I went through a few questions such as POSIX Threads on a Multiprocessor System and Concurrency of posix threads in multiprocessor machine and Threads & Processes Vs MultiThreading & Multi-Core/MultiProcessor : How they are mapped?
Based on these and few other Wiki articles , I believe for a system having three basic works viz, Input , Processing and Output
For a CPU - bound processing number of CPU -intensive threads (No. of Application * Thread per application) should be apprx 1 to 1.5 times the number of cores of processor.
Input and Output threads must be sufficiently large, so as to remove any bottlenecks. For example for a communication system which is based on query/query-ack and response/response - ack model, time must not be wasted in I/O waiting states.
If there is a large requirement for dynamic memory, its better to go with greater number of processes than threads (to avoid memory sync ups).
Are these arguments fairly consistent while determining number of threads to have in our application ? Do we need to look into any other paramters??
'1 to 1.5 times the number of cores' - this appears to be OS/langauge dependent. On Windows/C++, for example, with large numbers of CPU-intensive tasks, the optimum seems to be much more than twice the number of cores with the performance spread very small. If such environments, it seems you may as well just allocate 64 threads on a pool and not bother with the number of cores.
'query/query-ack and response/response - ack model, time must not be wasted in I/O waiting states' - this is unavoidable with such protocols with the high latency of most networks. The delay is enforced by the 'ping-pong' protocol & so there will, inevitably be an I/O wait. Async I/O just moves this wait into the kernel - it's still there!
'large requirement for dynamic memory, its better to go with greater number of processes than threads' - not really. 'large requirement for dynamic memory' usually means that large data buffers are going to be moved about. Large buffers can only be efficiently moved around by reference. This is very easy and quick between threads because of the shared memory space. With processes, you are stuck with awkward and slow inter-process comms.
'Determining number of threads to have in our application' - well, so difficult on several fronts. Given an unknown architecture, design. language and OS, the only advice I have is to try and make everything as flexible and configurable as you reasonably can. If you have a thread pool, make its size a run-time parameter you can tweak. If you have an object pool, try to design it so that you can change its depth. Have some default values that work on your test boxes and then, at installation or while running, you can make any specific changes and tweaks for a particular system.
The other thing with flexible/configurable designs is that you can, at test time, tweak away and fix many of the incorrect decisions, assumptions and guesstimates made by architects, designers, developers and, most of all, customers
Related
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).
I understand how to create a thread in my chosen language and I understand about mutexs, and the dangers of shared data e.t.c but I'm sure about how the O/S manages threads and the cost of each thread. I have a series of questions that all relate and the clearest way to show the limit of my understanding is probably via these questions.
What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software? One of the costs to creating a thread must be its own stack pointer and process counter, then space to copy all of the working registers to as it is moved on and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between threads of a process or on a first come first served?
Can I somehow check the hardware on start up (of the program) for number of cores. If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of threads to N-1?
then space to copy all of the working registeres to as it is moved on
and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
One less evident cost is the strain imposed on the scheduler which may start to choke if it needs to juggle thousands of threads. The memory isn't really the issue. With the right tweaking you can get a "thread" to occupy very little memory, little more than its stack. This tweaking could be difficult (i.e. using clone(2) directly under linux etc) but it can be done.
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between
threads of a process or on a first come first served
Each thread gets its own stack, and typically you can control its size.
If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of
threads to N-1
Checking the number of cores is easy, but environment-specific. However, limiting the number of threads to the number of cores only makes sense if your workload consists of CPU-intensive operations, with little I/O. If I/O is involved you may want to have many more threads than cores.
You should be as thoughtful as possible in everything you design and implement.
I know that a Java thread stack takes up about 1MB each time you create a thread. , so they add up.
Threads make sense for asynchronous tasks that allow long-running activities to happen without preventing all other users/processes from making progress.
Threads are managed by the operating system. There are lots of schemes, all under the control of the operating system (e.g. round robin, first come first served, etc.)
It makes perfect sense to me to assign one thread per core for some activities (e.g. computationally intensive calculations, graphics, math, etc.), but that need not be the deciding factor. One app I develop uses roughly 100 active threads in production; it's not a 100 core machine.
To add to the other excellent posts:
'What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software?'
It is if one of your design choices is doing such a thing often. A good way of avoiding this issue is to create threads once, at app startup, by using pools and/or app-lifetime threads dedicated to operations. Inter-thread signaling is much quicker than continual thread creation/termination/destruction and also much safer/easier.
The number of posts concerning problems with thread stopping, terminating, destroying, thread count runaway, OOM failure etc. is ledgendary. If you can avoid doing it at all, great.
Lets assume we have fixed amount of calculation work, without blocking, sleeping, i/o-waiting. The work can be parallelized very well - it consists of 100M small and independent calculation tasks.
What is faster for 4-core CPU - to run 4 threads or... lets say 50? Why second variant should be slover and how much slover?
As i assume: when you run 4 heavy threads on 4-core CPU without another CPU-consuming processes/threads, scheduler is allowed to not move the threads between cores at all; it has no reason to do that in this situation. Core0 (main CPU) will be responsible for executing interruption handler for hardware timer 250 times per second (basic Linux configuration) and other hardware interruption handlers, but another cores may not feel any worries.
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore CPU registers for different context? What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches, pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU? So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do together in comparison to their serial execution?
Question about caches and another hardware optimization in multithreading environment is the interesting question for me now.
As #Baile mentions in the comments, this is highly application, system, environment-specific.
And as such, I'm not going to take the hard-line approach of mentioning exactly 1 thread for each core. (or 2 threads/core in the case of Hyperthreading)
As an experienced shared-memory programmer, I have seen from my experience that the optimal # of threads (for a 4 core machine) can range anywhere from 1 to 64+.
Now I will enumerate the situations that can cause this range:
Optimal Threads < # of Cores
In certain tasks that are very fine-grained paralleled (such as small FFTs), the overhead of threading is the dominant performance factor. In some cases, it's it not helpful to parallelize at all. In some cases, you get speedup with 2 threads, but backwards scaling at 4 threads.
Another issue is resource contention. Even if you have a highly parallelizable task that can easily split across 4 cores/threads, you may be bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and cache effects. So often, you find that 2 threads will be just as fast as 4 threads. (as if often the case with very large FFTs)
Optimal Threads = # of Cores
This is the optimal case. No need to explain here - one thread per core. Most embarrassingly parallel applications that are not memory or I/O bound fit right here.
Optimal Threads > # of Cores
This is where it gets interesting... very interesting. Have you heard about load-imbalance? How about over-decomposition and work-stealing?
Many parallelizable applications are irregular - meaning that the tasks do not split into sub-tasks of equal size. So if you may end up splitting a large task into 4 unequal sizes, assign them to 4 threads and run them on 4 cores... the result? Poor parallel performance because 1 thread happened to get 10x more work than the other threads.
A common solution here is to over-decompose the task into many sub-tasks. You can either create threads for each one of them (so now you get threads >> cores). Or you can use some sort of task-scheduler with a fixed number of threads. Not all tasks are suited for both, so quite often, the approach of over-decomposing a task to 8 or 16 threads for a 4-core machine gives optimal results.
Although spawning more threads can lead to better load-balance, the overhead builds up. So there's typically an optimal point somewhere. I've seen as high as 64 threads on 4 cores. But as mentioned, it's highly application specific. And you need to experiment.
EDIT : Expanding answer to more directly answer the question...
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore
CPU registers for different context?
This is very dependent on the environment - and is somewhat difficult to measure directly. Short answer: Very Expensive This might be a good read.
What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside
CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches,
pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU?
Short answer: Yes When you context switch out, you likely flush your pipeline and mess up all the predictors. Same with caches. The new thread is likely to replace the cache with new data.
There's a catch though. In some applications where the threads share the same data, it's possible that one thread could potentially "warm" the cache for another incoming thread or another thread on a different core sharing the same cache. (Although rare, I've seen this happen before on one of my NUMA machines - superlinear speedup: 17.6x across 16 cores!?!?!)
So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do
together in comparison to their serial execution?
Depends, depends... Hyperthreading aside, there will definitely be overhead. But I've read a paper where someone used a second thread to prefetch for the main thread... Yes it's crazy...
Creating 50 threads will actually hurt performance, not improve it. It just doesn't make any sense.
Ideally you should make the 4 threads, not more, not less. There will be some overhead because of context switching, but that is unavoidable. The OS/services/other applications threads should too be executed. But nowadays with so powerful and lighting-fast CPUs this is of no concern since those OS threads will only take less that 2 % of the CPU's time. Almost all of them will be in blocked state while your program is running.
You might think that, since performance is of critical importance, you should code those small critical areas in low-level assembly language. Modern programming languages allow this.
But seriously... compilers and, in case of Java, the JVM, will optimize those portions so well that it just isn't worth it (unless you actually want to exercise something like this). Instead of your calculations finishing in 100 seconds, they'll finish in 97 or 98. The question you must ask yourself is: is it worth all those hours of coding and debugging ?
You asked about the time cost of context switching. These days, these are extremely low. Look at modern day dual-core CPUs that run Windows 7 for example. If you start an Apache web server on that machine and a MySQL database server, you will easily go over 800 threads. The machine just doesn't feel it. To see how low this cost is, read here: How to estimate the thread context switching overhead? . To spare you the searching/reading part: context switching can be done hundreds of thousands of times per second.
4 threads are faster if you can program your 40 tasks switching better than Operating System does.
If you can use 4 threads, use them. There's no way 50 will go faster than 4 on a 4-core machine. All you get is more overhead.
Of course, you're describing an ideal non-real-world situation, so whatever you are actually building, you'll need to measure in order to understand how the performance is affected.
There is Hyperthreading technology which can handle more that one thread per CPU, but it is hardly dependent on type of calculation you want to do. Consider using of GPU or very low assembly language to achieve maximum power.
If you're spawning multiple threads (or processes) concurrently, is it better to spawn as many as the number of physical processors or the number of logical processors, assuming the task is CPU-bound? Or is it better to do something in between (say, 3 threads)?
Does the performance depend on the kind of instructions that are getting executed (say, would non-local memory access be much different from cache hits)? If so, in which cases is it better to take advantage of hyperthreading?
Update:
The reason I'm asking is, I remember reading somewhere that if you have as many tasks as the number of virtual processors, tasks on the same physical core can sometimes starve some CPU resources and prevent each other from getting as many resources as needed, possibly decreasing performance. That's why I'm wondering if having as many threads as virtual cores is a good idea.
The performance depends on a huge variety of factors. Most tasks are not strictly CPU bound, since even if all of the data is in memory it is usually not on-board in the processor cache. I have seen examples (like this one) where memory access patterns can dramatically change the performance profile of a given 'parallel' process.
In short, there is no perfect number for all situations.
Chances are pretty good that you will see a performance improvement running 2 threads per core with HyperThreading enabled. Jobs that appear to be entirely CPU bound usually aren't, and HyperThreading can extract a few "extra" cycles out of the occasional interrupt or context switch.
On the other hand, with a core iX processor that has Turbo Boost, you might actually do better running 1 thread per core to encourage the CPU to overclock itself.
At work, we routinely run many-core servers at full CPU doing various kinds of calculation for days at a time. A while back we measured the performance difference with and without HT. We found that on average, with HyperThreading, and running twice as many jobs at once, we could complete the same amount of jobs about 10% faster than than without HyperThreading.
Assume that 2 × cores is a good place to start, but the bottom line is: measure!
I remember info that hyperthreading can give you up to 30% of performance boost. in general you'd better to treat them as 4 different cores. of course in some specific circumstances (e.g. having the same long running task bound to each core) you can divide your processing better taking into account that some cores are just logical ones
more info about hyperthreading itself here
Using Hyperthreading to run two threads on the same core, when both threads have similar memory access patterns but access disjoint data structures, would be very roughly equivalent to running them on two separate cores each with half the cache. If the memory-access patterns are such that half the cache would be sufficient to prevent thrashing, performance may be good. If the memory-access patterns are such that halving the cache induces thrashing, there may be a ten-fold performance hit (implying one would have been much better off without hyperthreading).
On the other hand, there are some situations where hyperthreading may be a huge win. If many threads will all be reading and writing the same shared data using lock-free data structures, and all threads must see a consistent view of the data, trying to run threads on disjoint processor may cause thrashing since only one processor at a time may have read-write access to any given cache line; running such a threads on two cores may take longer than running only one at a time. Such cache arbitration is not required, however, when a piece of data is accessed by multiple threads on a single core. In those cases, hyperthreading can be a huge win.
Unfortunately, I don't know any way to give the scheduler any "hints" to suggest that some threads should share a core when possible, while others should run separately when possible.
HT allows a boost of approximately 10-30% for mostly cpu-bound tasks that use the extra virtual cores. Although these tasks may seem CPU-bound, unless they are custom made assembly, they will usually suffer from IO waits between RAM and local cache. This allows one thread running on a physical HT-enabled core to work while the other thread is waiting for IO. This does come with a disadvantage though, as two threads share the same cache/bus, which will result in less resources each which may cause both threads to pause while waiting for IO.
In the last case, running a single thread will decrease the maximum simultaneous theoretical processing power(by 10-30%) in favor of running a single thread without the slowdown of cache thrashing which may be very significant in some applications.
Choosing which cores to use is just as important as choosing how many threads to run. If each thread is CPU-bound for roughly the same duration it is best to set the affinity such that threads using mostly different resources find themselves on different physical cores and threads using common resources be grouped to the same physical cores(different virtual core) so that common resources can be used from the same cache without extra IO wait.
Since each program has different CPU-usage characteristics and cache thrashing may or may not be a major slowdown(it usually is) it is impossible to determine what the ideal number of threads should be without profiling first. One last thing to note is that the OS/Kernel will also require some CPU and cache space. It is usually ideal to keep a single (physical)core set aside for the OS if real-time latency is required on CPU-bound threads so as to avoid sharing cache/cpu resources. If threads are often waiting for IO and cache thrashing is not an issue, or if running a real-time OS specifically designed for the application, you can skip this last step.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thrashing_(computer_science)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Processor_affinity
All of the other answers already give lots of excellent info. But, one more point to consider is that the SIMD unit is shared between logical cores on the same die. So, if you are running threads with SSE code, do you run them on all 4 logical cores, or just spawn 2 threads (assuming you have two chips)? For this odd case, best to profile with your app.
5, 100, 1000?
I guess, "it depends", but on what?
What is common in applications that run as server daemons / services?
What are hard limits?
Given that the machine can handle the overall workload, how do I determine at how many threads the overhead starts to have an impact on performance?
What are important differences between OS's?
What else should be considered?
I'm asking because I would like to employ threads in an application to organize subcomponents of my application that do not share data and are designed to do their work in parallel. As the application would also use thread pools for parallelizing some tasks, I was wondering at what point I should start to think about the number of threads that's going to run in total.
I know the n+1 rule as a guideline for determining the number of threads that simultaneously work on the same task to gain performance. However, I want to use threads like one might use processes in a larger scope, i. e. to organize independent tasks that should not interfere with each other.
In this related question, some people advise to minimise the number of threads because of the added complexity. To me it seems that threads can also help to keep things sorted more orderly and actually reduce interference. Isn't that correct?
I can't answer your question about "how much is many" but I agree that you should not use threads for every task possible.
The optimal amount of threads for performance of application is (n+1), where n is the amount of processors/cores your computer/claster has.
The more your actual thread amount differs from n+1, the less optimal it gets and gets your system resources wasted on thread calculations.
So usually you use 1 thread for the UI, 1 thread for some generic tasks, and (n+1) threads for some huge-calculation tasks.
Actually Ajmastrean is a little out of date. Quoting from his own link
The thread pool has a default size of
250 worker threads per available
processor, and 1000 I/O completion
threads. The number of threads in the
thread pool can be changed by using
the SetMaxThreads method.
But generally I think 25 is really where the law of diminishing returns (and programmers abilities to keep track of what is going on) starts coming into effect. Although Max is right, as long as all of the threads are performing non-blocking calculations n+1 is the optimal number, in the real world most of the threading tasks I perform tend to be done on stuff with some kind of IO.
Also depends on your architecture. E.g. in NVIDIA GPGPU lib CUDA you can put on an 8 thread multiprocessor 512 threads simoultanously. You may ask why assign each of the scalar processors 64 threads? The answer is easy: If the computation is not compute bound but memory IO bound, you can hide the mem latencies by executing other threads. Similar applies to normal CPUs. I can remember that a recommendation for the parallel option for make "-j" is to use approx 1.5 times the number of cores you got. Many of the compiling tasks are heavy IO burden and if a task has to wait for harddisk, mem ... whatever, CPU could work on a different thread.
Next you have to consider, how expensive a task/thread switch is. E.g. it is comes free, while CPU has to perform some work for a context switch. So in general you have to estimate if the penalty for two task switches is longer than the time the thread would block (which depends heavily on your applications).
Microsoft's ThreadPool class limits you to 25 threads per processor. The limit is based on context switching between threads and the memory consumed by each thread. So, that's a good guideline if you're on the Windows platform.