I have couple of questions on threads. Could you please clarify.
Suppose process with one or multiple threads. If the process is prempted/suspended, does the threads also get preempted or does the threads continue to run?
When the suspended process rescheduled, does the process threads also gets scheduled? If the process has process has multiple threads, which threads will be rescheduled and on what basis?
if the thread in the process is running and recieves a signal(say Cntrl-C) and the default action of the signal is to terminate a process, does the running thread terminates or the parent process will also terminate? What happens to the threads if the running process terminates because of some signal?
If the thread does fork fallowed exec, does the exece'd program overlays the address space of parent process or the running thread? If it overlays the parent process what happens to threads, their data, locks they are holding and how they get scheduled once the exec'd process terminates.
Suppose process has multiple threads, how does the threads get scheduled. If one of the thread blocks on some I/O, how other threads gets scheduled. Does the threads scheduled with the parent process is running?
While the thread is running what the current kernel variable points(parent process task_stuct or threads stack_struct?
If the process with the thread is running, when the thread starts does the parent
process gets preempted and how each threads gets scheduled?
If the process running on CPU creates multiple threads, does the threads created by the parent process schedule on another CPU on multiprocessor system?
Thanks,
Ganesh
First, I should clear up some terminology that you appear to be confused about. In POSIX, a "process" is a single address space plus at least one thread of control, identified by a process ID (PID). A thread is an individually-scheduled execution context within a process.
All processes start life with just one thread, and all processes have at least one thread. Now, onto the questions:
Suppose process with one or multiple threads. If the process is prempted/suspended, does the threads also get preempted or does the threads continue to run?
Threads are scheduled independently. If a thread blocks on a function like connect(), then other threads within the process can still be scheduled.
It is also possible to request that every thread in a process be suspended, for example by sending SIGSTOP to the process.
When the suspended process rescheduled, does the process threads also gets scheduled? If the process has process has multiple threads, which threads will be rescheduled and on what basis?
This only makes sense in the context that an explicit request was made to stop the entire process. If you send the process SIGCONT to restart the process, then any of the threads which are not blocked can run. If more threads are runnable than there are processors available to run them, then it is unspecified which one(s) run first.
If the thread in the process is running and recieves a signal(say Cntrl-C) and the default action of the signal is to terminate a process, does the running thread terminates or the parent process will also terminate? What happens to the threads if the running process terminates because of some signal?
If a thread recieves a signal like SIGINT or SIGSEGV whose action is to terminate the process, then the entire process is terminated. This means that every thread in the process is unceremoniously killed.
If the thread does fork followed by exec, does the exece'd program overlays the address space of parent process or the running thread? If it overlays the parent process what happens to threads, their data, locks they are holding and how they get scheduled once the exec'd process terminates.
The fork() call creates a new process by duplicating the address space of the original process, and duplicating just the single thread that called fork() within that new address space.
If that thread in the new process calls execve(), it will replace the new, duplicated address space with the exec'd program. The original process, and all its threads, continue running normally.
Suppose process has multiple threads, how does the threads get scheduled. If one of the thread blocks on some I/O, how other threads gets scheduled. Does the threads scheduled with the parent process is running?
The threads are scheduled independently. Any of the threads that are not blocked can run.
While the thread is running what the current kernel variable points(parent process task_stuct or threads stack_struct?
Each thread has its own task_struct within the kernel. What userspace calls a "thread" is called a "process" in kernel space. Thus current always points at the task_struct corresponding to the currently executing thread (in the userspace sense of the word).
If the process with [a second] thread is running, when the thread starts does the parent process gets preempted and how each threads gets scheduled?
Presumably you mean "the process's main thread" rather than "parent process" here. As before, the threads are scheduled independently. It's unspecified whether one runs before the other - and if you have multiple CPUs, both might run simultaneously.
If the process running on CPU creates multiple threads, does the threads created by the parent process schedule on another CPU on multiprocessor system?
That's really up to the kernel, but the threads are certainly allowed to execute on other CPUs.
Depends. If a thread is preempted because the OS scheduler decides to give CPU time to some other thread, then other threads in the process will continue running. If the process is suspended (i.e. it gets the SIGSTP signal) then AFAIK all the threads will be suspended.
When a suspended process is woken up, all the threads are marked as waiting or blocked (if they are waiting e.g. on a mutex). Then the scheduler at some points run them. There is no guarantee about any specific order the threads are run after waking up the process.
The process will terminate, and with it the threads as well.
When you fork you get a new address space, so there is no "overlay". Note that fork() and the exec() family affect the entire process, not only the thread from which they where called. When you call fork() in a multi-threaded process, the child gets a copy of that process, but with only the calling thread. Then if you call exec() in one or both of the processes (presumably only in the child process, but that's up to you), then the process which calls exec() (and with it, all its threads) is replaced by the exec()'ed program.
The thread scheduling order is decided by the OS scheduler, there is no guarantee given about any particular order.
From the kernel perspective a process is an address space with one or more threads (and some other gunk). There is no concept of threads that somehow exist without a process.
There is no such thing as a process without a single thread. A "plain process" is just a process with a single thread.
Probably yes. This is determined by the OS scheduler. Note that there are API's and tools (numactl) that one can use to force some thread(s) to run on a specific CPU core.
Assuming your questions are about POSIX threads, then
1a. A process that's preempted by the O/S will have all its threads preempted.
1b. The O/S will suspend all the threads of a process that is sent a SIGSTOP.
The O/S will resume all thread of a suspended process that is sent a SIGCONT.
By default, a SIGINT will terminate all the threads in a process.
If a thread calls fork(), then all its threads are duplicated. If it then call one of the exec() functions, then all the duplicated threads disappear.
POSIX allows for user-selection of the thread scheduling algorithm.
I don't understand the question.
I don't understand the question.
How threads are mapped to CPU-s is implementation-dependent. Many implementations will try to distribute threads amongst the available CPU-s to improve performance.
The Linux kernel doesn't distinguish between threads and processes. As far as kernel is concerned, a thread is simply another process which happens to share address space with other processes. (You would call the set of "processes" (i.e. threads) which share a single address space a "process".)
So POSIX threads are scheduled exactly as full-blown processes would be. There is no difference in scheduling whether you have one process with five threads, or five separate processes.
There are kernel calls that provide fine grained control over what is shared between processes. The POSIX threads API wraps over them.
Related
I read that Threads are the primary unit of execution on Windows CE. What does this mean exactly? How are threads implemented and how are processes implemented?
In ce a process defines a isolated address space and lives as long as its main thread is running. Typically the main thread is the main() entry point in a classical C program and the process is terminated as soon as you return from that function (ok, there are some initialization and destruction steps...but let's keep this simple). When the main thread terminates all the memory and resources allocated by all the threads of the process are released.
Threads are the execution units. You need to have at least the main thread, but you can create additional ones. Those are terminated when the main thread terminates.
The only difference between main thread and all the other threads is that main determines the "lifetime" of your process.
The scheduler cares about threads. When a thread time quantum terminates or an high-priority thread needs to run, it schedules the new thread and if it belongs to a different process than the one running, it re-configures the virtual memory address space to match.
If a process has one thread and another one has 99 and all of them have the same priority and all of them keep the CPU busy for the whole quantum process one will use 1% of the CPU and process 2 99%.
Of course, being and hard realtime OS, CE has also priority management, but this, again, applies to threads and not processes.
What I learned is if a process got blocked, it will be swapped out to the disk and wait for wake-up event. But, if a process can have multiple threads, what if a thread is blocked? For example, one of the threads waits for a keyboard eveny, the thread will be blocked. Then will the process also be blocked, or is it possible that only the thread is blocked and process is running?
What I learned is if a process got blocked, it will be swapped out to the disk and wait for wake-up event.
You're probably reading some very old documentation. Likely by "process" it means something scheduled by the kernel.
But, if a process can have multiple threads, what if a thread is blocked? For example, one of the threads waits for a keyboard event, the thread will be blocked. Then will the process also be blocked, or is it possible that only the thread is blocked and process is running?
If you define a "process" as a container that consists of an address space, file descriptor set and so on and that can contain more than one thread, then there is no such thing as a process being blocked. What would block a process exactly?
My understanding is that threads and processes are really the same entity on Linux, the difference being in what memory is shared between them. I'm finding that it's...difficult to ensure that child processes are properly cleaned up without explicit communication between the parent and child. I'd like to be able to run sub-processes with a similar mental model as threads, in that they're cleaned up automatically when the parent exits, but with the memory safety that processes provide. How does Linux manage to clean up threads automatically, and can that same mechanism be used for child processes?
After reading the Linux source, I think I have the answer. Tasks are differentiated by their task ID and thread group ID. getpid() actually returns the thread group ID of the tasks, which is the same for all tasks in the group. This lets the kernel have a single notion of schedulable task which can be used to implement threading.
Since glibc 2.3, exit() actually invokes the exit_group syscall, rather than just the exit syscall. This syscall kills all the tasks in a thread group rather than just the calling task. It does this by sending a SIGKILL to all the tasks with the same thread ID.
I have a question regarding linux kernel scheduling.
We know that, usually, linux maintains the current largest pid. If we want to start a new process, the kernel will use that largest id. So, if we kill and restart a new process, the process id are not sequential. Linux will use the largest id until it hits a limit.
But my question is how linux decides thread ID.
Say, process A and B are running. Process A crashes but process B is spawning new threads. Will process B just reuse that old tid belonging to process A, or, process B will also use the largest id as tid. Which case is more often? Do we have documents?
Thanks.
The kernel sets a maximum number of process/thread ids and simply recycles identifiers when the threads are garbage collected. So if process B spawns enough threads it will eventually reclaim thread ids from process A assuming it has been properly destroyed
Edit: Here are some links that can provide you with more specific answers
Difference between pid and tid
https://stackoverflow.com/a/8787888/5768168
"what is the value range of thread and process id?"
what is the value range of thread and process id?
"Linux PID recycling"
https://stackoverflow.com/a/11323428/5768168
"Process identifer"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Process_identifier#Unix-like
"The Linux kernel: Processes"
https://www.win.tue.nl/~aeb/linux/lk/lk-10.html
It sounds like you need to run your threads in with a PTHREAD_CREATE_JOINABLE attribute passed to pthread_create(), then have one reaper thread in your process dedicated to using pthread_join() or pthread_tryjoin() to wait for terminated threads. Rather than having an outside process trying to sort it out, have your process record the PID/TID pair after pthread_create() succeeds and have the reaper thread remove the pair when it detects the thread has terminated.
I typically combined that with a main thread that did nothing but spawn the thread-creation and reaper threads, then wait for a termination signal and terminate the thread-creator and reaper. The thread-creator stops immediately when signaled, the reaper stops when no more unterminated threads are running, the main thread terminates when both the thread-creator and reaper threads can be pthread_join()'d. Since the main thread's so simple it's unlikely to crash, which means most crashes in work threads simply deliver them to the reaper. If you want absolute certainty, your outside process should be the one to start your main process, then it can use wait() or it's siblings to monitor whether the main process has terminated (normally or by crashing).
For Kernel-Level-Threads when one thread blocks for some I/O another thread is free to run, but in User-Level-Threads what happens if one thread is blocked?
Will that process remain blocked i.e. no other thread will execute or another thread will be scheduled to run. What happens exactly?
User-level threads are pieces of user code that execute in sequential fashion - one thread runs for a while then transfers the control to another thread and so on. If one of those threads make a syscall that blocks then the process as a whole blocks. User-level threading looks like a single threaded process to the kernel. No concurrent scheduling on multiple CPUs is possible.
The main advantage of kernel-level threads is that they run independently from one another and can be scheduled on different CPUs. If one blocks, others continue to execute.