I have multiple threads being invoked by say several other processes at the same time. Generally the thumb rule for max. number of threads that a processor can start giving performance efficiency is no. of threads = no. of processors + 1 (not sure though). All the modern applications maintain a threadpool and keep on re-using threads at any particular instance.
How can we make sure that performance won't degrade due to this. Because when it goes beyond the limit, threads keep on context switching and at any singe point, none of them will be executing the critical section of the code.
The number of threads is more dependend on the resources it uses.
If the thread processes data from disk or network, it depends on how long it has to wait on that resources. During the wait another thread can do some work.
For pure number crunching I would say one thread per processer/core.
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.
Imagine that I have two tasks, each of them needs 2 seconds to finish its job.
In this case, if I create two threads for each of them and my PC is single-core, this won't save any time. Am I right ?
What if I use fork to create two processes (the machine is still single-core) and each process takes charge of one task ? Can this save any time ?
If not, I have a question:
In current modern machine (including multi-core), if I have several heavy tasks, which method should I use ?
fork ?
thread ?
fork + thread, meaning that create some processes and
each process contains more than one thread ?
Even with a single core having two threads may speed up execution. If your routine is purely CPU bound then two threads won't improve anything, indeed the performance will be worse because of context switching overhead. But if the routine has to wait for memory, disk or or network (which is usually the case) then two threads will provide performance gains even with a single core.
About fork vs threads, threads require less resources so, in principle, should be the first choice. But there are two caveats: 1) maybe you want to be able to terminate a parallel routine, this is much safer to do with processes than with threads and 2) some languages (notably Python and Ruby) provide pseudo-thread libraries which do not use real threads but switch between routines using the same thread. This simulated threading can be very useful for example when waiting for network requests but it must be taken into account that it's not real multithreading.
Amendment: As commented by Sergio Tulentsev, Ruby and Python do indeed provide real threads and not only coroutines.
"job takes 2 seconds" - If those 2 seconds are fully occupying the CPU (100% load), you won't gain anything with either thread nor fork if you have no cores to share. The single-core CPU is simply busy and you cannnot make it more busy.
In case this 2 seconds include waiting time (for example on I/O, storage, whatever) you could gain something, even with a single core. The amount of gain depends on the CPU working vs. CPU waiting ratio and the overhead of your multiprocessing. Most non-trivial programs have at least some amount of "CPU waiting", so multithreading is often useful even on single-core CPUs.
This overhead for setting up a coroutine and context switching can be considerable and needs to be measured. Obviously, the shorter the run time of your actiual task is, the larger will be the ratio of overhead (for setting up a thread or process, etc.) and the smaller will be you multi-processing gain.
Traditionally, threads used to have considerably less overhead than processes (after all, that was why they were invented), but the "considerably" has maybe vanished over time - On modern Linux systems, processes are only a tad slower to set up than threads (actually, both use the same system calls). You rather decide between thread or process based on the requirements related to amount of protection (or sharing) of data than execution speed.
All is entirely theoretical, the question just came to mind and I wasn't entirely sure whats the answer:
Assume you have an application that calculates 4 independent calculations. (Totally independent, doesn't matter what order you do them and you don't need one to calculate another).
Also assume those calculations are long (minutes) and CPU-bound (not waiting for any kind of IO)
1) Now, if you have a 1-processor computer, a single thread application will logically be faster than (or the same as) a multithreaded application. As the computer not able to do more then one thing at a time with one processor, it would "waste" time on context switching and the likes.
So far so good?
2) If you have a 4 processor computer, 4 threads will mostly likely be faster for this than single thread. Right? your computer can now do 4 operations at a time so its just logical to divide your application to 4 threads, and it should complete with the time the longest of the 4 calculations take.
Still good so far?
3) And now the actual part I am confused about - why would I EVER have my application create more threads than the number of processors (well actually - cores) available? I have programmed and have seen applications that create tens and hundreds of threads, but actually - the perfect number is about 8 for an average computer?
P.S. I already read this: Threading vs single thread
but didn't quiet answer that.
Cheers
Why would I EVER have my application create more threads than the number of processors (well actually - cores) available?
One very good reason is if you have threads that wait on events. For example you might have a producer/consumer application in which the producer is reading from some data stream, and that data arrives in bursts: a few hundred (or thousand) records in a batch, followed by nothing for a while, and then another burst. Say you have a 4-core machine. You could have a single producer thread that reads the data and places it in a queue, and three consumer threads to process the queue.
Or, you could have a single producer thread and four consumer threads. Most of the time, the producer thread is idle, giving you four consumer threads to process items from the queue. But when items are available on the data stream, one of the consumer threads gets swapped out in favor of the producer.
That's a simplified example, but substantially similar to programs that I have in production.
More generally, it doesn't make any sense to create more continuously-working (i.e. CPU bound) threads than you have processing units (CPU cores in general, although the existence of hyperthreading muddies the waters a bit). If you know that your threads won't be waiting on external events, then having n+1 threads when you only have n cores will end up wasting time with thread context switches. Note that this is strictly in the context of your program. If there are other applications and OS services running, your application's threads will get swapped out from time to time so that those other apps and services can get a timeslice. But one assumes that, if you're running a CPU-intensive program, you'll limit the other apps and services that are running at the same time.
Your best bet, of course, is to set up a test. On a 4-core machine, test your app with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... threads. Time how long it takes to complete with different numbers of threads. I think you'll find that on a 4-core machine the sweet spot will be 3 or 4; most likely 4 unless there are other apps or OS services that take a lot of CPU.
One reason i could come up with for more threads than cores would be if some threads needed to interface with other parties... waiting for a response from a server.. querying something from the database. This will allow the thread to sleep until an answer is provided. this way other computations wouldn't have to wait. in the 4cores->4thread the thread would wait for input which possibly causes other code to have to wait too
Adding threads to your application is not strictly about performance gains. Some times you want or need to perform more than one task at the same time because that is the most logical way to architect your program.
As an example, perhaps you are writing a game engine, if you take a multi-threaded approach, you may have one thread for physics, one thread for graphics, one thread for networking, one thread for user input, one thread for resource loading from disk etc.
Also James Baxters point is very true as well. Some times threads are waiting on a resource and can not execute further until they access said resource. With only the same number of threads as cores, one core would be going to waste.
I think you are assuming that all programs are CPU bound - remember some of your threads will be waiting for I/O (disk/network/user traffic).
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.
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.