Can anyone help me out I am working on a presentation and would like to include a bit about - 'The difference between multicore and concurrent programming', I have googled a bit but not turning up many good descriptions, any help appreciated! :)
Thanks,
Eamonn
Concurrent (occurring or existing simultaneously) implies that different code MAY execute at the exact same cycle. It means that things can possibly happen in parallel if multiple processors or a processor with multiple cores is available and the program is crafted correctly. Just adding threads does not imply concurrent execution.
The reason I say MAY and possibly is that anytime the programs separate threads need to share volatile/mutable state, other threads that need access to that state can not continue executing and will have to wait their turn to access that state, and things start happening serially again.
Typically this is implemented in a single program as more than one thread executing code concurrently at the same exact cycle as another thread, given that there is no resource contentions as listed above. This requires multiple physical processors or cores. Other models run multiple heavyweight OS processes that can execute concurrently.
Concurrent programming is very hard to do correctly with mutable shared state.
You can write a concurrent program
that runs serially on a single single
core processor, but scales up to
execute more things at the same time
when more processors or cores, or even
multiple processors with multiple
cores is present.
You can also cause single threaded programs to appear concurrent on a multi-core / multi-processor system if they can operate on independent ranges of input data at the same time. Example: a single threaded 3D rendering program can on a dual core machine can run 2 separate instances the first rendering all the odd frames and the second rendering all the even frames. As long as they don't try to share any mutable resources.
Multi-core means that a single CPU has multiple Processor cores that can execute threads or processes concurrently and typically appears as multiple processors to mainstream operating systems.
It does NOT imply that programs that are single threaded gain any concurrency behaviors or benefits from the additional processor cores available.
Concurrent Programming is more broad - it just refers to writing software that will run "concurrently" - ie: more than one thing will happen at a time.
"Multi-core" programming is really referring to a specific subset of concurrent programming, in which you are targetting multiple available CPU cores on a specific machine. This is the most common form of concurrent programming (typically single process running on a single computer), but still only one form of concurrent programming.
You can do concurrent programming on a machine that has only a single CPU core. The operating system provides the illusion that more than one thread is running at the same time, it rapidly switches back-and-forth between them.
A machine with multiple cores simply needs to this context switching less often since two threads can run at the same time on two cores. It is only a bit special because threading bugs can make your life difficult much quicker. The odds that two threads try to access a shared memory location at the same time is much higher.
At a high level, multi-core is an attribute of the processor chip in your computer. Multi core means it has got multiple processing cores. There are several types of multi-processor computers: the old style super computers with thousands of computers connected via ethernet, systems with more than processors (like 2 Pentium 4s), and contemporary multi-core systems where every processor package has multiple processing cores 9like Intel i7). The third type is often called multi-core of Chip Multiprocessor (CMP).
Concurrent programming is an attribute of software. Concurrent programming is about writing code which has is split into multiple tasks that can execute concurrently if processors are available. While concurrent programs do leverage multi-core, concurrent programming is broader in two dimensions:
Concurrent programs can run on a single core or multiple cores.
Concurrent programs can be used on any type of multi-processors I mentioned above.
Thus, to summarize:
Concurrent programming is about software that can use multiple processors if available. those processors can be on the same chip (multi-core or Chip Multiprocessor) or on different chips (often known as SMP). You can have systems where you can put two multi-core chips in the same system making it a CMP and an SMP at the same time. Concurrent programming will work for that as well.
Concurrent programming regards operations that appear to overlap and is primarily concerned with the complexity that arises due to non-deterministic control flow. The quantitative costs associated with concurrent programs are typically both throughput and latency. Concurrent programs are often IO bound but not always, e.g. concurrent garbage collectors are entirely on-CPU. The pedagogical example of a concurrent program is a web crawler. This program initiates requests for web pages and accepts the responses concurrently as the results of the downloads become available, accumulating a set of pages that have already been visited. Control flow is non-deterministic because the responses are not necessarily received in the same order each time the program is run. This characteristic can make it very hard to debug concurrent programs. Some applications are fundamentally concurrent, e.g. web servers must handle client connections concurrently. Erlang, F# asynchronous workflows and Scala's Akka library are perhaps the most promising approaches to highly concurrent programming.
Multicore programming is a special case of parallel programming. Parallel programming concerns operations that are overlapped for the specific goal of improving throughput. The difficulties of concurrent programming are evaded by making control flow deterministic. Typically, programs spawn sets of child tasks that run in parallel and the parent task only continues once every subtask has finished. This makes parallel programs much easier to debug than concurrent programs. The hard part of parallel programming is performance optimization with respect to issues such as granularity and communication. The latter is still an issue in the context of multicores because there is a considerable cost associated with transferring data from one cache to another. Dense matrix-matrix multiply is a pedagogical example of parallel programming and it can be solved efficiently by using Straasen's divide-and-conquer algorithm and attacking the sub-problems in parallel. Cilk is perhaps the most promising approach for high-performance parallel programming on multicores and it has been adopted in both Intel's Threaded Building Blocks and Microsoft's Task Parallel Library (in .NET 4).
Related
Recently I had confusion with understanding concepts: multithreading, concurrency, and parallelism. In order to reduce confusion, I've tried to organize my understanding about these and drawn my conclusion. My question is,
Is there a misunderstanding or something wrong from conclusion below?
References I took can be found here.
1. Concurrency and parallelism are different level of category.
It is not either concurrent or parallelism. It is either concurrent or not, and either parallel or not.
For example,
Not concurrent (Sequential) / Not parallel
Not concurrent (Sequential) / Parallel
Concurrent / Not parallel
Concurrent / Parallel
2. Parallelism is not subset of concurrency.
3. How does threading or multithreading relates to concurrency and parallelism?
Definition of thread clarifies this. Thread is "unit of execution flow". This "execution flow" can be managed independently by a scheduler, which is typically a part of the operating system.
Having a thread means having one unit of execution flow.
Having multiple threads (Multithreading) means having multiple units of execution flow.
And,
Having multiple units of execution flow is having multiple things making progress, which is definition of concurrency.
And,
Multiple units of execution flow is done by time slicing in single core hardware environment.
Multiple units of execution flow is done in parallel in multi core hardware environment.
4. Is multithreading concurrent or parallel?
Multithreading, or having multiple units of execution flow, is concurrent.
Multithreading itself is just having multiple units of execution flow. This has nothing to do with parallelism.
How operating system deals with multiple units of execution flow relates to parallelism.
Parallelism is achieved by operating system and hardware environment.
"Code can be concurrent, but not parallel." (Parallelism implies concurrency but not the other way round right?, stackexchange)
Detailed description will be truly appreciated.
Parallelism Refers to any system in which a single application can make use of more computing hardware than a single CPU can provide. There are a number of different types of parallel computing architecture, but when people say "parallelism" they often are talking about one in particular...
...A Symmetric MultiProcessing (SMP) system is a computer with one memory system, and two or more traditional CPUs that have equal access to it. Most modern workstations, most mobile devices, and many server systems* are SMP.
Multithreading is a model of concurrent computing.** A computer scientist might tell you that two threads run concurrently when the order in which the operations they perform are interleaved is not strictly determined by the program itself. A software developer is more likely to say that two threads run concurrently with each other when both threads have been started and neither of them has finished.
One way to achieve parallelism in an application running on an SMP system is to use multiple concurrent threads.
* Some servers are NUMA, which is a close cousin to SMP. In a NUMA system, the CPUs all access the same memory system, just like in SMP, except that each CPU "owns" part of the physical memory space, and it can access its own memory locations more quickly than it can access memory locations that are owned by other CPUs.
** There are other models of concurrent computing. Some, such as Actors, are used in production software. Others are mostly of academic interest.
Erlang's Characteristics
From Erlang Programming (2009):
Erlang concurrency is fast and scalable. Its processes are lightweight in that the Erlang virtual machine does not create an OS thread for every created process. They are created, scheduled, and handled in the VM, independent of underlying operating system. As a result, process creation time is of the order of microseconds and independent of the number of concurrently existing processes. Compare this with Java and C#, where for every process an underlying OS thread is created: you will get some very competitive comparisons, with Erlang greatly outperforming both languages.
From Concurrency oriented programming in Erlang (pdf) (slides) (2003):
We observe that the time taken to create an Erlang process is constant 1µs up to 2,500 processes; thereafter it increases to about 3µs for up to 30,000 processes. The performance of Java and C# is shown at the top of the figure. For a small number of processes it takes about 300µs to create a process. Creating more than two thousand processes is impossible.
We see that for up to 30,000 processes the time to send a message between two Erlang processes is about 0.8µs. For C# it takes about 50µs per message, up to the maximum number of processes (which was about 1800 processes). Java was even worse, for up to 100 process it took about 50µs per message thereafter it increased rapidly to 10ms per message when there were about 1000 Java processes.
My thoughts
I don't fully understand technically why Erlang processes are so much more efficient in spawning new processes and have much smaller memory footprints per process. Both the OS and Erlang VM have to do scheduling, context switches, and keep track of the values in the registers and so on...
Simply why aren't OS threads implemented in the same way as processes in Erlang? Do they have to support something more? And why do they need a bigger memory footprint? And why do they have slower spawning and communication?
Technically, why are processes in Erlang more efficient than OS threads when it comes to spawning and communication? And why can't threads in the OS be implemented and managed in the same efficient way? And why do OS threads have a bigger memory footprint, plus slower spawning and communication?
More reading
Inside the Erlang VM with focus on SMP (2008)
Concurrency in Java and in Erlang (pdf) (2004)
Performance Measurements of Threads in Java and Processes in Erlang (1998)
There are several contributing factors:
Erlang processes are not OS processes. They are implemented by the Erlang VM using a lightweight cooperative threading model (preemptive at the Erlang level, but under the control of a cooperatively scheduled runtime). This means that it is much cheaper to switch context, because they only switch at known, controlled points and therefore don't have to save the entire CPU state (normal, SSE and FPU registers, address space mapping, etc.).
Erlang processes use dynamically allocated stacks, which start very small and grow as necessary. This permits the spawning of many thousands — even millions — of Erlang processes without sucking up all available RAM.
Erlang used to be single-threaded, meaning that there was no requirement to ensure thread-safety between processes. It now supports SMP, but the interaction between Erlang processes on the same scheduler/core is still very lightweight (there are separate run queues per core).
After some more research I found a presentation by Joe Armstrong.
From Erlang - software for a concurrent world (presentation) (at 13 min):
[Erlang] is a concurrent language – by that I mean that threads are part of the programming language, they do not belong to the operating system. That's really what's wrong with programming languages like Java and C++. It's threads aren't in the programming language, threads are something in the operating system – and they inherit all the problems that they have in the operating system. One of the problems is granularity of the memory management system. The memory management in the operating system protects whole pages of memory, so the smallest size that a thread can be is the smallest size of a page. That's actually too big.
If you add more memory to your machine – you have the same number of bits that protects the memory so the granularity of the page tables goes up – you end up using say 64kB for a process you know running in a few hundred bytes.
I think it answers if not all, at least a few of my questions
I've implemented coroutines in assembler, and measured performance.
Switching between coroutines, a.k.a. Erlang processes, takes about 16 instructions and 20 nanoseconds on a modern processor. Also, you often know the process you are switching to (example: a process receiving a message in its queue can be implemented as straight hand-off from the calling process to the receiving process) so the scheduler doesn't come into play, making it an O(1) operation.
To switch OS threads, it takes about 500-1000 nanoseconds, because you're calling down to the kernel. The OS thread scheduler might run in O(log(n)) or O(log(log(n))) time, which will start to be noticeable if you have tens of thousands, or even millions of threads.
Therefore, Erlang processes are faster and scale better because both the fundamental operation of switching is faster, and the scheduler runs less often.
Erlang processes correspond (approximately) to green threads in other languages; there's no OS-enforced separation between the processes. (There may well be language-enforced separation, but that's a lesser protection despite Erlang doing a better job than most.) Because they're so much lighter-weight, they can be used far more extensively.
OS threads on the other hand are able to be simply scheduled on different CPU cores, and are (mostly) able to support independent CPU-bound processing. OS processes are like OS threads, but with much stronger OS-enforced separation. The price of these capabilities is that OS threads and (even more so) processes are more expensive.
Another way to understand the difference is this. Supposing you were going to write an implementation of Erlang on top of the JVM (not a particularly crazy suggestion) then you'd make each Erlang process be an object with some state. You'd then have a pool of Thread instances (typically sized according to the number of cores in your host system; that's a tunable parameter in real Erlang runtimes BTW) which run the Erlang processes. In turn, that will distribute the work that is to be done across the real system resources available. It's a pretty neat way of doing things, but relies utterly on the fact that each individual Erlang process doesn't do very much. That's OK of course; Erlang is structured to not require those individual processes to be heavyweight since it is the overall ensemble of them which execute the program.
In many ways, the real problem is one of terminology. The things that Erlang calls processes (and which correspond strongly to the same concept in CSP, CCS, and particularly the π-calculus) are simply not the same as the things that languages with a C heritage (including C++, Java, C#, and many others) call a process or a thread. There are some similarities (all involve some notion of concurrent execution) but there's definitely no equivalence. So be careful when someone says “process” to you; they might understand it to mean something utterly different…
I think Jonas wanted some numbers on comparing OS threads to Erlang processes. The author of Programming Erlang, Joe Armstrong, a while back tested the scalability of the spawning of Erlang processes to OS threads. He wrote a simple web server in Erlang and tested it against multi-threaded Apache (since Apache uses OS threads). There's an old website with the data dating back to 1998. I've managed only to find that site exactly once. So I can't supply a link. But the information is out there. The main point of the study showed that Apache maxed out just under 8K processes, while his hand written Erlang server handled 10K+ processes.
Because Erlang interpreter has only to worry about itself, the OS has many other things to worry about.
one of the reason is erlang process is created not in the OS, but in the evm(erlang virtual machine), so the cost is smaller.
What is the meaning of "parallel software" and what are the differences between "parallel software" and "regular software"?
What are its advantages and disadvantages?
Does writing "parallel software" require a specific hardware or programming language ?
Are the "parallel software" requires a specified hardware or programing language ?
Yes and Yes.
The first one is trivially easy. Most modern CPU's (Say anything newer than m6800) have hardware features that make it possible to do more than one thing at a time, though not necessarily both at the same time. For instance, when a timer interrupt goes off, a CPU could save what it's doing, and then start doing something else. Those tasks run concurrently.
Even without that, you could just get two machines with some sort of connection to each other (like a simple serial connection via a Null modem adapter) and they can both work on the same task in parallel.
Most new (not just modern but recent) CPU's have parallel computing resources built in. These multi-core CPU's can actually be working on two or more tasks at the same time, one task per core, and have special features that make it a bit more efficient for those tasks to cooperate.
The second one, requiring special software tools such as a parallel enabled language, is in some ways the hardest part of parallel computing. If you're the only person in the kitchen, it's pretty easy to cook a meal, by following each recipe from start to finish, one after the next, until all dishes are cooked. If you want to speed that up by adding more cooks, you have to be a bit more careful to not step on each other's toes.
The simplest way this is handled is by using a threading library that offers some tools so that multiple tasks can arrange to not clobber each other. This is not as easy as flagging a program as parallel and the system takes care of the rest, rather, you have to write each task to communicate with every other task at every place where there is the possibility of them interfering.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science)
In computer science, a thread of
execution results from a fork of a
computer program into two or more
concurrently running tasks. The
implementation of threads and
processes differs from one operating
system to another, but in most cases,
a thread is contained inside a
process. Multiple threads can exist
within the same process and share
resources such as memory, while
different processes do not share these
resources.
Most modern programming languages support multithreading in one way or another (even Javascript in the newest versions). :-)
Advantages and Disadvantages can depend on the task. If you have a lot of processing that you need to do, then multithreading can help you break that up into smaller units of work that each CPU can work on independently at the same time. However, multithreaded code will generally be more complex to write and maintain than single threaded code.
You can still write/run multithreaded code on a machine that has only one processor. Although there will only be one processor to execute the tasks, the operating system will ensure that they happen simultaneously by rapidly switching context and executing a few instructions for each thread at a time.
Some specialized hardware you may be familiar with which does parallel tasks is the GPU which can be found on most new computers. In this video, the Mythbusters demonstrate the difference between drawing on a single-threaded CPU, and a multi-threaded GPU:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XtGf0HaW7x4&feature=player_embedded
parallel software can natively take advantage on multiple cores/cpus on a computer or sometimes across multiple computers. Examples include graphics rendering software and circuit design software.
Not so sure about disadvantages other than multi-processor aware software tends to be a CPU hog.
can we use interchangeably "Parallel coding" and "Multithreading coding " on single cpu?
i am not much experience in both,
but i want to shift my coding style to any one of the above.
As i found now a days many single thred application are obsolete, which would be better for future software industy as a career prospect?
There is definitely overlap between multithreading and parallel coding/computing, with the main differences in the target processing architecture.
Multithreading has been used to exploit the benefits of concurrency within a single process on a single CPU with shared memory. Running the same programs on a machine with multiple CPUs may result in significant speedup, but is often a bonus rather than intended (until recently). Many OSes have threading models (e.g. pthreads), which benefit from but do not require multiple CPUs.
Multiprocessing is the standard model for parallel programming targeting multiple CPUs, from early SMP machines with many CPUs on a big machine, then to cluster computing across many machines, and now back to many CPUs/cores on a single computer. MPI is a standard that can work across many different architectures.
Of course, one can program a parallel design using threads with language frameworks like OpenMP. I've heard of multicomponent GUIs/applications that rely on separate processing that could theoretically run anywhere. Practically, there's more of the former than the latter.
Probably the main distinction is when the program runs across multiple machines, where it's not practical to use multithreading, and existing applications that share memory will not work.
Parallel coding is the concept of executing multiple actions in parallel(Same time).
Multi-threaded Programming on a Single Processor
Multi-threading on a single processor gives the illusion of running in parallel. Behind the scenes, the processor is switching between threads depending on how threads have been prioritized.
Multi-threaded Programming on Multiple Processors
Multi-threading on multiple processor cores is truly parallel. Each microprocessor is running a single thread. Consequently, there are multiple parallel, concurrent tasks happening at once.
The question is a bit confusing as you can perform parallel operations in multiple threads, but all multi-thread applications are not using parallel computing.
In parallel code, you typically have many "workers" that consume a set of data to return results asynchronously. But multithread is used in a broader scope, like GUI, blocking I/O and networking.
Being on a single or many CPU does not change much, as the management depends on how your OS can handle threads and processes.
Multithreading will be useful everywhere, parallel is not everyday computing paradigm, so it might be a "niche" in a career prospect.
Some demos I saw in .NET 4.0, the Parallel code changes seem easier then doing threads. There is new syntax for "For Loops" and other things to support parallel processing. So there is a difference.
I think in the future you will do both, but I think the Parallel support will be better and easier. You still need threads for background operations and other things.
The fact is that you cannot achieve "real" parallelism on a single CPU. There are several libraries (such as C's MPI) that help a little bit on this area. But the concept of paralellism it's not that used among developers working on popular solutions.
Multithreading is common these days thanks to the introduction of multiple cores on a single CPU, it's easy and almost transparent to implement in every language thanks to thread libs and threadsafe types, methods, classes and so on. This way you can simulate paralellism.
Anyway, if you're starting with this, start by reading about concurrency and threading topics. And of course, threads + parallelism work good together.
I'm not sure about what do you think "Parallel coding" is but Parallel coding as I understand it refers to producing code which is executed in parallel by the CPU, and therefore Multithreaded code falls inside that description.
In that way, obviously you can use them interchangeably (as one falls inside the other).
Nonetheless I'll suggest you take it slowly and start learning from the basics. Understand WHY multithreading is becoming important, what's the difference between processes, threads and fibers, how do you synchronize either of them and so on.
Keep in mind that parallel coding, as you call it, is quite complex, specially compared to sequential coding so be prepared. Also don't just rush into it. Just because you use 3 threads instead of one won't make your program faster, it can even make it slower. You need to understand the hows and the whys. Not every thing can be made parallel and not everthing that can, should.
in simple Language
multithreading is available in the CPu by itself and
parallel programming is an explicit task either done by the compiler or my constructs written by programmers "#pragma"
I was very confused but the following thread cleared my doubts:
Multiprocessing, Multithreading,HyperThreading, Multi-core
But it addresses the queries from the hardware point of view. I want to know how these hardware features are mapped to software?
One thing that is obvious is that there is no difference between MultiProcessor(=Mutlicpu) and MultiCore other than that in multicore all cpus reside on one chip(die) where as in Multiprocessor all cpus are on their own chips & connected together.
So, mutlicore/multiprocessor systems are capable of executing multiple processes (firefox,mediaplayer,googletalk) at the "sametime" (unlike context switching these processes on a single processor system) Right?
If it correct. I'm clear so far. But the confusion arises when multithreading comes into picture.
MultiThreading "is for" parallel processing. right?
What are elements that are involved in multithreading inside cpu? diagram? For me to exploit the power of parallel processing of two independent tasks, what should be the requriements of CPU?
When people say context switching of threads. I don't really get it. because if its context switching of threads then its not parallel processing. the threads must be executed "scrictly simultaneously". right?
My notion of multithreading is that:
Considering a system with single cpu. when process is context switched to firefox. (suppose) each tab of firefox is a thread and all the threads are executing strictly at the same time. Not like one thread has executed for sometime then again another thread has taken until the context switch time is arrived.
What happens if I run a multithreaded software on a processor which can't handle threads? I mean how does the cpu handle such software?
If everything is good so far, now question is HOW MANY THREADS? It must be limited by hardware, I guess? If hardware can support only 2 threads and I start 10 threads in my process. How would cpu handle it? Pros/Cons? From software engineering point of view, while developing a software that will be used by the users in wide variety of systems, Then how would I decide should I go for multithreading? if so, how many threads?
First, try to understand the concept of 'process' and 'thread'. A thread is a basic unit for execution: a thread is scheduled by operating system and executed by CPU. A process is a sort of container that holds multiple threads.
Yes, either multi-processing or multi-threading is for parallel processing. More precisely, to exploit thread-level parallelism.
Okay, multi-threading could mean hardware multi-threading (one example is HyperThreading). But, I assume that you just say multithreading in software. In this sense, CPU should support context switching.
Context switching is needed to implement multi-tasking even in a physically single core by time division.
Say there are two physical cores and four very busy threads. In this case, two threads are just waiting until they will get the chance to use CPU. Read some articles related to preemptive OS scheduling.
The number of thread that can physically run in concurrent is just identical to # of logical processors. You are asking a general thread scheduling problem in OS literature such as round-robin..
I strongly suggest you to study basics of operating system first. Then move on multithreading issues. It seems like you're still unclear for the key concepts such as context switching and scheduling. It will take a couple of month, but if you really want to be an expert in computer software, then you should know such very basic concepts. Please take whatever OS books and lecture slides.
Threads running on the same core are not technically parallel. They only appear to be executed in parallel, as the CPU switches between them very fast (for us, humans). This switch is what is called context switch.
Now, threads executing on different cores are executed in parallel.
Most modern CPUs have a number of cores, however, most modern OSes (windows, linux and friends) usually execute much larger number of threads, which still causes context switches.
Even if no user program is executed, still OS itself performs context switches for maintanance work.
This should answer 1-3.
About 4: basically, every processor can work with threads. it is much more a characteristic of operating system. Thread is basically: memory (optional), stack and registers, once those are replaced you are in another thread.
5: the number of threads is pretty high and is limited by OS. Usually it is higher than regular programmer can successfully handle :)
The number of threads is dictated by your program:
is it IO bound?
can the task be divided into a number of smaller tasks?
how small is the task? the task can be too small to make it worth to spawn threads at all.
synchronization: if extensive synhronization is required, the penalty might be too heavy and you should reduce the number of threads.
Multiple threads are separate 'chains' of commands within one process. From CPU point of view threads are more or less like processes. Each thread has its own set of registers and its own stack.
The reason why you can have more threads than CPUs is that most threads don't need CPU all the time. Thread can be waiting for user input, downloading something from the web or writing to disk. While it is doing that, it does not need CPU, so CPU is free to execute other threads.
In your example, each tab of Firefox probably can even have several threads. Or they can share some threads. You need one for downloading, one for rendering, one for message loop (user input), and perhaps one to run Javascript. You cannot easily combine them because while you download you still need to react to user's input. However, download thread is sleeping most of the time, and even when it's downloading it needs CPU only occasionally, and message loop thread only wakes up when you press a button.
If you go to task manager you'll see that despite all these threads your CPU use is still quite low.
Of course if all your threads do some number-crunching tasks, then you shouldn't create too many of them as you get no performance benefit (though there may be architectural benefits!).
However, if they are mainly I/O bound then create as many threads as your architecture dictates. It's hard to give advice without knowing your particular task.
Broadly speaking, yeah, but "parallel" can mean different things.
It depends what tasks you want to run in parallel.
Not necessarily. Some (indeed most) threads spend a lot of time doing nothing. Might as well switch away from them to a thread that wants to do something.
The OS handles thread switching. It will delegate to different cores if it wants to. If there's only one core it'll divide time between the different threads and processes.
The number of threads is limited by software and hardware. Threads consume processor and memory in varying degrees depending on what they're doing. The thread management software may impose its own limits as well.
The key thing to remember is the separation between logical/virtual parallelism and real/hardware parallelism. With your average OS, a system call is performed to spawn a new thread. What actually happens (whether it is mapped to a different core, a different hardware thread on the same core, or queued into the pool of software threads) is up to the OS.
Parallel processing uses all the methods not just multi-threading.
Generally speaking, if you want to have real parallel processing, you need to perform it in hardware. Take the example of the Niagara, it has up to 8-cores each capable of executing 4-threads in hardware.
Context switching is needed when there are more threads than is capable of being executed in parallel in hardware. Even then, when executed in series (switching between one thread to the next), they are considered concurrent because there is no guarantee on the order of switching. So, it may go T0, T1, T2, T1, T3, T0, T2 and so on. For all intents and purposes, the threads are parallel.
Time slicing.
That would be up to the OS.
Multithreading is the execution of more than one thread at a time. It can happen both on single core processors and the multicore processor systems. For single processor systems, context switching effects it. Look!Context switching in this computational environment refers to time slicing by the operating system. Therefore do not get confused. The operating system is the one that controls the execution of other programs. It allows one program to execute in the CPU at a time. But the frequency at which the threads are switched in and out of the CPU determines the transparency of parallelism exhibited by the system.
For multicore environment,multithreading occurs when each core executes a thread.Though,in multicore again,context switching can occur in the individual cores.
I think answers so far are pretty much to the point and give you a good basic context. In essence, say you have quad core processor, but each core is capable of executing 2 simultaneous threads.
Note, that there is only slight (or no) increase of speed if you are running 2 simultaneous threads on 1 core versus you run 1st thread and then 2nd thread vertically. However, each physical core adds speed to your general workflow.
Now, say you have a process running on your OS that has multiple threads (i.e. needs to run multiple things in "parallel") and has some kind of stack of tasks in a queue (or some other system with priority rules). Then software sends tasks to a queue and your processor attempts to execute them as fast as it can. Now you have 2 cases:
If a software supports multiprocessing, then tasks will be sent to any available processor (that is not doing anything or simply finished doing some other job and job send from your software is 1st in a queue).
If your software does not support multiprocessing, then all of your jobs will be done in a similar manner, but only by one of your cores.
I suggest reading Wikipedia page on thread. Very first picture there already gives you a nice insight. :)