If anybody has had a lot of experience timing code running on the main VCL thread vs a background thread, I'd like to get an opinion. I have some code that does some heavy string processing running in my Delphi 6 application on the main thread. Each time I run an operation, the time for each operation hovers around 50 ms on a single thread on my i5 Quad core. What makes me really suspicious is that the same code running on an old Pentium 4 that I have, shows the same time for the operation when usually I see code running about 4 times slower on the Pentium 4 than the Quad Core. I am beginning to wonder if the code might be consuming significantly less time than 50 ms but that there's something about the main VCL thread, perhaps Windows message handling or executing Windows API calls, that is creating an artificial "floor" for the operation. Note, an operation is triggered by an incoming request on a socket if that matters, but the time measurement does not take place until the data is fully received.
Before I undertake the work of moving all the code on to a background thread for testing, I am wondering if anyone has any general knowledge in this area? What have your experiences been with code running on and off the main VCL thread? Note, the timing measurements are being done when there is absolutely no user triggered activity going on during the tests.
I'm also wondering if raising the priority of the thread to just below real-time would do any good. I've never seen much improvement in my run times when experimenting with those flags.
-- roschler
Given all threads have the same priority, as they normally do, there can't be a difference, for the following reasons. If you're seeing a difference, re-evaluate the code (make sure you run the same thing in both VCL and background threads) and make sure you time it properly:
The compiler generates the exact same code, it doesn't care if the code is going to run in the main thread or in a background thread. In fact you can put the whole code in a procedure and call that from both your worker thread's Execute() and from the main VCL thread.
For the CPU all cores, and all threads, are equal. Unless it's actually a Hyper Threading CPU, where not all cores are real, but then see the next bullet.
Even if not all CPU cores are equal, your thread will very unlikely run on the same core, the operating system is free to move it around at will (and does actually schedule your thread to run on different cores at different times).
Messaging overhead doesn't matter for the main VCL thread, because unless you're calling Application.ProcessMessages() manually, the message pump is simply stopped while your procedure does it's work. The message pump is passive, your thread needs to request messages from the queue, but since the thread is busy doing your work, it's not requesting any messages so no overhead there.
There's just one place where threads are not equal, and this can change the perceived speed of execution: It's the operating system that schedules threads to execution units (cores), and for the operating system threads have different priorities. You can tell the OS a certain thread needs to be treated differently using the SetThreadPriority() API (which is used by the TThread.Priority property).
Without simple source code to reproduce the issue, and how you are timing your threads, it will be difficult to understand what occurs in your software.
Sounds definitively like either:
An Architecture issue - how are your threads defined?
A measurement issue - how are you timing your threads?
A typical scaling issue of both the memory manager and the RTL string-related implementation.
About the latest point, consider this:
The current memory manager (FastMM4) is not scaling well on multi-core CPU; try with a per-thread memory manager, like our experimental SynScaleMM - note e.g. that the Free Pascal Compiler team has written a new scaling MM from scratch recently, to avoid such issue;
Try changing the string process implementation to avoid memory allocation (use static buffers), and string reference-counting (every string reference counting access produces a LOCK DEC/INC which do not scale so well on multi-code CPU - use per-thread char-level process, using e.g. PChar on static buffers instead of string).
I'm sure that without string operations, you'll find that all threads are equivalent.
In short: neither the current Delphi MM, neither the current string implementation scales well on multi-core CPU. You just found out a known issue of the current RTL. Read this SO question.
When your code has control of the VCL thread, for instance if it is in one method and doesn't call out to any VCL controls or call Application.ProcessMessages, then the run time will not be affected just because it's in the main VCL thread.
There is no overhead, since you "own" the whole processing power of the thread when you are in your own code.
I would suggest that you use a profiling tool to find where the actual bottleneck is.
Performance can't be assessed statically. For that you need to get AQTime, or some other performance profiler for Delphi. I use AQtime, and I love it, but I'm aware it's considered expensive.
Your code will not magically get faster just because you moved it to a background thread. If anything, your all-inclusive-time until you see results in your UI might get a little slower, if you have to send a lot of data from the background thread to the foreground thread via some synchronization mechanisms.
If however you could execute parts of your algorithm in parallel, that is, split your work so that you have 2 or more worker threads processing your data, and you have a quad core processor, then your total time to do a fixed load of work, could decrease. That doesn't mean the code would run any faster, but depending on a lot of factors, you might achieve a slight benefit from multithreading, up to the number of cores in your computer. It's never ever going to be a 2x performance boost, to use two threads instead of one, but you might get 20%-40% better performance, in your more-than-one-threaded parallel solutions, depending on how scalable your heap is under multithreaded loads, and how IO/memory/cache bound your workload is.
As for raising thread priorities, generally all you will do there is upset the delicate balance of your Windows system's performance. By raising the priorities you will achieve (sometimes) a nominal, but unrepeatable and non-guaranteeable increase in performance. Depending on the other things you do in your code, and your data sources, playing with priorities of threads can introduce subtle problems. See Dining Philosophers problem for more.
Your best bet for optimizing the speed of string operations is to first test it and find out exactly where it is using most of its time. Is it heap operations? Memory Copy and move operations? Without a profiler, even with advice from other people, you will still be comitting a cardinal sin of programming; premature optimization. Be results oriented. Be science based. Measure. Understand. Then decide.
Having said that, I've seen a lot of horrible code in my time, and there is one killer thing that people do that totally kills their threaded app performance; Using TThread.Synchronize too much.
Here's a pathological (Extreme) case, that sadly, occurs in the wild fairly frequently:
procedure TMyThread.Execute;
begin
while not Terminated do
Synchronize(DoWork);
end;
The problem here is that 100% of the work is really done in the foreground, other than the "if terminated" check, which executes in the thread context. To make the above code even worse, add a non-interruptible sleep.
For fast background thread code, use Synchronize sparingly or not at all, and make sure the code it calls is simple and executes quickly, or better yet, use TThread.Queue or PostMessage if you could really live with queueing main thread activity.
Are you asking if a background thread would be faster? If your background thread would run the same code as the main thread and there's nothing else going on in the main thread, you don't stand to gain anything with a background thread. Threads should be used to split and distribute processing loads that would otherwise contend with one another and/or block one another when running in the main thread. Since you seem to be dealing with a case where your main thread is otherwise idle, simply spawning a thread to run slow code will not help.
Threads aren't magic, they can't speed up slow code or eliminate processing bottlenecks in a particular segment not related to contention on the main thread. Make sure your code isn't doing something you don't know about and that your timing methodology is correct.
My first hunch would be that your interaction with the socket is affecting your timing in a way you haven't detected... (I know you said you're sure that's not involved - but maybe check again...)
Related
This is the first time I am trying to profile a multi-threaded program.
I suspect the problem is it waiting for something, but I have no clue what, the program never reaches 100% of CPU, GPU, RAM or I/O use.
Until recently, I've only worked on projects with single-threading, or where the threads were very simple (example: usually an extra thread just to ensure the UI is not locked while the program works, or once I made a game engine with a separate thread to handle .XM and .IT files music, so that the main thread could do everything, while the other thread in another core could take care of decoding those files).
This program has several threads, and they don't do parallel work on the same tasks, each thread has its own completely separate purpose (for example one thread is dedicated to handling all sound-related API calls to the OS).
I downloaded Microsoft performance tools, there is a blog by an ex-Valve employee that explains that they work to do this, but although I even managed to make some profiles and whatnot, I don't really understood what I am seeing, it is only a bunch of pretty graphs to me (except the CPU use graph, that I already knew from doing sample-based profiling on single-threaded apps), so, how I find why the program is waiting on something? Or how I find what is it waiting for? How I find what thread is blocking the others?
I look at is as an alternation between two things:
a) measuring overall time, for which all you need is some kind of timer, and
b) finding speedups, which does not mean measuring, in spite of what a lot of people have been told.
Each time you find a speedup, you time the results and do it again.
That's the alternation.
To find speedups, the method I and many people use is random pausing.
The idea is, you get the program running under a debugger and manually interrupt it, several times.
Each time, you examine the state of every thread, including the call stack.
It is very crude, and it is very effective.
The reason this works is that the only way the program can go faster is if it is doing an activity that you can remove, and if that saves a certain fraction of time, you are at least that likely to see it on every pause.
This works whether it is doing I/O, waiting for something, or computing.
It sees things that profilers do not expose, because they make summaries from which speedups can easily hide.
Performance Wizard in Visual Studio Performance and Diagnostics Hub has "Resource contention data" profiling regime which allows to analyze concurrency contention among threads, i.e. how the overall performance of a program is impacted by threads waiting on other threads. Please refer to this blog post for more details.
PerfView is an extremely powerful profiling tool which allows one to analyze the impact of service threads and tasks to the overall performance of the program. Here is the PerfView Tutorial available.
I've learned that a process has running, ready, blocked, and suspended states. Threads also have these states except for suspended because it lives in the process's address space.
A process blocks most of the time when it is doing a blocking i/o or waiting for an event.
I can easily picture out a process getting blocked if its single-threaded or if it follows a one-to-many model, but how does it work if the process is multi-threaded?
For example:
I have a process with two threads in a system that follows a one-to-one model. One handles the gui and the other handles the blocking i/o. I know the process remains responsive because the other thread handles the i/o.
So is there by any chance the process gets blocked or should I just rule it out in this case?
I'm just getting into these stuff so forgive me If I haven't understand some of the important details yet.
Let's say you have a work queue where the UI thread schedules work to be done and the I\O thread looks there for work to do. The work queue itself is data that is read and modified from both threads, therefor you must synchronize access somehow or race conditions result.
The naive approach is to synchronize access to the queue using a lock (aka critical section). If the I\O thread acquires the lock and then blocks, the UI thread will only remain responsive until it decides it needs to schedule work and tries to acquire the lock. A better approach is to use a lock-free queue about which much has been written and you can easily search for more info.
But to answer your question, yes, it is still much easier than you might think to cause UI to stutter / hang even when using multiple threads. There are various libraries that make it easier or harder to solve this problem, so depending on your OS and language of choice, there may be something better than just OS primitives. Win32 (from what I remember) doesn't it make it very easy at all despite having all sorts of synchronization primitives. Pthreads and Boost never seemed very straightforward to me either. Apple's GCD makes it semantically much easier to express what you want (in my opinion), though there are still pitfalls one must be aware of (such as scheduling too many blocking operations on a single work queue to be done in parallel and causing the processor to thrash when they all wake up at the same time).
My advice is to just dive in and write lots of multithreaded code. It can be tough to debug but you will learn a lot and eventually it becomes second nature.
So I have built a small application that has a physics engine and a display. The display is attached to a controller which handles the physics engine(well, actually a view model that handles the controller, but details).
Currently the controller is a delegate that gets activated by a begin-invoke and deactivated by a cancellation token, and then reaped by an endinvoke. Inside the lambda brushes PropertyChanged(hooked into INotifyPropertyChanged) which keeps the UI up to date.
From what I understand the BeginInvoke method activates a task rather than another thread(which on my computers does activate another thread, but this isn't a guarantee from the reading I have done,it's up to the thread pool how it wants to get the task completed), which is fine from all the testing I have done. The lambda doesn't complete until a CancellationToken is killed. It has a sleep and an update(so it is sort of simulating a real-time physics engine...it's crude, but I don't need real precision on the real time, just enough to get a feel)
The question I have is, will this work on other computers, or should I switch over to explicit threads that I start and cancel? The scenario I am thinking of is on a 1 core processor, is it possible the second task will get massively less processor time and thereby make my acceptably inaccurate model into something unacceptably inaccurate(i.e. waiting for milliseconds before switching rather than microseconds?). Or is their some better way of doing this that I haven't come up with?
In my experience, using the threadpool in the way you described will pretty much guarantee reasonably optimal performance on most computers, without you having to go to the trouble to figure out how to divvy up the threads.
A thread is not the same thing as a core; you will still get multiple threads on a single-core machine, and those threads will each take part of the processing load. You won't get the "deadlock" condition you describe, unless you do something unusual with the threads, like give one of them real-time priority.
That said, microseconds is not a lot of time for context switching between threads, so YMMV. You'll have to try it, and see how well it works; there may be some tweaking required.
I have time-critical piece of code in my app. I made the thread which runs it Highest priority - that's the most I could do.
Is there any suggestions on how to make part of the code run in this thread to be interrupted as few times as possible (less context switch occurred) ?
The code is not complicated. I replaced all the method calls with inlined code and I don't use anything of high level (like no LINQ). The most of operations are arithmetic. There is only one comparison of strings (I am thinking of ways how to rid of it). Half of maths are with ints and half with doubles.
The code is x86 .NET 4 C#. Runs on single Xenon X3450 W2008R2. Single app server.
(Unfortunately data is coming from 3d party API which doesn't support x64 (hate it!))
I'd appreciate grown-up discussion with experienced developers.
P.S. The server has no paging file so hard page faults wont happen either (no unwanted IO operations).
The only thing you need to worry about in terms of context switches, is blocking your thread. So there should be no problem with using LINQ (that is, LINQ-to-objects, obviously LINQ-to-SQL or whatever would involve blocking!). Any sort of arithmetic or calling methods and so on will also not block the thread and so have no impact on context switches.
The other thing that affects context switching is, as you noted, priority. But not just thread priority, also your process's priority. You can use SetPriorityClass to increase your process's priority to ABOVE_NORMAL_PRIORITY_CLASS (I wouldn't bother putting it higher than that) and then set your thread's priority to Above Normal as well.
However, in general, priorities are really only useful when it's a matter of timing (that is, making sure your process responds to external input (network, user input, disk I/O) as fast as possible). It will actually have very little impact on your thread's actual throughput, unless you have other processes that are also CPU-bound running at the same time. But if that's the case, then fiddling with priorities is not going to be a viable long-term solution anyway. This is because you'll find that by setting one of the processes to a higher priority, it'll completely starve the other processes and they'll never run.
So anyway, I would carefully consider things before adjusting thread and process priorities. And, as always, test, test, test!
If you make that unmanaged WINAPI code instead, the SetThreadPriority function also supports a THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL (higher than THREAD_PRIORITY_HIGHEST).
It's also worth boosting the priority of the process in which the thread is running (actual priority depends on a combination of thread and process priority).
You should also avoid making I/O calls on the thread (which could block). Taking it to a perhaps-ridiculous extreme you could also avoid making I/O calls on other threads (which could temporarily boost the priority of those threads).
How do you make your application multithreaded ?
Do you use asynch functions ?
or do you spawn a new thread ?
I think that asynch functions are already spawning a thread so if your job is doing just some file reading, being lazy and just spawning your job on a thread would just "waste" ressources...
So is there some kind of design when using thread or asynch functions ?
If you are talking about .Net, then don't forget the ThreadPool. The thread pool is also what asynch functions often use. Spawning to much threads can actually hurt your performance. A thread pool is designed to spawn just enough threads to do the work the fastest. So do use a thread pool instead of spwaning your own threads, unless the thread pool doesn't meet your needs.
PS: And keep an eye out on the Parallel Extensions from Microsoft
Spawning threads is only going to waste resources if you start spawning tons of them, one or two extra threads isn't going to effect the platforms proformance, infact System currently has over 70 threads for me, and msn is using 32 (I really have no idea how a messenger can use that many threads, exspecialy when its minimised and not really doing anything...)
Useualy a good time to spawn a thread is when something will take a long time, but you need to keep doing something else.
eg say a calculation will take 30 seconds. The best thing to do is spawn a new thread for the calculation, so that you can continue to update the screen, and handle any user input because users will hate it if your app freezes untill its finished doing the calculation.
On the other hand, creating threads to do something that can be done almost instantly is nearly pointless, since the overhead of creating (or even just passing work to an existing thread using a thread pool) will be higher than just doing the job in the first place.
Sometimes you can break your app into a couple of seprate parts which run in their own threads. For example in games the updates/physics etc may be one thread, while grahpics are another, sound/music is a third, and networking is another. The problem here is you really have to think about how these parts will interact or else you may have worse proformance, bugs that happen seemingly "randomly", or it may even deadlock.
I'll second Fire Lancer's answer - creating your own threads is an excellent way to process big tasks or to handle a task that would otherwise be "blocking" to the rest of synchronous app, but you have to have a clear understanding of the problem that you must solve and develope in a way that clearly defines the task of a thread, and limits the scope of what it does.
For an example I recently worked on - a Java console app runs periodically to capture data by essentially screen-scraping urls, parsing the document with DOM, extracting data and storing it in a database.
As a single threaded application, it, as you would expect, took an age, averaging around 1 url a second for a 50kb page. Not too bad, but when you scale out to needing to processes thousands of urls in a batch, it's no good.
Profiling the app showed that most of the time the active thread was idle - it was waiting for I/O operations - opening of a socket to the remote URL, opening a connection to the database etc. It's this sort of situation that can easily be improved with multithreading. Rewriting to be multi-threaded and with just 5 threads instead of one, even on a single core cpu, gave an increase in throughput of over 20 times.
In this example, each "worker" thread was explicitly limited to what it did - open the remote a remote url, parse the data, store it in the db. All the "high level" processing - generating the list of urls to parse, working out which next, handling errors, all remained with the control of the main thread.
The use of threads makes you think more about the way your application needs threading and can in the long run make it easier to improve / control your performance.
Async methods are faster to use but they are a bit magic - a lot of things happen to make them possible - so it's probable that at some point you will need something that they can't give you. Then you can try and roll some custom threading code.
It all depends on your needs.
The answer is "it depends".
It depends on what you're trying to achieve. I'm going to assume that you're aiming for more performance.
The simplest solution is to find another way to improve your performance. Run a profiler. Look for hot spots. Reduce unnecessary IO.
The next solution is to break your program into multiple processes, each of which can run in their own address space. This is easiest because there is no chance of the individual processes messing each other up.
The next solution is to use threads. At this point you're opening a major can of worms, so start small, and only multi-thread the critical path of the code.
The next solution is to use asynch IO. Generally only recommended for people writing some of very heavily loaded server, and even then I would rather re-use one of the existing frameworks that abstract away the details e.g. the C++ framework ICE, or an EJB server under java.
Note that each of these solutions has multiple sub-solutions - there are different breeds of threads and different kinds of asynch IO, each with slightly different performance characteristics, but again, it's generally best to let the framework handle it for you.