Earlier I asked about processing a datastream and someone suggested to put data in a queue and processing this data on a different thead. If this was to slow, I should use multiple threads.
However, i'm using a system that has one core.
So my question is: why not up the prio of my app, so it gets more CPU time from the OS?
I'm writing a server based app and it will be the only big thing running on there.
What would be the pro's and con's of putting the prio up?:)
If you have only one core, then the only way that multi-threading can help you is if chunks of that work depends on something other than CPU, so one thread can get some work done while another is waiting for data from a disk or network connection.
If your application has a GUI, then it can benefit from multi-threading in that while it would be no quicker to do the processing (slower in fact, though probably negligibly so if the task is very long), it can still react to user input in the meantime.
If you have two or more cores, then you can also gain in CPU-bound operations though doing so varies from trivial to impossible depending on just what that operation is. This is irrelevant to your case, but worth considering generally if code you write could later be run on a multi-core system.
Upping the priority is probably a bad idea though, especially if you have only one core (one advantage of multi-core systems is that people who up priorities can't do as much damage).
All threads have priorities which is a factor of both their process' priority and their priority within that process. A low-priority thread in a high priority process trumps a high-priority thread in a low-priority process.
The scheduler doles out CPU slices in a round-robin fashion to the highest priority threads that have work to do. If there are CPUs left over (which in your case means if there are zero threads at that priority that need to run), then it doles out slices to the next lowest priority, and so on.
Most of the time, most threads aren't doing much anyway, which can be seen from the fact that most of the time CPU usage on most systems is below the 100% mark (hyperthreading skews this, the internal scheduling within the cores means a hyperthreaded system can be fully saturated and seem to be only running at as little as 70%). Anyway, generally stuff gets done and a thread that suddenly has lots to do will do so at normal priority in pretty much the same time it would at a higher.
However, while the benefit to that busy thread of higher priority is generally little or nothing, the decrement is great. Since it's the only thread that gets any CPU time, all other threads are stuck. All other processes therefore hang for a while. Eventually the scheduler notices that they've all been waiting for around 3seconds, and fixes this by boosting them all to highest priority and giving them larger slices than normal. Now we have a burst of activity as threads that got no time are all suddenly highest-priority threads that all want CPU time. There's a spurt of every thread except the high-priority one running, and the system stops from keeling over, though there's likely still a lot of applications showing "Not Responding" in their title bars. It's far from ideal, but it is an effective way to deal with a thread of higher than usual priority grabbing the core for so long.
The threads gradually drop down in priority, and eventually we're back to the situation where the single higher priority thread is the only one that can work.
For extra fun, if our high priority thread in any way depended upon services provided by the lower priority threads, it would have ended up being stuck waiting on them. Hopefully in a way that made it block and stopped itself from doing any damage, but probably not.
In all, thread priorities are to be approached with great caution, and process priorities even more so. They're only really valid if they'll yield quickly and are either essential to the workings of other threads (e.g. some OS processes will be done at a higher priority, finaliser threads in .NET will be higher than the rest of the process, etc) or if sub-millisecond delays can mess things up (some intensive media work requires this).
If you have multiple cores/processors in your system, upping the priority of a single threaded program will not improve your performance by much, because the other cores would still be unused.
The only way to take advantage of multiple processing units is to write your program using multiple threads/processes.
Having said this, setting your multithreaded application to very high priority may lead to some performance improvement, but I really never saw it to be significant, at least in my own tests.
Edit: I see now that you are using only one core. Basically your program will be able to run more often on the CPU than the rest of the processes that are of lower priority. This may bring you a marginal improvement, but not a dramatic one. Since we cannot know what other applications are running at the same time on your system, the golden rule here is to try it yourself with various priority levels and see what happens. It's the only valid way to see if things will be faster or not.
It all depends on why the data processing is slow.
If the data processing is slow because it is a genuinely cpu intensive operation then splitting it out into multiple threads on a single core system is not going to get you any benefit. In this case increasing the task priority would provide some benefit, assuming that there is (user) cpu time being used by other processes.
However, if the data processing operation is slow because of some non-cpu restriction (eg. if it is I/O bound, or relying on another process), then:
Increasing the task priority is going to have negligible impact. Task priority won't affect I/O times and if there is a dependency on another process on the system you may actually harm performance.
Splitting the data processing out into multiple threads can allow the cpu intensive areas to continue processing while waiting for the non-cpu intensive (eg. I/O) areas to complete.
Increasing the priority of a single-threaded process just gives you more (or bigger) time slices on the one core the process is running on. The core can still only do one thing at a time.
If you spin off a thread to handle the data processing, it can run on a different processor core (assuming a multi-core system), and it and your main thread are actually executing at the same time. Much more efficient.
If you use only one thread your server app will only be able to service one request at a time, no matter what its priority. If you use multiple threads you could service many at the same time.
Related
Every process has at least one thread of execution and I read somewhere that modern Operating Systems only schedule Thread and not process.
So if there are two processes running in the system - P1 with 1 thread and P2 with 100 threads, how will OS scheduling algorithm ensure that both P1 and P2 get approximately same amount of CPU time? If OS blindly schedules threads, P2 will get 100 times more CPU time than P1.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Wrong question. Consider two jobs that are trying to solve the exact same problem by doing the same work and are perfectly identical except for one thing -- one uses dozens of threads, the other uses dozens of processes. Why should the one that uses dozens of processes get more CPU time than the one that uses dozens of threads?
Your notion of fairness is not really a sensible one.
Instead, scheduling is more designed around trying to get as much work done as possible per unit time. The assumption is that everything the computer is doing is useful and it benefits competing tasks to have other tasks competing with them finish as quickly as possible too.
This is actually all you need the vast majority of the time. But occasionally you have special situations where this doesn't work. One is ultra-high-priority tasks like keeping video or audio flowing or keeping a user interface responsive. Another is ultra-low-priority tasks where there's an enormous amount of work you want done and you don't want the system to be slow for a long time while you're working on it. Priorities are used for this, and generally the system allows higher-priority threads to interrupt lower-priority ones to keep responsiveness.
In general, "fair thread scheduling" attempts to give each thread an equal amount of CPU time (regardless of how much CPU time all threads in a process get); and "fair process scheduling" attempts to give each process the same amount of CPU time (e.g. by giving threads belonging to different processes unequal amounts of CPU time). These are mutually exclusive - you can't have both (unless each process has the same number of threads).
Note that it's all a broken joke anyway. For example, if one thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running slow due to thermal throttling (and/or because another logical CPU in the same core is busy) and another thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running faster than normal (e.g. due to "turbo-boost" and/or because the other logical CPU in the core is not being used); then these threads have received an equal amount of CPU time but have not received anything that could be considered "fair" (because one thread might be able to get 20 times as much work done than the other).
Note that it's all unwanted anyway. For example, for a good OS threads would be given a priority to indicate how important the work they do is, and you don't want a high priority thread (doing very important work) to get the same "fair share" of CPU time as a low priority thread (doing irrelevant/unimportant work). For cases where two threads have equal priority you might (in theory) want them to get an "equal" amount of CPU time; but in practice this isn't common and threads block and unblock so often that it isn't worth caring about; and in practice it can lead to "two half finished jobs instead of one completed job and one unstarted job" scenarios that increases the average amount of time a job (e.g. request for work) takes to complete.
If the thread is the basic unit of scheduling (a generally safe assumption these days) then the process scheduler is the one to decide who to allocate the CPUs. How (and whether) it takes thread usage into account is entirely system specific. AND the behavior ma depends upon the type of process. For example, in VMS (and adopted in Windoze) realtime processes are treated differently than other types of processes.
In the VMS-type scheduling, a process with more threads gets more CPU by design. Better for an application to use more threads and for it to use more processes.
Keep in mind that a system may impose limits on the number of threads in a process.
I've been reading about multi-threaded programming and number of optimal threads. I understand that it is very subjective, varies case by case basis, and the real optimal can be found only through trial-and-error.
However, I've found so many posts saying that if the task is non-I/O-bound, then
Optimal: numberOf(threads) ~= numberOf(cores)
Please take a look at Optimal number of threads per core
Q) How can the above equation be valid if hundreds/thousands of background (OS/other stuff) threads are already fighting to get their turn?
Q) Doesn't having a bit more number of threads increase the probability of being allotted with a core?
The "optimal" only applies to threads that are executing full throttle. The 1000+ threads you can see in use in, say, the Windows Task Manager are threads that are not executing. They are waiting for a notification, blocking on a synchronization object's wait() call.
Which includes I/O but can also be a timer, a driver event, a process interop synch object, an UI thread waiting for a message, etcetera. The latter are much less visible since they are usually wrapped by a friendly api.
Writing a program that has as many threads as the machine has cores, all burning 100% core, is not actually that common. You'd have to solve the kind of problem that requires pure calculation. Real programs are typically bogged down by the need to read/write the data to perform an operation or are throttled by the rate at which data arrives.
Overscheduling the processor is not a good strategy if you have threads burning 100% core. They'll start to fight with each other, the context switching overhead causes less work to be done. It is fine when they block. Blocking automatically makes a core available to do something else.
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.
I am writing a CPU-intensive image processing library. To make best use of available CPU, I can detect the total number of cores on my machine and have my library run with that number of threads. When my library to allocate one thread for each core it performs optimally using 100% available processor time.
The above approach works fine when mine is the only CPU-heavy process running. If another CPU-intensive process is running, or even another instance of my own code, then the OS allocates us only a fraction of the available cores and my library then has too many threads running which is both inefficient and inconsiderate to other processes.
So I would like to find a way to determine the "fair share" number of threads to run given a specific load. For example, if two instances of my process are running on an 8-core machine, each would run with 4 threads. Each would need a way to adapt thread count dynamically according to fluctuations in machine load.
So, my question:
Is there any OS feature or third-party library which allows my process to adapt thread count dynamically to use its fair share of the CPU?
My focus is Windows but interested in non-Windows solutions too.
Edit: to be clear, this is about optimization. I am trying to achieve peak efficiency by running the optimal number of threads appropriate to my fair share of the CPU.
In my eyes, the application shouldnt decide how many threads to spawn. This is an information, that the caller should know. In linux, the "-j" or "--jobs" parameter is widely used (Default: 1).
What about also setting the priority of the processing tasks. So if the caller knows, the processing is mission-critical, he can increase the prio (with the knowledge of maybe blocking the (whole) system). Your processing lib would never know, how important the processing of this image would be.
If the caller doesnt care, then the default low-prio is used, which shouldnt affect the rest of the system. If it does, you should look to what is exactly blocking the system (maybe writing image files to the hdd, reduce ram size to prevent swapping, ...). If you figured out that, you can optimize exactly that point.
If you start the processing with (cpu-cores)*2 on low till normal priority, your system should be useable. No one would expect, that this will kill the system.
Just my 2 cents.
Actually it's not a problem of multithreading but a problem of executing many programs simultaneously. This is hard on most PC's operating systems because it conflicts to the idea of time-sharing.
Let's assume some workflow.
Suppose we have 8 cores and we create 8 threads to feed them; ok, that's easy. Next we choose to monitor core loading to summary how many tasks running on a certain core; well, that needs some statistical assumptions, e.g on Linux you can get a 1/5/15-mins load average chart, but that could be done. The statistical chart is clear and now we get a plot about how many CPU-bound processes are running, say, seeing other 3 CPU-intensive processes.
Then we come to the point: we have to make 3 redundant threads to sleep, but which 3?
Usually we choose 3 threads arbitrarily because the scheduler arranges the other 8 CPU-bound threads automatically. In some cases, we explicitly put threads on high load cores to sleep, assign other threads to certain low load cores, and let the scheduler do the rest things. Most scheduling policies also try to "keep CPU cache hot", which means they tend to forbid transferring threads between cores. We reasonably expect our CPU-intensive threads can utilize the core cache since other processes are scheduled to the 3 crowded cores. Everything looks good.
However this could fail in tightly synchronized computation. In this scenario we need to run our 5 threads simultaneously. Simultaneity here means the 5 threads have to gain CPU and run at almost the same time. I don't know if there's any scheduler on PC could do this for us. In most low-load cases, things still work fine because costs to wait for simultaneity is trivial. But when the load of a core is high and even 1 of our 5 threads is disturbed, occasionally we'll find we spend many life cycles in waiting.
It may help to schedule your program as a real-time program but it's not a perfect solution. Statistically it leads to a wider time window for simultaneity when it gains more CPU control priority. I have to say, it's not guaranteed.
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.