My Previous Question
From the above answer, means if in my threads has create objects, i will face memory allocation/deallocation bottleneck, thus result running threads may slower or no obvious time taken diff. than no thread. What's the advantages of running multi threads in the application if I cannot allocate memory to create the object for calculations in my thread?
What's the advantages of running multi threads in the application if I cannot allocate memory to create the objects for calculations in my thread?
It depends on where your bottlenecks are. If your bottleneck is the amount of memory available, then creating more threads won't help. Or, if I/O is a bottleneck, trying to parallelize will just slightly slow down everything because of context switching. It's like trying to make an underpowered car faster by putting wider tyres in it: fixing the wrong thing doesn't help.
Threads are useful when the bottleneck is the processor and there are several processors available.
Well, if you allocate chunks of memory in a loop, things will slow down.
If you can create your objects once at the beginning of TThread.execute, the overhead will be smaller.
Threads can also be benificial if you have to wait for IO-operations, or if you have expensive calculations to do on a machine with more than one physical core.
If you have memory intensive threads (many memory allocations/deallocations) you better use TopMM instead of FastMM:
http://www.topsoftwaresite.nl/
FastMM uses a lock which blocks all other threads, TopMM does not so it scales much better on multi cores/cpus!
When it comes to multithreding, shared resources issues will always arise (with current technology). All resources that may need serialization (RAM, disk, etc.) are a possible bottleneck. Multithreading is not a magic solution that turns a slow app in a fast one, and not always result in better speed. Made in the wrong way, it can actually result in worse speed. it should be analyzed to find possible bottlenecks, and some parts could need to be rewritten to minimize bottlenecks using different techniques (i.e. preallocating memory, using async I/O, etc.). Anyway, performance is only one of the reasons to use more than one thread. There are several other reason, for example letting the user to be able to interact with the application while background threads perform operations (i.e. printing, checking data, etc.) without "locking" the user. The application that way could seem "faster" (the user can keep on using it without waiting) even if it is actually slowerd (it takes more time to finish operations than if made them serially).
Related
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
This computer has eight cores and so should work best with 8/16 threads then, yet many applications use several times that, especially Dropbox.
It also uses 95 threads while idling on my laptop, which only has 4 cores.
Why is this the case? Does it have so many threads for programming convenience, have I misunderstood threading efficiency or is it something else entirely?
I took a peek at the Mac version of the client, and it seems to be written in Python and it uses several frameworks.
A bunch of threads seem to be used in some in house actor system
They use nucleus for app analytics
There seems to be a p2p network
some networking threads (one per hype core)
a global pool (one per physical core)
many threads for file monitoring and thumbnail generation
task schedulers
logging
metrics
db checkpointing
something called infinite configuration
etc.
Most are idle.
It looks like a hodgepodge of subsystems, each starting their own threads, but they don't seem too expensive in terms of memory or CPU.
My understanding of threads is that you can only have one thread per core, two with hyper threading, before you start losing efficiency.
Nope, this is not true. I'm not sure why you think that, but it's not true.
As just the most obvious way to show that it's false, suppose you had that number of threads and one of them accessed a page of memory that wasn't in RAM and had to be loaded to disk. If you don't have any other threads that can run, then one core is wasted for the entire time it takes to read that page of memory from disk.
It's hard to address the misconception directly without knowing what flawed chain of reasoning led to it. But the most common one is that if you have more threads ready-to-run than you can execute at once, then you have lots of context switches and context switches are expensive.
But that is obviously wrong. If all the threads are ready-to-run, then no context switches are necessary. A context switch is only necessary if a running thread stops being ready-to-run.
If all context switches are voluntary, then the implementation can select the optimum number of context switches. And that's precisely what it does.
Having large numbers of threads causes you to lose efficiency if, and only if, lots of threads do a small amount of work and then become no longer ready-to-run while other waiting threads are ready-to-run. That forces the implementation to do a context even where it is not optimal.
Some applications that use lots of threads do in fact do this. And that does result in poor performance. But Dropbox doesn't.
I understand how to create a thread in my chosen language and I understand about mutexs, and the dangers of shared data e.t.c but I'm sure about how the O/S manages threads and the cost of each thread. I have a series of questions that all relate and the clearest way to show the limit of my understanding is probably via these questions.
What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software? One of the costs to creating a thread must be its own stack pointer and process counter, then space to copy all of the working registers to as it is moved on and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between threads of a process or on a first come first served?
Can I somehow check the hardware on start up (of the program) for number of cores. If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of threads to N-1?
then space to copy all of the working registeres to as it is moved on
and off of a core by the scheduler, but what else?
One less evident cost is the strain imposed on the scheduler which may start to choke if it needs to juggle thousands of threads. The memory isn't really the issue. With the right tweaking you can get a "thread" to occupy very little memory, little more than its stack. This tweaking could be difficult (i.e. using clone(2) directly under linux etc) but it can be done.
Is the amount of stack available for one program split equally between
threads of a process or on a first come first served
Each thread gets its own stack, and typically you can control its size.
If I am running on a machine with N cores, should I keep the number of
threads to N-1
Checking the number of cores is easy, but environment-specific. However, limiting the number of threads to the number of cores only makes sense if your workload consists of CPU-intensive operations, with little I/O. If I/O is involved you may want to have many more threads than cores.
You should be as thoughtful as possible in everything you design and implement.
I know that a Java thread stack takes up about 1MB each time you create a thread. , so they add up.
Threads make sense for asynchronous tasks that allow long-running activities to happen without preventing all other users/processes from making progress.
Threads are managed by the operating system. There are lots of schemes, all under the control of the operating system (e.g. round robin, first come first served, etc.)
It makes perfect sense to me to assign one thread per core for some activities (e.g. computationally intensive calculations, graphics, math, etc.), but that need not be the deciding factor. One app I develop uses roughly 100 active threads in production; it's not a 100 core machine.
To add to the other excellent posts:
'What is the cost of spawning a thread? Is it worth even worrying about when designing software?'
It is if one of your design choices is doing such a thing often. A good way of avoiding this issue is to create threads once, at app startup, by using pools and/or app-lifetime threads dedicated to operations. Inter-thread signaling is much quicker than continual thread creation/termination/destruction and also much safer/easier.
The number of posts concerning problems with thread stopping, terminating, destroying, thread count runaway, OOM failure etc. is ledgendary. If you can avoid doing it at all, great.
It is said that one of the main benefits of Node (and presumable twisted et al) over more conventional threaded servers, is the very high concurrency enabled by the event loop model. The biggest reason for this is that each thread has a high memory footprint and swapping contexts is comparatively expensive. When you have thousands of threads the server spends most of its time swapping from thread to thread.
My question is, why don't operating systems or the underlying hardware support much more lightweight threads? If they did, could you solve the 10k problem with plain threads? If they can't, why is that?
Modern operating systems can support the execution of a very large number of threads.
More generally, hardware keeps getting faster (and recently, it has been getting faster in a way that is much friendlier to multithreading and multiprocessing than to single-threaded event loops - ie, increased number of cores, rather than increased processing throughput capabilities in a single core). If you can't afford the overhead of a thread today, you can probably afford it tomorrow.
What the cooperative multitasking systems of Twisted (and presumably Node.js et al) offers over pre-emptive multithreading (at least in the form of pthreads) is ease of programming.
Correctly using multithreading involves being much more careful than correctly using a single thread. An event loop is just the means of getting multiple things done without going beyond your single thread.
Considering the proliferation of parallel hardware, it would be ideal for multithreading or multiprocessing to get easier to do (and easier to do correctly). Actors, message passing, maybe even petri nets are some of the solutions people have attempted to solve this problem. They are still very marginal compared to the mainstream multithreading approach (pthreads). Another approach is SEDA, which uses multiple threads to run multiple event loops. This also hasn't caught on.
So, the people using event loops have probably decided that programmer time is worth more than CPU time, and the people using pthreads have probably decided the opposite, and the people exploring actors and such would like to value both kinds of time more highly (clearly insane, which is probably why no one listens to them).
The issue isn't really how heavyweight the threads are but the fact that to write correct multithreaded code you need locks on shared items and that prevents it from scaling with the number of threads because threads end up waiting for each other to gain locks and you rapidly reach the point where adding additional threads has no effect or even slows the system down as you get more lock contention.
In many cases you can avoid locking, but it's very difficult to get right, and sometimes you simply need a lock.
So if you are limited to a small number of threads, you might well find that removing the overhead of having to lock resources at all, or even think about it, makes a single threaded program faster than a multithreaded program no matter how many threads you add.
Basically locks can (depending on your program) be really expensive and can stop your program scaling beyond a few threads. And you almost always need to lock something.
It's not the overhead of a thread that's the problem, it's the synchronization between the threads. Even if you could switch between threads instantly, and had infinite memory none of that helps if each thread just ends up waiting in a queue for it's turn at some shared resource.
I've been toying around with the Parallel library in .NET 4.0. Recently, I developed a custom ORM for some unusual read/write operations one of our large systems has to use. This allows me to decorate an object with attributes and have reflection figure out what columns it has to pull from the database, as well as what XML it has to output on writes.
Since I envision this wrapper to be reused in many projects, I'd like to squeeze as much speed out of it as possible. This library will mostly be used in .NET web applications. I'm testing the framework using a throwaway console application to poke at the classes I've created.
I've now learned a lesson of the overhead that multithreading comes with. Multithreading causes it to run slower. From reading around, it seems like it's intuitive to people who've been doing it for a long time, but it's actually counter-intuitive to me: how can running a method 30 times at the same time be slower than running it 30 times sequentially?
I don't think I'm causing problems by multiple threads having to fight over the same shared object (though I'm not good enough at it yet to tell for sure or not), so I assume the slowdown is coming from the overhead of spawning all those threads and the runtime keeping them all straight. So:
Though I'm doing it mainly as a learning exercise, is this pessimization? For trivial, non-IO tasks, is multithreading overkill? My main goal is speed, not responsiveness of the UI or anything.
Would running the same multithreading code in IIS cause it to speed up because of already-created threads in the thread pool, whereas right now I'm using a console app, which I assume would be single-threaded until I told it otherwise? I'm about to run some tests, but I figure there's some base knowledge I'm missing to know why it would be one way or the other. My console app is also running on my desktop with two cores, whereas a server for a web app would have more, so I might have to use that as a variable as well.
Thread's don't actually all run concurrently.
On a desktop machine I'm presuming you have a dual core CPU, (maybe a quad at most). This means only 2/4 threads can be running at the same time.
If you have spawned 30 threads, the OS is going to have to context switch between those 30 threads to keep them all running. Context switches are quite costly, so hence the slowdown.
As a basic suggestion, I'd aim for 1 thread per CPU if you are trying to optimise calculations. Any more than this and you're not really doing any extra work, you are just swapping threads in an out on the same CPU. Try to think of your computer as having a limited number of workers inside, you can't do more work concurrently than the number of workers you have available.
Some of the new features in the .net 4.0 parallel task library allow you to do things that account for scalability in the number of threads. For example you can create a bunch of tasks and the task parallel library will internally figure out how many CPUs you have available, and optimise the number of threads is creates/uses so as not to overload the CPUs, so you could create 30 tasks, but on a dual core machine the TP library would still only create 2 threads, and queue the . Obviously, this will scale very nicely when you get to run it on a bigger machine. Or you can use something like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem(...) to queue up a bunch of tasks, and the pool will automatically manage how many threads is uses to perform those tasks.
Yes there is a lot of overhead to thread creation, but if you are using the .net thread pool, (or the parallel task library in 4.0) .net will be managing your thread creation, and you may actually find it creates less threads than the number of tasks you have created. It will internally swap your tasks around on the available threads. If you actually want to control explicit creation of actual threads you would need to use the Thread class.
[Some cpu's can do clever stuff with threads and can have multiple Threads running per CPU - see hyperthreading - but check out your task manager, I'd be very surprised if you have more than 4-8 virtual CPUs on today's desktops]
There are so many issues with this that it pays to understand what is happening under the covers. I would highly recommend the "Concurrent Programming on Windows" book by Joe Duffy and the "Java Concurrency in Practice" book. The latter talks about processor architecture at the level you need to understand it when writing multithreaded code. One issue you are going to hit that's going to hurt your code is caching, or more likely the lack of it.
As has been stated there is an overhead to scheduling and running threads, but you may find that there is a larger overhead when you share data across threads. That data may be flushed from the processor cache into main memory, and that will cause serious slow downs to your code.
This is the sort of low-level stuff that managed environments are supposed to protect us from, however, when writing highly parallel code, this is exactly the sort of issue you have to deal with.
A colleague of mine recorded a screencast about the performance issue with Parallel.For and Parallel.ForEach which may help:
http://rocksolidknowledge.com/ScreenCasts.mvc/Watch?video=ParallelLoops.wmv
You're speaking of an ORM, so I presume some amount of I/O is going on. If this is the case, the overhead of thread creation and context switching is going to be comparatively non-existent.
Most likely, you're experiencing I/O contention: it can be slower (particularly on rotational hard drives, but also on other storage devices) to read the same set of data if you read it out of order than if you read it in-order. So, if you're executing 30 database queries, it's possible they'll run faster sequentially than in parallel if they're all backed by the same I/O device and the queries aren't in cache. Running them in parallel may cause the system to have a bunch of I/O read requests almost simultaneously, which may cause the OS to read little bits of each in turn - causing your drive head to jump back and forth, wasting precious milliseconds.
But that's just a guess; it's not possible to really determine what's causing your slowdown without knowing more.
Although thread creation is "extremely expensive" when compared to say adding two numbers, it's not usually something you'll easily overdo. If your operations are extremely short (say, a millisecond or less), using a thread-pool rather than new threads will noticeably save time. Generally though, if your operations are that short, you should reconsider the granularity of parallelism anyhow; perhaps you're better off splitting the computation into bigger chunks: for instance, by having a fairly low number of worker tasks which handle entire batches of smaller work-items at a time rather than each item separately.
When performing many disk operations, does multithreading help, hinder, or make no difference?
For example, when copying many files from one folder to another.
Clarification: I understand that when other operations are performed, concurrency will obviously make a difference. If the task was to open an image file, convert to another format, and then save, disk operations can be performed concurrently with the image manipulation. My question is when the only operations performed are disk operations, whether concurrently queuing and responding to disk operations is better.
Most of the answers so far have had to do with the OS scheduler. However, there is a more important factor that I think would lead to your answer. Are you writing to a single physical disk, or multiple physical disks?
Even if you parallelize with multiple threads...IO to a single physical disk is intrinsically a serialized operation. Each thread would have to block, waiting for its chance to get access to the disk. In this case, multiple threads are probably useless...and may even lead to contention problems.
However, if you are writing multiple streams to multiple physical disks, processing them concurrently should give you a boost in performance. This is particularly true with managed disks, like RAID arrays, SAN devices, etc.
I don't think the issue has much to do with the OS scheduler as it has more to do with the physical aspects of the disk(s) your writing to.
That depends on your definition of "I/O bound" but generally multithreading has two effects:
Use multiple CPUs concurrently (which won't necessarily help if the bottleneck is the disk rather than the CPU[s])
Use a CPU (with a another thread) even while one thread is blocked (e.g. waiting for I/O completion)
I'm not sure that Konrad's answer is always right, however: as a counter-example, if "I/O bound" just means "one thread spends most of its time waiting for I/O completion instead of using the CPU", but does not mean that "we've hit the system I/O bandwidth limit", then IMO having multiple threads (or asynchronous I/O) might improve performance (by enabling more than one concurrent I/O operation).
I would think it depends on a number of factors, like the kind of application you are running, the number of concurrent users, etc.
I am currently working on a project that has a high degree of linear (reading files from start to finish) operations. We use a NAS for storage, and were concerned about what happens if we run multiple threads. Our initial thought was that it would slow us down because it would increase head seeks. So we ran some tests and found out that the ideal number of threads is the same as the number of cores in the computer.
But your mileage may vary.
It can do, simply because whenever there is more work for a thread to do (identifying the next file to copy) the OS wakes it up, so threads are a simple way to hook into the OS scheduler and yet still write code in a traditional sequential way, instead of having to break it up into a state machine with callbacks.
This is mainly an assistance with clear programming rather than performance.
In most cases, using multi-thread for disk IO will not benefit efficiency. Let's imagine 2 circumstances:
Lock-Free File: We can split the file for each thread by giving them different IO offset. For instance, a 1024B bytes file is split into n pieces and each thread writes the 1024/n respectively. This will cause a lot of verbose disk head movement because of the different offset.
Lock File: Actually lock the IO operation for each critical section. This will cause a lot of verbose thread switches and it turns out that only one thread can write the file simultaneously.
Correct me if I' wrong.
No, it makes no sense. At some point, the operations have to be serialized (by the OS). On the other hand, since modern OS's have to cope with multiple processes anyway I doubt that there's an added overhead.
I'd think it would hinder the operations... You only have one controller and one drive.
You could use a second thread to do the operation, and a main thread that shows an updated UI.
I think it could worsen the performance, because the multiple threads will compete for the same resources.
You can test the impact of doing concurrent IO operations on the same device by copying a set of files from one place to another and measuring the time, then split the set in two parts and make the copies in parallel... the second option will be sensibly slower.