I'm designing a large-scale project, and I think I see a way I could drastically improve performance by taking advantage of multiple cores. However, I have zero experience with multiprocessing, and I'm a little concerned that my ideas might not be good ones.
Idea
The program is a video game that procedurally generates massive amounts of content. Since there's far too much to generate all at once, the program instead tries to generate what it needs as or slightly before it needs it, and expends a large amount of effort trying to predict what it will need in the near future and how near that future is. The entire program, therefore, is built around a task scheduler, which gets passed function objects with bits of metadata attached to help determine what order they should be processed in and calls them in that order.
Motivation
It seems to be like it ought to be easy to make these functions execute concurrently in their own processes. But looking at the documentation for the multiprocessing modules makes me reconsider- there doesn't seem to be any simple way to share large data structures between threads. I can't help but imagine this is intentional.
Questions
So I suppose the fundamental questions I need to know the answers to are thus:
Is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to access the same list/dict/etc... for both reading and writing at the same time? Can I just launch multiple instances of my star generator, give it access to the dict that holds all the stars, and have new objects appear to just pop into existence in the dict from the perspective of other threads (that is, I wouldn't have to explicitly grab the star from the process that made it; I'd just pull it out of the dict as if the main thread had put it there itself).
If not, is there any practical way to allow multiple threads to read the same data structure at the same time, but feed their resultant data back to a main thread to be rolled into that same data structure safely?
Would this design work even if I ensured that no two concurrent functions tried to access the same data structure at the same time, either for reading or for writing?
Can data structures be inherently shared between processes at all, or do I always explicitly have to send data from one process to another as I would with processes communicating over a TCP stream? I know there are objects that abstract away that sort of thing, but I'm asking if it can be done away with entirely; have the object each thread is looking at actually be the same block of memory.
How flexible are the objects that the modules provide to abstract away the communication between processes? Can I use them as a drop-in replacement for data structures used in existing code and not notice any differences? If I do such a thing, would it cause an unmanageable amount of overhead?
Sorry for my naivete, but I don't have a formal computer science education (at least, not yet) and I've never worked with concurrent systems before. Is the idea I'm trying to implement here even remotely practical, or would any solution that allows me to transparently execute arbitrary functions concurrently cause so much overhead that I'd be better off doing everything in one thread?
Example
For maximum clarity, here's an example of how I imagine the system would work:
The UI module has been instructed by the player to move the view over to a certain area of space. It informs the content management module of this, and asks it to make sure that all of the stars the player can currently click on are fully generated and ready to be clicked on.
The content management module checks and sees that a couple of the stars the UI is saying the player could potentially try to interact with have not, in fact, had the details that would show upon click generated yet. It produces a number of Task objects containing the methods of those stars that, when called, will generate the necessary data. It also adds some metadata to these task objects, assuming (possibly based on further information collected from the UI module) that it will be 0.1 seconds before the player tries to click anything, and that stars whose icons are closest to the cursor have the greatest chance of being clicked on and should therefore be requested for a time slightly sooner than the stars further from the cursor. It then adds these objects to the scheduler queue.
The scheduler quickly sorts its queue by how soon each task needs to be done, then pops the first task object off the queue, makes a new process from the function it contains, and then thinks no more about that process, instead just popping another task off the queue and stuffing it into a process too, then the next one, then the next one...
Meanwhile, the new process executes, stores the data it generates on the star object it is a method of, and terminates when it gets to the return statement.
The UI then registers that the player has indeed clicked on a star now, and looks up the data it needs to display on the star object whose representative sprite has been clicked. If the data is there, it displays it; if it isn't, the UI displays a message asking the player to wait and continues repeatedly trying to access the necessary attributes of the star object until it succeeds.
Even though your problem seems very complicated, there is a very easy solution. You can hide away all the complicated stuff of sharing you objects across processes using a proxy.
The basic idea is that you create some manager that manages all your objects that should be shared across processes. This manager then creates its own process where it waits that some other process instructs it to change the object. But enough said. It looks like this:
import multiprocessing as m
manager = m.Manager()
starsdict = manager.dict()
process = Process(target=yourfunction, args=(starsdict,))
process.run()
The object stored in starsdict is not the real dict. instead it sends all changes and requests, you do with it, to its manager. This is called a "proxy", it has almost exactly the same API as the object it mimics. These proxies are pickleable, so you can pass as arguments to functions in new processes (like shown above) or send them through queues.
You can read more about this in the documentation.
I don't know how proxies react if two processes are accessing them simultaneously. Since they're made for parallelism I guess they should be safe, even though I heard they're not. It would be best if you test this yourself or look for it in the documentation.
I'm using lua as the scripting language for handling events in my application, and I don't want to restrict users to writing short handlers - e.g. someone might want to have one handler run an infinite loop, and another handler would interrupt the first one. Obviously, lua doesn't directly support such behavior, so I'm looking for workarounds.
First of all, I'd like to avoid modifying the engine. Is it possible to set up a debug hook that would yield once the state has reached its quota? Judging by the documentation, it shouldn't be hard at all, but I don't know if there are any caveats to this.
And second, can I use lua_close to terminate a thread as I would in actual multithreading?
I've done something similar in the past. Its completely possible to multi-thread on separate Lua states. Be sure to take a look at luaL_lock() and luaL_unlock() (plus associated setup/cleanup), as you will no doubt need this setup (a simple mutex should do the trick).
After that, it should be a fairly simple matter of creating a lock/wait/interrupt API for your handlers.
I'm Korean. My English skill too low.
In NODE.JS, there are two setInterval().
Of course, nodejs is single thread.
but, I worry about that each setInterval handles same value(or array).
To tell the truth, my circumstance has network and setInterval().
how can I controll the value. Or my worry is nothing?
You want to consider rewording this, I'm having trouble understanding what you are asking (especially in relation to network/threads), but I'm guessing you want to look into what the nodejs event loop is:
http://blog.mixu.net/2011/02/01/understanding-the-node-js-event-loop/
JavaScript runs code in what I like to call turns.
During a turn, the code that is running has full and exclusive access to all variables and the values bound to them. As no other code is or can be running, you don't have to worry about locking.
You can ignore the text below the line.
Note that although this doesn't matter in this case, if you have a process that completes over multiple turns, you should be aware that other code may have taken turns between those turns. Each turn is atomic, and there are ways to make multi-turn processes atomic but they are too complex to explain here.
Note that the concept of a turn comes from the E lang but fits so nicely in JavaScript.
only one thread is allocated to user-level
user level 에서는 오직 1 thread 만 할당 되어있다 .
so, you don't have to worry about thread confliction. or IPC
즉 thread confliction 은 고민할 필요가 없다는 얘기
if your question is not regarding this ,
then you can handle every other case easily by your application-level programming
기타 상황은 응용프로그램 레벨에서 조치 하면 될것 같음.
i'm newbie to here,
so i don't know whether language other than english is permitted or not ....
What's a good way to leverage TDD to drive out thread-safe code? For example, say I have a factory method that utilizes lazy initialization to create only one instance of a class, and return it thereafter:
private TextLineEncoder textLineEncoder;
...
public ProtocolEncoder getEncoder() throws Exception {
if(textLineEncoder == null)
textLineEncoder = new TextLineEncoder();
return textLineEncoder;
}
Now, I want to write a test in good TDD fashion that forces me to make this code thread-safe. Specifically, when two threads call this method at the same time, I don't want to create two instances and discard one. This is easily done, but how can I write a test that makes me do it?
I'm asking this in Java, but the answer should be more broadly applicable.
You could inject a "provider" (a really simple factory) that is responsible for just this line:
textLineEncoder = new TextLineEncoder();
Then your test would inject a really slow implementation of the provider. That way the two threads in the test could more easily collide. You could go as far as have the first thread wait on a Semaphore that would be released by the second thread. Then success of the test would ensure that the waiting thread times out. By giving the first thread a head-start you can make sure that it's waiting before the second one releases.
It's hard, though possible - possibly harder than it's worth. Known solutions involve instrumenting the code under test. The discussion here, "Extreme Programming Challenge Fourteen" is worth sifting through.
In the book Clean Code there are some tips on how to test concurrent code. One tip that has helped me to find concurrency bugs, is running concurrently more tests than the CPU has cores.
In my project, running the tests takes about 2 seconds on my quad core machine. When I want to test the concurrent parts (there are some tests for that), I hold down in IntelliJ IDEA the hotkey for running all tests, until I see in the status bar that 20, 50 or 100 test runs are in execution. I follow in Windows Task Manager the CPU and memory usage, to find out when all the test runs have finished executing (memory usage goes up by 1-2 GB when they all are running and then slowly goes back down).
Then I close one by one all the test run output dialogs, and check that there were no failures. Sometimes there are failed tests or tests which are in deadlock, and then I investigate them until I find the bug and have fixed it. That has helped me to find a couple of nasty concurrency bugs. The most important thing, when facing an exception/deadlock that should not have happened, is always assuming that the code is broken, and investigating the reason ruthlessly and fixing it. There are no cosmic rays which cause programs to crash randomly - bugs in code cause programs to crash.
There are also frameworks such as http://www.alphaworks.ibm.com/tech/contest which use bytecode manipulation to force the code to do more thread switching, thus increasing the probability of making concurrency bugs visible.
When I test drove an implementation that needed to be thread safe recently I came up with the solution I provided as an answer for this question. Hope that helps even though there are no tests there. Hope link is OK raher than duplicating teh answer...
Chapter 12 of Java Concurrency in Practice is called "Testing Concurrent Programs". It documents testing for safety and liveness, but says this is a hard subject. I am not sure this problem is solvable by the tools of that chapter.
Just off the top of my head could you compare the instances returned to see if they are indeed the same instance or if they are different? That's probably where I would start with C#, I would imagine you can do the same in java
I've read a lot recently about how writing multi-threaded apps is a huge pain in the neck, and have learned enough about the topic to understand, at least at some level, why it is so.
I've read that using functional programming techniques can help alleviate some of this pain, but I've never seen a simple example of functional code that is concurrent. So, what are some alternatives to using threads? At least, what are some ways to abstract them away so you needn't think about things like locking and whether a particular library's objects are thread-safe.
I know Google's MapReduce is supposed to help with the problem, but I haven't seen a succinct explanation of it.
Although I'm giving a specific example below, I'm more curious of general techniques than solving this specific problem (using the example to help illustrate other techniques would be helpful though).
I came to the question when I wrote a simple web crawler as a learning exercise. It works pretty well, but it is slow. Most of the bottleneck comes from downloading pages. It is currently single threaded, and thus only downloads a single page at a time. Thus, if the pages can be downloaded concurrently, it would speed things up dramatically, even if the crawler ran on a single processor machine. I looked into using threads to solve the issue, but they scare me. Any suggestions on how to add concurrency to this type of problem without unleashing a terrible threading nightmare?
The reason functional programming helps with concurrency is not because it avoids using threads.
Instead, functional programming preaches immutability, and the absence of side effects.
This means that an operation could be scaled out to N amount of threads or processes, without having to worry about messing with shared state.
Actually, threads are pretty easy to handle until you need to synchronize them. Usually, you use threadpool to add task and wait till they are finished.
It is when threads need to communicate and access shared data structures that multi threading becomes really complicated. As soon as you have two locks, you can get deadlocks, and this is where multithreading gets really hard. Sometimes, your locking code could be wrong by just a few instructions. In that case, you could only see bugs in production, on multi-core machines (if you developed on single core, happened to me) or they could be triggered by some other hardware or software. Unit testing doesn't help much here, testing finds bugs, but you can never be as sure as in "normal" apps.
I'll add an example of how functional code can be used to safely make code concurrent.
Here is some code you might want to do in parallel, so you don't have wait for one file to finish to start downloading the next:
void DownloadHTMLFiles(List<string> urls)
{
foreach(string url in urls)
{
DownlaodOneFile(url); //download html and save it to a file with a name based on the url - perhaps used for caching.
}
}
If you have a number of files the user might spend a minute or more waiting for them all. We can re-write this code functionally like this, and it basically does the exact same thing:
urls.ForEach(DownloadOneFile);
Note that this still runs sequentially. However, not only is it shorter, we've gained an important advantage here. Since each call to the DownloadOneFile function is completely isolated from the others (for our purposes, available bandwidth isn't an issue) you could very easily swap out the ForEach function for another very similar function: one that kicks off each call to DownlaodOneFile on a separate thread from a threadpool.
It turns out .Net has just such a function availabe using Parallel Extensions. So, by using functional programming you can change one line of code and suddenly have something run in parallel that used to run sequentially. That's pretty powerful.
There are a couple of brief mentions of asynchronous models but no one has really explained it so I thought I'd chime in. The most common method I've seen used as an alternative for multi-threading is asynchronous architectures. All that really means is that instead of executing code sequentially in a single thread, you use a polling method to initiate some functions and then come back and check periodically until there's data available.
This really only works in models like your aforementioned crawler, where the real bottleneck is I/O rather than CPU. In broad strokes, the asynchronous approach would initiate the downloads on several sockets, and a polling loop periodically checks to see if they're finished downloading and when that's done, we can move on to the next step. This allows you to run several downloads that are waiting on the network, by context switching within the same thread, as it were.
The multi-threaded model would work much the same, except using a separate thread rather than a polling loop checking multiple sockets in the same thread. In an I/O bound application, asynchronous polling works almost as well as threading for many use cases, since the real problem is simply waiting for the I/O to complete and not so much the waiting for the CPU to process the data.
Another real world example is for a system that needed to execute a number of other executables and wait for results. This can be done in threads, but it's also considerably simpler and almost as effective to simply fire off several external applications as Process objects, then check back periodically until they're all finished executing. This puts the CPU-intensive parts (the running code in the external executables) in their own processes, but the data processing is all handled asynchronously.
The Python ftp server lib I work on, pyftpdlib uses the Python asyncore library to handle serving FTP clients with only a single thread, and asynchronous socket communication for file transfers and command/response.
See for further reading the Python Twisted library's page on Asynchronous Programming - while somewhat specific to using Twisted, it also introduces async programming from a beginner perspective.
Concurrency is quite a complicated subject in computer science, which demands good understanding of hardware architecture as well as operating system behavior.
Multi-threading has many implementations based on your hardware and your hosting OS, and as tough as it is already, the pitfalls are numerous. It should be noted that in order to achieve "true" concurrency, threads are the only way to go. Basically, threads are the only way for you as a programmer to share resources between different parts of your software while allowing them to run in parallel. By parallel you should consider that a standard CPU (dual/multi-cores aside) can only do one thing at a time. Concepts like context switching now come into play, and they have their own set of rules and limitations.
I think you should seek more generic background on the subject, like you are saying, before you go about implementing concurrency in your program.
I guess the best place to start is the wikipedia article on concurrency, and go on from there.
What typically makes multi-threaded programming such a nightmare is when threads share resources and/or need to communicate with each other. In the case of downloading web pages, your threads would be working independently, so you may not have much trouble.
One thing you may want to consider is spawning multiple processes rather than multiple threads. In the case you mention--downloading web pages concurrently--you could split the workload up into multiple chunks and hand each chunk off to a separate instance of a tool (like cURL) to do the work.
If your goal is to achieve concurrency it will be hard to get away from using multiple threads or processes. The trick is not to avoid it but rather to manage it in a way that is reliable and non-error prone. Deadlocks and race conditions in particular are two aspects of concurrent programming that are easy to get wrong. One general approach to manage this is to use a producer/consumer queue... threads write work items to the queue and workers pull items from it. You must make sure you properly synchronize access to the queue and you're set.
Also, depending on your problem, you may also be able to create a domain specific language which does away with concurrency issues, at least from the perspective of the person using your language... of course the engine which processes the language still needs to handle concurrency, but if this will be leveraged across many users it could be of value.
There are some good libraries out there.
java.util.concurrent.ExecutorCompletionService will take a collection of Futures (i.e. tasks which return values), process them in background threads, then bung them in a Queue for you to process further as they complete. Of course, this is Java 5 and later, so isn't available everywhere.
In other words, all your code is single threaded - but where you can identify stuff safe to run in parallel, you can farm it off to a suitable library.
Point is, if you can make the tasks independent, then thread safety isn't impossible to achieve with a little thought - though it is strongly recommended you leave the complicated bit (like implementing the ExecutorCompletionService) to an expert...
One simple way to avoid threading in your simple scenario, Is to download from different processes. The main process will invoke other processes with parameters that will download the files to local directory, And then the main process can do the real job.
I don't think that there are any simple solution to those problems. Its not a threading problem. Its the concurrency that brake the human mind.
You might watch the MSDN video on the F# language: PDC 2008: An introduction to F#
This includes the two things you are looking for. (Functional + Asynchronous)
For python, this looks like an interesting approach: http://members.verizon.net/olsongt/stackless/why_stackless.html#introduction
Use Twisted. "Twisted is an event-driven networking engine written in Python" http://twistedmatrix.com/trac/. With it, I could make 100 asynchronous http requests at a time without using threads.
Your specific example is seldom solved with multi-threading. As many have said, this class of problems is IO-bound, meaning the processor has very little work to do, and spends most of it's time waiting for some data to arrive over the wire and to process that, and similarly it has to wait for disk buffers to flush so that it can put more of the recently downloaded data on disk.
The method to performance is through the select() facility, or an equivalent system call. The basic process is to open a number of sockets (for the web crawler downloads) and file handles (for storing them to disk). Next you set all of the different sockets and fh to non-blocking mode, meaning that instead of making your program wait until data is available to read after issuing a request, it returns right away with a special code (usually EAGAIN) to indicate that no data is ready. If you looped through all of the sockets in this way you would be polling, which works well, but is still a waste of cpu resources because your reads and writes will almost always return with EAGAIN.
To get around this, all of the sockets and fp's will be collected into a 'fd_set', which is passed to the select system call, then your program will block, waiting on ANY of the sockets, and will awaken your program when there's some data on any of the streams to process.
The other common case, compute bound work, is without a doubt best addressed with some sort of true parallelism (as apposed to the asynchronous concurrency presented above) to access the resources of multiple cpu's. In the case that your cpu bound task is running on a single threaded archetecture, definately avoid any concurrency, as the overhead will actually slow your task down.
Threads are not to be avoided nor are they "difficult". Functional programming is not necessarily the answer either. The .NET framework makes threading fairly simple. With a little thought you can make reasonable multithreaded programs.
Here's a sample of your webcrawler (in VB.NET)
Imports System.Threading
Imports System.Net
Module modCrawler
Class URLtoDest
Public strURL As String
Public strDest As String
Public Sub New(ByVal _strURL As String, ByVal _strDest As String)
strURL = _strURL
strDest = _strDest
End Sub
End Class
Class URLDownloader
Public id As Integer
Public url As URLtoDest
Public Sub New(ByVal _url As URLtoDest)
url = _url
End Sub
Public Sub Download()
Using wc As New WebClient()
wc.DownloadFile(url.strURL, url.strDest)
Console.WriteLine("Thread Finished - " & id)
End Using
End Sub
End Class
Public Sub Download(ByVal ud As URLtoDest)
Dim dldr As New URLDownloader(ud)
Dim thrd As New Thread(AddressOf dldr.Download)
dldr.id = thrd.ManagedThreadId
thrd.SetApartmentState(ApartmentState.STA)
thrd.IsBackground = False
Console.WriteLine("Starting Thread - " & thrd.ManagedThreadId)
thrd.Start()
End Sub
Sub Main()
Dim lstUD As New List(Of URLtoDest)
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file0.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file1.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file2.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file3.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file4.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file5.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file6.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file7.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file8.txt"))
lstUD.Add(New URLtoDest("http://stackoverflow.com/questions/382478/how-can-threads-be-avoided", "c:\file9.txt"))
For Each ud As URLtoDest In lstUD
Download(ud)
Next
' you will see this message in the middle of the text
' pressing a key before all files are done downloading aborts the threads that aren't finished
Console.WriteLine("Press any key to exit...")
Console.ReadKey()
End Sub
End Module