction is
intentional, and can result long
development cycles, as well as an
ongoing susceptibility to intermittent
and non-reproducable bugs. For this
reason, it pays to keep such
interaction in a multi-threaded design
simple – or not use multithreading at
all – unless you have a peculiar
penchant for re-writing and debugging!
Perfect summary from Stroustrup:
The traditional way of dealing with concurrency by letting a bunch of
threads loose in a single address space and then using locks to try to
cope with the resulting data races and coordination problems is
probably the worst possible in terms of correctness and
comprehensibility.
(Like Jon Skeet, much of this assumes .NET)
At the risk of seeming argumentative, comments like these just bother me:
Learning to write multi-threaded
programs correctly is extremely
difficult and time consuming.
Threads should be avoided when
possible...
It is practically impossible to write software that does anything significant without leveraging threads in some capacity. If you are on Windows, open your Task Manager, enable the Thread Count column, and you can probably count on one hand the number of processes that are using a single thread. Yes, one should not simply use threads for the sake of using threads nor should it be done cavalierly, but frankly, I believe these cliches are used too often.
If I had to boil multithreaded programming down for the true novice, I would say this:
Before jumping into it, first understand that the the class boundary is not the same as a thread boundary. For example, if a callback method on your class is called by another thread (e.g., the AsyncCallback delegate to the TcpListener.BeginAcceptTcpClient() method), understand that the callback executes on that other thread. So even though the callback occurs on the same object, you still have to synchronize access to the members of the object within the callback method. Threads and classes are orthogonal; it is important to understand this point.
Identify what data needs to be shared between threads. Once you have defined the shared data, try to consolidate it into a single class if possible.
Limit the places where the shared data can be written and read. If you can get this down to one place for writing and one place for reading, you will be doing yourself a tremendous favor. This is not always possible, but it is a nice goal to shoot for.
Obviously make sure you synchronize access to the shared data using the Monitor class or the lock keyword.
If possible, use a single object to synchronize your shared data regardless of how many different shared fields there are. This will simplify things. However, it may also overly constrain things too, in which case, you may need a synchronization object for each shared field. And at this point, using immutable classes becomes very handy.
If you have one thread that needs to signal another thread(s), I would strongly recommend using the ManualResetEvent class to do this instead of using events/delegates.
To sum up, I would say that threading is not difficult, but it can be tedious. Still, a properly threaded application will be more responsive, and your users will be most appreciative.
EDIT:
There is nothing "extremely difficult" about ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(), asynchronous delegates, the various BeginXXX/EndXXX method pairs, etc. in C#. If anything, these techniques make it much easier to accomplish various tasks in a threaded fashion. If you have a GUI application that does any heavy database, socket, or I/O interaction, it is practically impossible to make the front-end responsive to the user without leveraging threads behind the scenes. The techniques I mentioned above make this possible and are a breeze to use. It is important to understand the pitfalls, to be sure. I simply believe we do programmers, especially younger ones, a disservice when we talk about how "extremely difficult" multithreaded programming is or how threads "should be avoided." Comments like these oversimplify the problem and exaggerate the myth when the truth is that threading has never been easier. There are legitimate reasons to use threads, and cliches like this just seem counterproductive to me.
You may be interested in something like CSP, or one of the other theoretical algebras for dealing with concurrency. There are CSP libraries for most languages, but if the language wasn't designed for it, it requires a bit of discipline to use correctly. But ultimately, every kind of concurrency/threading boils down to some fairly simple basics: Avoid shared mutable data, and understand exactly when and why each thread may have to block while waiting for another thread. (In CSP, shared data simply doesn't exist. Each thread (or process in CSP terminology) is only allowed to communicate with others through blocking message-passing channels. Since there is no shared data, race conditions go away. Since message passing is blocking, it becomes easy to reason about synchronization, and literally prove that no deadlocks can occur.)
Another good practice, which is easier to retrofit into existing code is to assign a priority or level to every lock in your system, and make sure that the following rules are followed consistently:
While holding a lock at level N, you
may only acquire new locks of lower levels
Multiple locks at the same level must
be acquired at the same time, as a
single operation, which always tries
to acquire all the requested locks in
the same global order (Note that any
consistent order will do, but any
thread that tries to acquire one or
more locks at level N, must do
acquire them in the same order as any
other thread would do anywhere else
in the code.)
Following these rules mean that it is simply impossible for a deadlock to occur. Then you just have to worry about mutable shared data.
BIG emphasis on the first point that Jon posted. The more immutable state that you have (ie: globals that are const, etc...), the easier your life is going to be (ie: the fewer locks you'll have to deal with, the less reasoning you'll have to do about interleaving order, etc...)
Also, often times if you have small objects to which you need multiple threads to have access, you're sometimes better off copying it between threads rather than having a shared, mutable global that you have to hold a lock to read/mutate. It's a tradeoff between your sanity and memory efficiency.
Looking for a design pattern when dealing with threads is the really best approach to start with. It's too bad that many people don't try it, instead attempting to implement less or more complex multithreaded constructs on their own.
I would probably agree with all opinions posted so far. In addition, I'd recommend to use some existing more coarse-grained frameworks, providing building blocks rather than simple facilities like locks, or wait/notify operations. For Java, it would be simply the built-in java.util.concurrent package, which gives you ready-to-use classes you can easily combine to achieve a multithreaded app. The big advantage of this is that you avoid writing low-level operations, which results in hard-to-read and error-prone code, in favor of a much clearer solution.
From my experience, it seems that most concurrency problems can be solved in Java by using this package. But, of course, you always should be careful with multithreading, it's challenging anyway.
Adding to the points that other folks have already made here:
Some developers seem to think that "almost enough" locking is good enough. It's been my experience that the opposite can be true -- "almost enough" locking can be worse than enough locking.
Imagine thread A locking resource R, using it, and then unlocking it. A then uses resource R' without a lock.
Meanwhile, thread B tries to access R while A has it locked. Thread B is blocked until thread A unlocks R. Then the CPU context switches to thread B, which accesses R, and then updates R' during its time slice. That update renders R' inconsistent with R, causing a failure when A tries to access it.
Test on as many different hardware and OS architectures as possible. Different CPU types, different numbers of cores and chips, Windows/Linux/Unix, etc.
The first developer who worked with multi-threaded programs was a guy named Murphy.
Well, everyone thus far has been Windows / .NET centric, so I'll chime in with some Linux / C.
Avoid futexes at all costs(PDF), unless you really, really need to recover some of the time spent with mutex locks. I am currently pulling my hair out with Linux futexes.
I don't yet have the nerve to go with practical lock free solutions, but I'm rapidly approaching that point out of pure frustration. If I could find a good, well documented and portable implementation of the above that I could really study and grasp, I'd probably ditch threads completely.
I have come across so much code lately that uses threads which really should not, its obvious that someone just wanted to profess their undying love of POSIX threads when a single (yes, just one) fork would have done the job.
I wish that I could give you some code that 'just works', 'all the time'. I could, but it would be so silly to serve as a demonstration (servers and such that start threads for each connection). In more complex event driven applications, I have yet (after some years) to write anything that doesn't suffer from mysterious concurrency issues that are nearly impossible to reproduce. So I'm the first to admit, in that kind of application, threads are just a little too much rope for me. They are so tempting and I always end up hanging myself.
I'd like to follow up with Jon Skeet's advice with a couple more tips:
If you are writing a "server", and are likely to have a high amount of insert parallelism, don't use Microsoft's SQL Compact. Its lock manager is stupid. If you do use SQL Compact, DON'T use serializable transactions (which happens to be the default for the TransactionScope class). Things will fall apart on you rapidly. SQL Compact doesn't support temporary tables, and when you try to simulate them inside of serialized transactions it does rediculsouly stupid things like take x-locks on the index pages of the _sysobjects table. Also it get's really eager about lock promotion, even if you don't use temp tables. If you need serial access to multiple tables , your best bet is to use repeatable read transactions(to give atomicity and integrity) and then implement you own hierarchal lock manager based on domain-objects (accounts, customers, transactions, etc), rather than using the database's page-row-table based scheme.
When you do this, however, you need to be careful (like John Skeet said) to create a well defined lock hierarchy.
If you do create your own lock manager, use <ThreadStatic> fields to store information about the locks you take, and then add asserts every where inside the lock manager that enforce your lock hierarchy rules. This will help to root out potential issues up front.
In any code that runs in a UI thread, add asserts on !InvokeRequired (for winforms), or Dispatcher.CheckAccess() (for WPF). You should similarly add the inverse assert to code that runs in background threads. That way, people looking at a method will know, just by looking at it, what it's threading requirements are. The asserts will also help to catch bugs.
Assert like crazy, even in retail builds. (that means throwing, but you can make your throws look like asserts). A crash dump with an exception that says "you violated threading rules by doing this", along with stack traces, is much easier to debug then a report from a customer on the other side of the world that says "every now and then the app just freezes on me, or it spits out gobbly gook".
It's the mutable state, stupid
That is a direct quote from Java Concurrency in Practice by Brian Goetz. Even though the book is Java-centric, the "Summary of Part I" gives some other helpful hints that will apply in many threaded programming contexts. Here are a few more from that same summary:
Immutable objects are automatically thread-safe.
Guard each mutable variable with a lock.
A program that accesses a mutable variable from multiple threads without
synchronization is a broken program.
I would recommend getting a copy of the book for an in-depth treatment of this difficult topic.
(source: umd.edu)
Instead of locking on containers, you should use ReaderWriterLockSlim. This gives you database like locking - an infinite number of readers, one writer, and the possibility of upgrading.
As for design patterns, pub/sub is pretty well established, and very easy to write in .NET (using the readerwriterlockslim). In our code, we have a MessageDispatcher object that everyone gets. You subscribe to it, or you send a message out in a completely asynchronous manner. All you have to lock on is the registered functions and any resources that they work on. It makes multithreading much easier.
As it currently stands, this question is not a good fit for our Q&A format. We expect answers to be supported by facts, references, or expertise, but this question will likely solicit debate, arguments, polling, or extended discussion. If you feel that this question can be improved and possibly reopened, visit the help center for guidance.
Closed 9 years ago.
I don't know how commercial games work inside very much, but the open source games I have come across don't seem to be massively into threading. Same goes for most other desktop applications, normally two or three threads seem to be used (eg program logic and GUI updates).
Why don't games have many threads? Eg separate threads for physics, sound, graphics, AI etc?
I don't know about the games that you have played, but most games run the sound on a separate thread. Networking code, at least the socket listeners run on a separate thread.
However, the rest of the game engine generally runs in a single thread. There are reasons for this. For example, most processing in a game runs a single chain of dependencies. Graphics depend on state of physics engine as does the artificial intelligence. Designing for multiple threads means that you have to have frame latency between the various subsystems for concurrency. You get quicker response time and snappier game play if these subsystems are computed linearly each frame. The part of the game that benefits the most from parallelization is of course the rendering subsystem which is offloaded to highly parallelized graphics accelerator cards.
You need to think, what are the actual benefits of threads? Remember that on a single core machine, threads don't actually allow concurrent execution, just the impression of it. Behind the scenes, the CPU is context-switching between the different threads, doing a little work on each every time. Therefore, if I have several tasks that involve no waiting, running them concurrently (on a single core) will be no quicker than running them linearly. In fact, it will be slower, due to the added overhead of the frequent context-switching.
If that is the case then, why ever use threads on a single core machine? Well firstly, because sometimes tasks can involve long periods of waiting on some external resource, such as a disk or other hardware device, to become available. Whilst the task in a waiting stage, threading allows other tasks to continue, thus using the CPU's time more efficiency.
Secondly, tasks may have a deadline of some sort in which to complete, particularly if they are responding to an event. The classic example is the user interface of an application. The computer should respond to user action events as quickly as possible, even if it is busy performing some other long running task, otherwise the user will be become agitated and may believe the application has crashed. Threading allows this to happen.
As for games, I am not a games programmer, but my understanding of the situation is this: 3D games create a programmatic model of the game world; players, enemies, items, terrain, etc. This game world is updated in discrete steps, based on the amount of time that has elapsed since the previous update. So, if 1ms has passed since the last time round the game loop, the position of an object is updated by using its velocity and the elapsed time to determine the delta (obviously the physics is a bit more complicated than that, but you get the idea). Other factors such as AI and input keys may also contribute to the update. When everything is finished, the updated game world is rendered as a new frame and the process begins again. This process usually occurs many times per second.
When we think about the game loop in this way, we can see that the engine is in fact achieving a very similar goal to that of threading. It has a number of long running tasks (updating the world's physics, handling user input, etc), and it gives the impression that they are happening concurrently by breaking them down into small pieces of work and interleaving these pieces, but instead of relying on the CPU or operating system to manage the time spent on each, it is doing it itself. This means it can keep all the different tasks properly synchronized, and avoid the complexities that come with real threading: locks, pre-emption, re-entrant code, etc. There is no performance implication to this approach either, because as we said a single core machine can only really execute code linearly anyway.
Things change when have a multi-core system. Now, tasks can be running genuinely concurrently and there may indeed be a benefit to using threading to handle different parts of the game world updates, so long as we can manage to synchronise the results to render consistent frames. We would expect therefore, that with the advent of multi-core systems, games engine developers would be working on this. And so it turns out, they are. Valve, the makers of Half Life, have recently introduced multi-processor support into their Source Engine, and I imagine many other engine developers are following suit.
Well, that turned out a little longer than I expected. I'm not a threading or games expert, but I hope I haven't made any especially glaring errors. If I have I'm sure people will correct me :)
The main reason is that, as elegant as it sounds, using multiple threads in a program as complicated as a 3D game is really, really, really difficult. Also, before the fairly recent introduction of low cost multi-core systems, using multiple threads did not offer much of a performance incentive.
Many games these days are using "task" or "job" systems for parallel processing. That is, the game spawns a fixed number of worker threads which are used for multiple tasks. Work is divided up into small pieces and queued, then sent to be processed by the worker threads as they become available.
This is becoming especially common on consoles. The PS3 is based on Cell architecture so you need to use parallel processing to get the best performance out of the system. The Xbox 360 can emulate a task/job setup that was designed for PS3 as it has multiple cores. You would probably find for most games that a lot of the system design is shared among the 360, PS3, and PC codebases, so PC most likely uses the same sort of tactic.
While it is hard to write threadsafe code, as many of the other answers indicate, I think there are a few other reasons for the things you're seeing:
First, many open source games are a few years old. Especially with this generation of consoles parallel programming is becoming popular and even necessary as mentioned above.
Second, very few open source projects seem concerned about getting the highest possible performance. As John Carmack pointed out to the Utah GLX project, highly optimized code is often harder to maintain than unoptimized code, so the latter would generally be preferred in open source contexts.
Third, I wouldn't take a small number of threads created by a game to mean that it's not using parallel jobs well.
I was about to post the same thing as William, but I'd like to expand on it a little bit. It's very hard to write optimal code for the future. Given the choice between writing something that will scale to hardware you don't have vs. writing something that will work on hardware you do have, most people will chose to do the latter. Since the single-core paradigm has been with us for so long, most code that has been written (especially for games where there is extreme pressure to get it out the door) isn't that future proof.
x86 has been very kind to game programmers, since we haven't had to think about the ramifications of less forgiving hardware platforms.
The fact that everybody here is correctly claiming that multithreading is hard is very sad. We desperately need to make concurrency systems easy.
Personally I think we are going to need a paradigm shift and new tools.
Other than the technical challenges of programming for multiple cores, commercial games have to run well on low end systems w/o multiple cores to make money.
Now that multi-core processors have been out for a while and the major game consoles have multiple cores it's only a matter of time before dual core shows up on the minimum system requirements list for PC games.
Here's a link to an interview with Orion Granatir from Intel where he's talking about getting game developers to take advantage of multi-threading.
There are many issues with race conditions and data locking when using lots of threads. Since the different parts of games are fairly reliant on each other it doesn't make much sense to do all the extra engineering required to use loads of threads.
It's very difficult to use threads without problems, and most GUI APIs are based on event driven coding anyway. Threads mandate the use of locking mechanisms which add delay to the code, and often that delay is unpredictable depending on who is currently holding the lock.
It seems sensible to me to have a single (or perhaps very few) threads handling things in an event driven way rather than hundreds of threads all causing strange and unrepeatable bugs.
Threads are dead, baby.
Realistically, in game development, threads don't scale beyond offloading very dedicated tasks like networking and loading. Job-systems seem to be the only way forward, given 8 CPU systems are becoming more commonplace even on PCs. And you can pretty much guarantee that upcoming super-multicore systems like Intel's Larrabee will be job-system based.
This has been a somewhat painful realization on Playstation3 and XBOX360 projects, and it seems now even Apple has jumped on board with their "revolutionary" Grand Central Dispatch system in Snow Leopard.
Threads have their place, but the naive promise of "put everything in a thread and it will all run faster" simply doesn't work in practice.