Normally it is said that multi threaded programs are non-deterministic, meaning that if it crashes it will be next to impossible to recreate the error that caused the condition. One doesn't ever really know what thread is going to run next, and when it will be preempted again.
Of course this has to do with the OS thread scheduling algorithm and the fact that one doesn't know what thread is going to be run next, and how long it will effectively run.
Program execution order also plays a role as well, etc...
But what if you had the algorithm used for thread scheduling and what if you could know when what thread is running, could a multi threaded program then become "deterministic", as in, you'll be able to reproduce a crash?
Knowing the algorithm will not actually allow you to predict what will happen when. All kinds of delays that happen in the execution of a program or thread are dependent on environmental conditions such as: available memory, swapping, incoming interrupts, other busy tasks, etc.
If you were to map your multi-threaded program to a sequential execution, and your threads in themselves behave deterministically, then your whole program could be deterministic and 'concurrency' issues could be made reproducible. Of course, at that point they would not be concurrency issues any more.
If you would like to learn more, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_calculus is very interesting reading.
My opinion is: technically no (but mathematically yes). You can write deterministic threading algorithm, but it will be extremely hard to predict state of the application after some sensible amount of time that you can treat it is non-deterministic.
There are some tools (in development) that will try to create race-conditions in a somewhat predictable manner but this is about forward-looking testing, not about reconstructing a 'bug in the wild'.
CHESS is an example.
It would be possible to run a program on a virtual multi-threaded machine where the allocation of virtual cycles to each thread was done via some entirely deterministic process, possibly using a pseudo-random generator (which could be seeded with a constant before each program run). Another, possibly more interesting, possibility would be to have a virtual machine which would alternate between running threads in 'splatter' mode (where almost any variable they touch would have its value become 'unknown' to other threads) and 'cleanup' mode (where results of operations with known operands would be visible and known to other threads). I would expect the situation would probably be somewhat analogous to hardware simulation: if the output of every gate is regarded as "unknown" between its minimum and maximum propagation times, but the simulation works anyway, that's a good indication the design is robust, but there are many useful designs which could not be constructed to work in such simulations (the states would be essentially guaranteed to evolve into a valid combination, though one could not guarantee which one). Still, it might be an interesting avenue of exploration, since large parts of many programs could be written to work correctly even in a 'splatter mode' VM.
I don't think it is practicable. To enforce a specific thread interleaving we require to place locks on shared variables, forcing the threads to access them in a specific order. This would cause severe performance degradation.
Replaying concurrency bugs is usually handled by record&replay systems. Since the recording of such large amounts of information also degrades performance, the most recent systems do partial logging and later complete the thread interleavings using SMT solving. I believe that the most recent advance in this type of systems is Symbiosis (published in this year's PLDI conference). Tou can find open source implementations in this URL:
http://www.gsd.inesc-id.pt/~nmachado/software/Symbiosis_Tutorial.html
This is actually a valid requirement in many systems today which want to execute tasks parallelly but also want some determinism from time to time.
For example, a mobile company would want to process subscription events of multiple users parallelly but would want to execute events of a single user one at a time.
One solution is to of course write everything to get executed on a single thread. Another solution is deterministic threading. I have written a simple library in Java that can be used to achieve the behavior I have described in the above example. Take a look at this- https://github.com/mukulbansal93/deterministic-threading.
Now, having said that, the actual allocation of CPU to a thread or process is in the hands of the OS. So, it is possible that the threads get the CPU cycles in a different order every time you run the same program. So, you cannot achieve the determinism in the order the threads are allocated CPU cycles. However, by delegating tasks effectively amongst threads such that sequential tasks are assigned to a single thread, you can achieve determinism in overall task execution.
Also, to answer your question about the simulation of a crash. All modern CPU scheduling algorithms are free from starvation. So, each and every thread is bound to get guaranteed CPU cycles. Now, it is possible that your crash was a result of the execution of a certain sequence of threads on a single CPU. There is no way to rerun that same execution order or rather the same CPU cycle allocation order. However, the combination of modern CPU scheduling algorithms being starvation-free and Murphy's law will help you simulate the error if you run your code enough times.
PS, the definition of enough times is quite vague and depends on a lot of factors like execution cycles need by the entire program, number of threads, etc. Mathematically speaking, a crude way to calculate the probability of simulating the same error caused by the same execution sequence is on a single processor is-
1/Number of ways to execute all atomic operations of all defined threads
For instance, a program with 2 threads with 2 atomic instructions each can be allocated CPU cycles in 4 different ways on a single processor. So probability would be 1/4.
Lots of crashes in multithreaded programs have nothing to do with the multithreading itself (or the associated resource contention).
Normally it is said that multi threaded programs are non-deterministic, meaning that if it crashes it will be next to impossible to recreate the error that caused the condition.
I disagree with this entirely, sure multi-threaded programs are non-deterministic, but then so are single-threaded ones, considering user input, message pumps, mouse/keyboard handling, and many other factors. A multi-threaded program usually makes it more difficult to reproduce the error, but definitely not impossible. For whatever reasons, program execution is not completely random, there is some sort of repeatability (but not predictability), I can usually reproduce multi-threaded bugs rather quickly in my apps, but then I have lots of verbose logging in my apps, for the end users' actions.
As an aside, if you are getting crashes, can't you also get crash logs, with call stack info? That will greatly aid in the debugging process.
Related
I am trying to profile a CUDA Application. I had a basic doubt about performance analysis and workload characterization of HPC programs. Let us say I want to analyse the wall clock time(the end-to-end time of execution of a program). How many times should one run the same experiment to account for the variation in the wall clock time measurement?
Thanks.
How many times should one run the same experiment to account for the
variation in the wall clock time measurement?
The question statement assumes that there will be a variation in execution time. Had the question been
How many times should one run CUDA code for performance analysis and workload characterization?
then I would have answered
Once.
Let me explain why ... and give you some reasons for disagreeing with me ...
Fundamentally, computers are deterministic and the execution of a program is deterministic. (Though, and see below, some programs can provide an impression of non-determinism but they do so deterministically unless equipped with exotic peripherals.)
So what might be the causes of a difference in execution times between two runs of the same program?
Physics
Do the bits move faster between RAM and CPU as the temperature of the components varies? I haven't a clue but if they do I'm quite sure that within the usual temperature ranges at which computers operate the relative difference is going to be down in the nano- range. I think any other differences arising from the physics of computation are going to be similarly utterly negligible. Only lesson here, perhaps, is don't do performance analysis on a program which only takes a microsecond or two to execute.
Note that I ignore, for the purposes of this answer, the capability of some processors to adjust their clock rates in response to their temperature. This would have some (possibly large) impact on a program's execution time, but all you'd learn is how to use it as a thermometer.
Contention for System Resources
By which I mean matters such as other processes (including the operating system) running on the same CPU / core, other traffic on the memory bus, other processes using I/O, etc. Sure, yes, these may have a major impact on a program's execution time. But what do variations in run times between runs of your program tell you in these cases? They tell you how busy the system was doing other work at the same time. And make it very difficult to analyse your program's performance.
A lesson here is to run your program on an otherwise quiet machine. Indeed one of the characteristics of the management of HPC systems in general is that they aim to provide a quiet platform to provide a reliable run time to user codes.
Another lesson is to avoid including in your measurement of execution time the time taken for operations, such as disk reads and writes or network communications, over which you have no control.
If your program is a heavy user of, say, disks, then you should probably be measuring i/o rates using one of the standard benchmarking codes for the purpose to get a clear idea of the potential impact on your program.
Program Features
There may be aspects of your program which can reasonably be expected to produce different times from one run to the next. For example, if your program relies on randomness then different rolls of the dice might have some impact on execution time. (In this case you might want to run the program more than once to see how sensitive it is to the operations of the RNG.)
However, I exclude from this third source of variability the running of the code with different inputs or parameters. If you want to measure the scalability of program execution time wrt input size then you surely will have to run the program a number of times.
In conclusion
There is very little of interest to be learned, about a program, by running it more than once with no differences in the work it is doing from one run to the next.
And yes, in my early days I was guilty of running the same program multiple times to see how the execution time varied. I learned that it didn't, and that's where I got this answer from.
This kind of test demonstrates how well the compiled application interacts with the OS/computing environment where it will be used, as opposed to the efficiency of a specific algorithm or architecture. I do this kind of test by running the application three times in a row after a clean reboot/spinup. I'm looking for any differences caused by the OS loading and caching libraries or runtime environments on the first execution; and I expect the next two runtimes to be similar to each other (and faster than the first one). If they are not, then more investigation is needed.
Two further comments: it is difficult to be certain that you know what libraries and runtimes your application requires, and how a given computing environment will handle them, if you have a complex application with lots of dependencies.
Also, I recommend avoiding specifying the application runtime for a customer, because it is very hard to control the customer's computing environment. Focus on the things you can control in your application: architecture, algorithms, library version.
What is overhead in term of parallel and concurrent programming (Haskell)?
However, even in a purely functional language, automatic parallelization is thwarted by an age-old problem: To make the program faster, we have to gain more from parallelism than we lose due to the overhead of adding it, and compile-time analysis cannot make good judgments in this area. An alternative approach is to use runtime profiling to find good candidates for parallelization and to feed this information back into the compiler. Even this, however, has not been terribly successful in practice.
(quoted from Simon Marlow's book Parallel and Concurrent Programming in Haskell)
What are some examples in Haskell?
In any system, a thread takes resources. You have to store the state of that thread somewhere. It takes time to create the thread and set it running. Now GHC uses lightweight "green threads", which are much less expensive than OS threads. But they still cost something.
If you were to (for example) spawn a new thread for every single add, subtract, multiply and divide... well, the work to spawn a new thread has to be at least several dozen machine instructions, whereas a trivial arithmetic operation is probably a single instruction. Queuing the work as sparks takes even less work than spawning a whole new thread, but even that isn't as cheap as just doing the operation on the current thread.
Basically the cost of the work you want to do in parallel has to exceed the cost of arranging to do it in parallel. (Whether that's launching an OS thread or a green thread or queuing a spark or whatever.) GHC has all sorts of stuff to lower the cost, but it's still not free.
You have to understand that threads are resources. They do not come for free. In other words: when you create a thread (independent of the language) then you have to make system calls, the OS has to create a thread instance, and so on. Threads have state - which changes over time; so some kind of thread management happens in the background.
And of course, when you end up with more threads than the underlying hardware can support - then the system will have to switch threads from time to time. Of course, that is not as expensive as switching full blown processes, but it still means that registers need to be saved (or restored), your hardware caches might be affected, and so on.
I am very new to the concept of multi-threading, but to my understanding the whole point of multi-threading architecture (I learnt there is hardware multi-threading and software multi-threading; not that I completely understand the concept of each but I think I am talking about the hardware aspect here) is to "keep your CPU busy". This is for example to process another task when your current one is fetching your hard-disk for data import.
If I am correct, for a non multi-threading CPU, if it already has near 100% usage, then switching to a multi-threading one would not help you much. Am I correct?
I am sure my statement of the problem is full of inaccuracy but I hope I made myself understood.
You have been given the task to build a house, your team is composed by you, the supervisor, and a pool of workers.
When your boss came by to check on the progresses, what would you like him to see? One worker doing all the job and the other watching, or all the workers being busy?
You want to keep the worker busy giving them independent tasks, the more worker the harder this is.
Furthermore there are some issues to take into account: worker A was given the task to building a wall, and it is building it. Before the wall gets too tall the concrete need to dry, so A spends a lot of time waiting.
During this wait they could help somewhere else.
Asking A to help somewhere else while they are in the building-the-wall step is pointless, they either need to decline or stop what they are doing.
One way or the other you won't get any benefit.
The workers are the equivalent of threads.
The house building is the equivalent of a multi-threaded process.
The A worker building the wall is the equivalent of CPU bounded process, a process that use a CPU as much as he need.
The concrete drying is the equivalent of an IO operation, it will complete itself without the need of any worker.
The A worker waiting for the concrete to dry is the equivalent of a IO bounded process, it mostly does nothing.
The A worker being always busy is the equivalent of an optimal scheduling/multi-threaded algorithm.
Now you are given the task to study a CS book, your team is composed by you, a student that cannot read, and a pool of readers.
How would you assign the readers? You can't make them read each chapter individually, as you can't listen to more than one person.
So even if you have a lot of worker you pick one and make them read the book sequentially.
Reading a book is an example of an inherently sequential problem that won't benefit from multi-threading, while building an house is an example of a very parallelizable problem.
Handling multiple workers is not easy: a worker A may starts a wall because they took a look at the concrete stash and realized there was enough of it but didn't claim it. Worker B needs some concrete and takes it from the stash, now A no longer has enough concrete.
This is the equivalent of a race condition: A is checking and using a resource in two different times (as two different, divisible, operations) and the result depends on the timing of the workers.
If you think of the CPU as "units that can do things" you will realize that having more "units that can do things" is better only if they are not standing there glazing at the infinity.
Hence all the literature about multi-threading.
I've originally misunderstood the question. Your statement is correct for software multi-threading when we parallelize some algorithm to make the computations in multiple threads. In this case if your CPU is already loaded with work you can't make it work faster by executing code in multiple threads. Moreover, you can even expect decrease in performance due to overhead of multi-threaded communications and context switches. But in modern world it is not easy to find a single core CPU (with exception of embedded applications). So in most cases you need to use threads to fully utilize CPU's computational ability.
But for hardware multi-threading situation is different because it is an absolutely different thing. CPU has circuits that perform arithmetic operations and circuits responsible for program flow. And now we make a trick: we double number of second circuits and make them share arithmetic operations circuits. Now two threads can execute different commands simultaneously: they can't do summation at the same time, but one can add numbers and second can divide something. And that's how performance is gained. So 100% load now is different load because you have enabled additional circuits in the CPU. Relative value is the same, but absolute performance is higher.
This is sort of a strange question that's been bothering me lately. In our modern world of multi-core CPUs and multi-threaded operating systems, we can run many processes with true hardware concurrency. Let's say I spawn two instances of Program A in two separate processes at the same time. Disregarding OS-level interference which may alter the execution time for either or both processes, is it possible for both of these processes to complete at exactly the same moment in time? Is there any specific hardware/operating-system mechanism that may prevent this?
Now before the pedants grill me on this, I want to clarify my definition of "exactly the same moment". I'm not talking about time in the cosmic sense, only as it pertains to the operation of a computer. So if two processes complete at the same time, that means that they complete
with a time difference that is so small, the computer cannot tell the difference.
EDIT : by "OS-level interference" I mean things like interrupts, various techniques to resolve resource contention that the OS may use, etc.
Actually, thinking about time in the "cosmic sense" is a good way to think about time in a distributed system (including multi-core systems). Not all systems (or cores) advance their clocks at exactly the same rate, making it hard to actually tell which events happened first (going by wall clock time). Because of this inability to agree, systems tend to measure time by logical clocks. Two events happen concurrently (i.e., "exactly at the same time") if they are not ordered by sharing data with each other or otherwise coordinating their execution.
Also, you need to define when exactly a process has "exited." Thinking in Linux, is it when it prints an "exiting" message to the screen? When it returns from main()? When it executes the exit() system call? When its process state is run set to "exiting" in the kernel? When the process's parent receives a SIGCHLD?
So getting back to your question (with a precise definition for "exactly at the same time"), the two processes can end (or do any other event) at exactly the same time as long as nothing coordinates their exiting (or other event). What counts as coordination depends on your architecture and its memory model, so some of the "exited" conditions listed above might always be ordered at a low level or by synchronization in the OS.
You don't even need "exactly" at the same time. Sometimes you can be close enough to seem concurrent. Even on a single core with no true concurrency, two processes could appear to exit at the same time if, for instance, two child processes exited before their parent was next scheduled. It doesn't matter which one really exited first; the parent will see that in an instant while it wasn't running, both children died.
So if two processes complete at the same time, that means that they complete with a time difference that is so small, the computer cannot tell the difference.
Sure, why not? Except for shared memory (and other resources, see below), they're operating independently.
Is there any specific hardware/operating-system mechanism that may prevent this?
Anything that is a resource contention:
memory access
disk access
network access
explicit concurrency management via locks/semaphores/mutexes/etc.
To be more specific: these are separate CPU cores. That means they have computing circuitry implemented in separate logic circuits. From the wikipedia page:
The fact that each core can have its own memory cache means that it is quite possible for most of the computation to occur as interaction of each core with its own cache. Once you have that, it's just a matter of probability. That's not to say that algorithms take a nondeterministic amount of time, but their inputs may come from a probabilistic distribution and the amount of time it takes to run is unlikely to be completely independent of input data unless the algorithm has been carefully designed to take the same amount of time.
Well I'm going to go with I doubt it:
Internally any sensible OS maintains a list of running processes.
It therefore seems sensible for us to define the moment that the process completes as the moment that it is removed from this list.
It also strikes me as fairly unlikely (but not impossible) that a typical OS will go to the effort to construct this list in such a way that two threads can independently remove an item from this list at exactly the same time (processes don't terminate that frequently and removing an item from a list is relatively inexpensive - I can't see any real reason why they wouldn't just lock the entire list instead).
Therefore for any two terminating processes A and B (where A terminates before B), there will always be a reasonably large time period (in a cosmic sense) where A has terminated and B has not.
That said it is of course possible to produce such a list, and so in reality it depends on the OS.
Also I don't really understand the point of this question, in particular what do you mean by
the computer cannot tell the difference
In order for the computer to tell the difference it has to be able to check the running process table at a point where A has terminated and B has not - if the OS schedules removing process B from the process table immediately after process A then it could very easily be that no such code gets a chance to execute and so by some definitions it isn't possible for the computer to tell the difference - this sutation holds true even on a single core / CPU processor.
Yes, without any OS Scheduling interference they could finish at the same time, if they don't have any resource contention (shared memory, external io, system calls). When either of them have a lock on a resource they will force the other to stall waiting for resource to free up.
I was reading the SQLite FAQ, and came upon this passage:
Threads are evil. Avoid them.
I don't quite understand the statement "Thread are evil". If that is true, then what is the alternative?
My superficial understanding of threads is:
Threads make concurrence happen. Otherwise, the CPU horsepower will be wasted, waiting for (e.g.) slow I/O.
But the bad thing is that you must synchronize your logic to avoid contention and you have to protect shared resources.
Note: As I am not familiar with threads on Windows, I hope the discussion will be limited to Linux/Unix threads.
When people say that "threads are evil", the usually do so in the context of saying "processes are good". Threads implicitly share all application state and handles (and thread locals are opt-in). This means that there are plenty of opportunities to forget to synchronize (or not even understand that you need to synchronize!) while accessing that shared data.
Processes have separate memory space, and any communication between them is explicit. Furthermore, primitives used for interprocess communication are often such that you don't need to synchronize at all (e.g. pipes). And you can still share state directly if you need to, using shared memory, but that is also explicit in every given instance. So there are fewer opportunities to make mistakes, and the intent of the code is more explicit.
Simple answer the way I understand it...
Most threading models use "shared state concurrency," which means that two execution processes can share the same memory at the same time. If one thread doesn't know what the other is doing, it can modify the data in a way that the other thread doesn't expect. This causes bugs.
Threads are "evil" because you need to wrap your mind around n threads all working on the same memory at the same time, and all of the fun things that go with it (deadlocks, racing conditions, etc).
You might read up about the Clojure (immutable data structures) and Erlang (message passsing) concurrency models for alternative ideas on how to achieve similar ends.
What makes threads "evil" is that once you introduce more than one stream of execution into your program, you can no longer count on your program to behave in a deterministic manner.
That is to say: Given the same set of inputs, a single-threaded program will (in most cases) always do the same thing.
A multi-threaded program, given the same set of inputs, may well do something different every time it is run, unless it is very carefully controlled. That is because the order in which the different threads run different bits of code is determined by the OS's thread scheduler combined with a system timer, and this introduces a good deal of "randomness" into what the program does when it runs.
The upshot is: debugging a multi-threaded program can be much harder than debugging a single-threaded program, because if you don't know what you are doing it can be very easy to end up with a race condition or deadlock bug that only appears (seemingly) at random once or twice a month. The program will look fine to your QA department (since they don't have a month to run it) but once it's out in the field, you'll be hearing from customers that the program crashed, and nobody can reproduce the crash.... bleah.
To sum up, threads aren't really "evil", but they are strong juju and should not be used unless (a) you really need them and (b) you know what you are getting yourself into. If you do use them, use them as sparingly as possible, and try to make their behavior as stupid-simple as you possibly can. Especially with multithreading, if anything can go wrong, it (sooner or later) will.
I would interpret it another way. It's not that threads are evil, it's that side-effects are evil in a multithreaded context (which is a lot less catchy to say).
A side effect in this context is something that affects state shared by more than one thread, be it global or just shared. I recently wrote a review of Spring Batch and one of the code snippets used is:
private static Map<Long, JobExecution> executionsById = TransactionAwareProxyFactory.createTransactionalMap();
private static long currentId = 0;
public void saveJobExecution(JobExecution jobExecution) {
Assert.isTrue(jobExecution.getId() == null);
Long newId = currentId++;
jobExecution.setId(newId);
jobExecution.incrementVersion();
executionsById.put(newId, copy(jobExecution));
}
Now there are at least three serious threading issues in less than 10 lines of code here. An example of a side effect in this context would be updating the currentId static variable.
Functional programming (Haskell, Scheme, Ocaml, Lisp, others) tend to espouse "pure" functions. A pure function is one with no side effects. Many imperative languages (eg Java, C#) also encourage the use of immutable objects (an immutable object is one whose state cannot change once created).
The reason for (or at least the effect of) both of these things is largely the same: they make multithreaded code much easier. A pure function by definition is threadsafe. An immutable object by definition is threadsafe.
The advantage processes have is that there is less shared state (generally). In traditional UNIX C programming, doing a fork() to create a new process would result in shared process state and this was used as a means of IPC (inter-process communication) but generally that state is replaced (with exec()) with something else.
But threads are much cheaper to create and destroy and they take less system resources (in fact, the operating itself may have no concept of threads yet you can still create multithreaded programs). These are called green threads.
The paper you linked to seems to explain itself very well. Did you read it?
Keep in mind that a thread can refer to the programming-language construct (as in most procedural or OOP languages, you create a thread manually, and tell it to executed a function), or they can refer to the hardware construct (Each CPU core executes one thread at a time).
The hardware-level thread is obviously unavoidable, it's just how the CPU works. But the CPU doesn't care how the concurrency is expressed in your source code. It doesn't have to be by a "beginthread" function call, for example. The OS and the CPU just have to be told which instruction threads should be executed.
His point is that if we used better languages than C or Java with a programming model designed for concurrency, we could get concurrency basically for free. If we'd used a message-passing language, or a functional one with no side-effects, the compiler would be able to parallelize our code for us. And it would work.
Threads aren't any more "evil" than hammers or screwdrivers or any other tools; they just require skill to utilize. The solution isn't to avoid them; it's to educate yourself and up your skill set.
Creating a lot of threads without constraint is indeed evil.. using a pooling mechanisme (threadpool) will mitigate this problem.
Another way threads are 'evil' is that most framework code is not designed to deal with multiple threads, so you have to manage your own locking mechanisme for those datastructures.
Threads are good, but you have to think about how and when you use them and remember to measure if there really is a performance benefit.
A thread is a bit like a light weight process. Think of it as an independent path of execution within an application. The thread runs in the same memory space as the application and therefore has access to all the same resources, global objects and global variables.
The good thing about them: you can parallelise a program to improve performance. Some examples, 1) In an image editing program a thread may run the filter processing independently of the GUI. 2) Some algorithms lend themselves to multiple threads.
Whats bad about them? if a program is poorly designed they can lead to deadlock issues where both threads are waiting on each other to access the same resource. And secondly, program design can me more complex because of this. Also, some class libraries don't support threading. e.g. the c library function "strtok" is not "thread safe". In other words, if two threads were to use it at the same time they would clobber each others results. Fortunately, there are often thread safe alternatives... e.g. boost library.
Threads are not evil, they can be very useful indeed.
Under Linux/Unix, threading hasn't been well supported in the past although I believe Linux now has Posix thread support and other unices support threading now via libraries or natively. i.e. pthreads.
The most common alternative to threading under Linux/Unix platforms is fork. Fork is simply a copy of a program including it's open file handles and global variables. fork() returns 0 to the child process and the process id to the parent. It's an older way of doing things under Linux/Unix but still well used. Threads use less memory than fork and are quicker to start up. Also, inter process communications is more work than simple threads.
In a simple sense you can think of a thread as another instruction pointer in the current process. In other words it points the IP of another processor to some code in the same executable. So instead of having one instruction pointer moving through the code there are two or more IP's executing instructions from the same executable and address space simultaneously.
Remember the executable has it's own address space with data / stack etc... So now that two or more instructions are being executed simultaneously you can imagine what happens when more than one of the instructions wants to read/write to the same memory address at the same time.
The catch is that threads are operating within the process address space and are not afforded protection mechanisms from the processor that full blown processes are. (Forking a process on UNIX is standard practice and simply creates another process.)
Out of control threads can consume CPU cycles, chew up RAM, cause execeptions etc.. etc.. and the only way to stop them is to tell the OS process scheduler to forcibly terminate the thread by nullifying it's instruction pointer (i.e. stop executing). If you forcibly tell a CPU to stop executing a sequence of instructions what happens to the resources that have been allocated or are being operated on by those instructions? Are they left in a stable state? Are they properly freed? etc...
So, yes, threads require more thought and responsibility than executing a process because of the shared resources.
For any application that requires stable and secure execution for long periods of time without failure or maintenance, threads are always a tempting mistake. They invariably turn out to be more trouble than they are worth. They produce rapid results and prototypes that seem to be performing correctly but after a couple weeks or months running you discover that they have critical flaws.
As mentioned by another poster, once you use even a single thread in your program you have now opened a non-deterministic path of code execution that can produce an almost infinite number of conflicts in timing, memory sharing and race conditions. Most expressions of confidence in solving these problems are expressed by people who have learned the principles of multithreaded programming but have yet to experience the difficulties in solving them.
Threads are evil. Good programmers avoid them wherever humanly possible. The alternative of forking was offered here and it is often a good strategy for many applications. The notion of breaking your code down into separate execution processes which run with some form of loose coupling often turns out to be an excellent strategy on platforms that support it. Threads running together in a single program is not a solution. It is usually the creation of a fatal architectural flaw in your design that can only be truly remedied by rewriting the entire program.
The recent drift towards event oriented concurrency is an excellent development innovation. These kinds of programs usually prove to have great endurance after they are deployed.
I've never met a young engineer who didn't think threads were great. I've never met an older engineer who didn't shun them like the plague.
Being an older engineer, I heartily agree with the answer by Texas Arcane.
Threads are very evil because they cause bugs that are extremely difficult to solve. I have literally spent months solving sporadic race-conditions. One example caused trams to suddenly stop about once a month in the middle of the road and block traffic until towed away. Luckily I didn't create the bug, but I did get to spend 4 months full-time to solve it...
It's a tad late to add to this thread, but I would like to mention a very interesting alternative to threads: asynchronous programming with co-routines and event loops. This is being supported by more and more languages, and does not have the problem of race conditions like multi-threading has.
It can replace multi-threading in cases where it is used to wait on events from multiple sources, but not where calculations need to be performed in parallel on multiple CPU cores.