I don’t want to make this subjective...
If I/O and other input/output-related bottlenecks are not of concern, then do we need to write multithreaded code? Theoretically the single threaded code will fare better since it will get all the CPU cycles. Right?
Would JavaScript or ActionScript have fared any better, had they been multithreaded?
I am just trying to understand the real need for multithreading.
I don't know if you have payed any attention to trends in hardware lately (last 5 years) but we are heading to a multicore world.
A general wake-up call was this "The free lunch is over" article.
On a dual core PC, a single-threaded app will only get half the CPU cycles. And CPUs are not getting faster anymore, that part of Moores law has died.
In the words of Herb Sutter The free lunch is over, i.e. the future performance path for computing will be in terms of more cores not higher clockspeeds. The thing is that adding more cores typically does not scale the performance of software that is not multithreaded, and even then it depends entirely on the correct use of multithreaded programming techniques, hence multithreading is a big deal.
Another obvious reason is maintaining a responsive GUI, when e.g. a click of a button initiates substantial computations, or I/O operations that may take a while, as you point out yourself.
The primary reason I use multithreading these days is to keep the UI responsive while the program does something time-consuming. Sure, it's not high-tech, but it keeps the users happy :-)
Most CPUs these days are multi-core. Put simply, that means they have several processors on the same chip.
If you only have a single thread, you can only use one of the cores - the other cores will either idle or be used for other tasks that are running. If you have multiple threads, each can run on its own core. You can divide your problem into X parts, and, assuming each part can run indepedently, you can finish the calculations in close to 1/Xth of the time it would normally take.
By definition, the fastest algorithm running in parallel will spend at least as much CPU time as the fastest sequential algorithm - that is, parallelizing does not decrease the amount of work required - but the work is distributed across several independent units, leading to a decrease in the real-time spent solving the problem. That means the user doesn't have to wait as long for the answer, and they can move on quicker.
10 years ago, when multi-core was unheard of, then it's true: you'd gain nothing if we disregard I/O delays, because there was only one unit to do the execution. However, the race to increase clock speeds has stopped; and we're instead looking at multi-core to increase the amount of computing power available. With companies like Intel looking at 80-core CPUs, it becomes more and more important that you look at parallelization to reduce the time solving a problem - if you only have a single thread, you can only use that one core, and the other 79 cores will be doing something else instead of helping you finish sooner.
Much of the multithreading is done just to make the programming model easier when doing blocking operations while maintaining concurrency in the program - sometimes languages/libraries/apis give you little other choice, or alternatives makes the programming model too hard and error prone.
Other than that the main benefit of multi threading is to take advantage of multiple CPUs/cores - one thread can only run at one processor/core at a time.
No. You can't continue to gain the new CPU cycles, because they exist on a different core and the core that your single-threaded app exists on is not going to get any faster. A multi-threaded app, on the other hand, will benefit from another core. Well-written parallel code can go up to about 95% faster- on a dual core, which is all the new CPUs in the last five years. That's double that again for a quad core. So while your single-threaded app isn't getting any more cycles than it did five years ago, my quad-threaded app has four times as many and is vastly outstripping yours in terms of response time and performance.
Your question would be valid had we only had single cores. The things is though, we mostly have multicore CPU's these days. If you have a quadcore and write a single threaded program, you will have three cores which is not used by your program.
So actually you will have at most 25% of the CPU cycles and not 100%. Since the technology today is to add more cores and less clockspeed, threading will be more and more crucial for performance.
That's kind of like asking whether a screwdriver is necessary if I only need to drive this nail. Multithreading is another tool in your toolbox to be used in situations that can benefit from it. It isn't necessarily appropriate in every programming situation.
Here are some answers:
You write "If input/output related problems are not bottlenecks...". That's a big "if". Many programs do have issues like that, remembering that networking issues are included in "IO", and in those cases multithreading is clearly worthwhile. If you are writing one of those rare apps that does no IO and no communication then multithreading might not be an issue
"The single threaded code will get all the CPU cycles". Not necessarily. A multi-threaded code might well get more cycles than a single threaded app. These days an app is hardly ever the only app running on a system.
Multithreading allows you to take advantage of multicore systems, which are becoming almost universal these days.
Multithreading allows you to keep a GUI responsive while some action is taking place. Even if you don't want two user-initiated actions to be taking place simultaneously you might want the GUI to be able to repaint and respond to other events while a calculation is taking place.
So in short, yes there are applications that don't need multithreading, but they are fairly rare and becoming rarer.
First, modern processors have multiple cores, so a single thraed will never get all the CPU cycles.
On a dualcore system, a single thread will utilize only half the CPU. On a 8-core CPU, it'll use only 1/8th.
So from a plain performance point of view, you need multiple threads to utilize the CPU.
Beyond that, some tasks are also easier to express using multithreading.
Some tasks are conceptually independent, and so it is more natural to code them as separate threads running in parallel, than to write a singlethreaded application which interleaves the two tasks and switches between them as necessary.
For example, you typically want the GUI of your application to stay responsive, even if pressing a button starts some CPU-heavy work process that might go for several minutes. In that time, you still want the GUI to work. The natural way to express this is to put the two tasks in separate threads.
Most of the answers here make the conclusion multicore => multithreading look inevitable. However, there is another way of utilizing multiple processors - multi-processing. On Linux especially, where, AFAIK, threads are implemented as just processes perhaps with some restrictions, and processes are cheap as opposed to Windows, there are good reasons to avoid multithreading. So, there are software architecture issues here that should not be neglected.
Of course, if the concurrent lines of execution (either threads or processes) need to operate on the common data, threads have an advantage. But this is also the main reason for headache with threads. Can such program be designed such that the pieces are as much autonomous and independent as possible, so we can use processes? Again, a software architecture issue.
I'd speculate that multi-threading today is what memory management was in the days of C:
it's quite hard to do it right, and quite easy to mess up.
thread-safety bugs, same as memory leaks, are nasty and hard to find
Finally, you may find this article interesting (follow this first link on the page). I admit that I've read only the abstract, though.
Related
Lets assume we have fixed amount of calculation work, without blocking, sleeping, i/o-waiting. The work can be parallelized very well - it consists of 100M small and independent calculation tasks.
What is faster for 4-core CPU - to run 4 threads or... lets say 50? Why second variant should be slover and how much slover?
As i assume: when you run 4 heavy threads on 4-core CPU without another CPU-consuming processes/threads, scheduler is allowed to not move the threads between cores at all; it has no reason to do that in this situation. Core0 (main CPU) will be responsible for executing interruption handler for hardware timer 250 times per second (basic Linux configuration) and other hardware interruption handlers, but another cores may not feel any worries.
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore CPU registers for different context? What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches, pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU? So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do together in comparison to their serial execution?
Question about caches and another hardware optimization in multithreading environment is the interesting question for me now.
As #Baile mentions in the comments, this is highly application, system, environment-specific.
And as such, I'm not going to take the hard-line approach of mentioning exactly 1 thread for each core. (or 2 threads/core in the case of Hyperthreading)
As an experienced shared-memory programmer, I have seen from my experience that the optimal # of threads (for a 4 core machine) can range anywhere from 1 to 64+.
Now I will enumerate the situations that can cause this range:
Optimal Threads < # of Cores
In certain tasks that are very fine-grained paralleled (such as small FFTs), the overhead of threading is the dominant performance factor. In some cases, it's it not helpful to parallelize at all. In some cases, you get speedup with 2 threads, but backwards scaling at 4 threads.
Another issue is resource contention. Even if you have a highly parallelizable task that can easily split across 4 cores/threads, you may be bottlenecked by memory bandwidth and cache effects. So often, you find that 2 threads will be just as fast as 4 threads. (as if often the case with very large FFTs)
Optimal Threads = # of Cores
This is the optimal case. No need to explain here - one thread per core. Most embarrassingly parallel applications that are not memory or I/O bound fit right here.
Optimal Threads > # of Cores
This is where it gets interesting... very interesting. Have you heard about load-imbalance? How about over-decomposition and work-stealing?
Many parallelizable applications are irregular - meaning that the tasks do not split into sub-tasks of equal size. So if you may end up splitting a large task into 4 unequal sizes, assign them to 4 threads and run them on 4 cores... the result? Poor parallel performance because 1 thread happened to get 10x more work than the other threads.
A common solution here is to over-decompose the task into many sub-tasks. You can either create threads for each one of them (so now you get threads >> cores). Or you can use some sort of task-scheduler with a fixed number of threads. Not all tasks are suited for both, so quite often, the approach of over-decomposing a task to 8 or 16 threads for a 4-core machine gives optimal results.
Although spawning more threads can lead to better load-balance, the overhead builds up. So there's typically an optimal point somewhere. I've seen as high as 64 threads on 4 cores. But as mentioned, it's highly application specific. And you need to experiment.
EDIT : Expanding answer to more directly answer the question...
What is the cost of context switching? The time for store and restore
CPU registers for different context?
This is very dependent on the environment - and is somewhat difficult to measure directly. Short answer: Very Expensive This might be a good read.
What about caches, pipelines and various code-prediction things inside
CPU? Can we say that each time we switch context, we hurt caches,
pipelines and some code-decoding facilities in CPU?
Short answer: Yes When you context switch out, you likely flush your pipeline and mess up all the predictors. Same with caches. The new thread is likely to replace the cache with new data.
There's a catch though. In some applications where the threads share the same data, it's possible that one thread could potentially "warm" the cache for another incoming thread or another thread on a different core sharing the same cache. (Although rare, I've seen this happen before on one of my NUMA machines - superlinear speedup: 17.6x across 16 cores!?!?!)
So more threads executing on a single core, less work they can do
together in comparison to their serial execution?
Depends, depends... Hyperthreading aside, there will definitely be overhead. But I've read a paper where someone used a second thread to prefetch for the main thread... Yes it's crazy...
Creating 50 threads will actually hurt performance, not improve it. It just doesn't make any sense.
Ideally you should make the 4 threads, not more, not less. There will be some overhead because of context switching, but that is unavoidable. The OS/services/other applications threads should too be executed. But nowadays with so powerful and lighting-fast CPUs this is of no concern since those OS threads will only take less that 2 % of the CPU's time. Almost all of them will be in blocked state while your program is running.
You might think that, since performance is of critical importance, you should code those small critical areas in low-level assembly language. Modern programming languages allow this.
But seriously... compilers and, in case of Java, the JVM, will optimize those portions so well that it just isn't worth it (unless you actually want to exercise something like this). Instead of your calculations finishing in 100 seconds, they'll finish in 97 or 98. The question you must ask yourself is: is it worth all those hours of coding and debugging ?
You asked about the time cost of context switching. These days, these are extremely low. Look at modern day dual-core CPUs that run Windows 7 for example. If you start an Apache web server on that machine and a MySQL database server, you will easily go over 800 threads. The machine just doesn't feel it. To see how low this cost is, read here: How to estimate the thread context switching overhead? . To spare you the searching/reading part: context switching can be done hundreds of thousands of times per second.
4 threads are faster if you can program your 40 tasks switching better than Operating System does.
If you can use 4 threads, use them. There's no way 50 will go faster than 4 on a 4-core machine. All you get is more overhead.
Of course, you're describing an ideal non-real-world situation, so whatever you are actually building, you'll need to measure in order to understand how the performance is affected.
There is Hyperthreading technology which can handle more that one thread per CPU, but it is hardly dependent on type of calculation you want to do. Consider using of GPU or very low assembly language to achieve maximum power.
As far as I'm concerned, the ideal amount of threads is 3: one for the UI, one for CPU resources, and one for IO resources.
But I'm probably wrong.
I'm just getting introduced to them, but I've always used one for the UI and one for everything else.
When should I use threads and how? How do I know if I should be using them?
Unfortunately, there are no hard and fast rules to using Threads. If you have too many threads the processor will spend all its time generating and switching between them. Use too few threads you will not get the throughput you want in your application. Additionally using threads is not easy. A language like C# makes it easier on you because you have tools like ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem. This allows the system to manage thread creation and destruction. This helps mitigate the overhead of creating a new thread to pass the work onto. You have to remember that the creation of a thread is not an operation that you get for "free." There are costs associated with starting a thread so that should always be taken into consideration.
Depending upon the language you are using to write your application you will dictate how much you need to worry about using threads.
The times I find most often that I need to consider creating threads explicitly are:
Asynchronous operations
Operations that can be parallelized
Continual running background operations
The answer totally depends on what you're planning on doing. However, one for CPU resources is a bad move - your CPU may have up to six cores, plus hyperthreading, in a retail CPU, and most CPUs will have two or more. In this case, you should have as many threads as CPU cores, plus a few more for scheduling mishaps. The whole CPU is not a single-threaded beast, it may have many cores and need many threads for 100% utilization.
You should use threads if and only if your target demographic will virtually all have multi-core (as is the case in current desktop/laptop markets), and you have determined that one core is not enough performance.
Herb Sutter wrote an article for Dr. Dobb's Journal in which he talks about the three pillars of concurrency. This article does a very good job of breaking down which problems are good candidates for being solved via threading constructs.
From the SQLite FAQ: "Threads are evil. Avoid Them." Only use them when you absolutely have to.
If you have to, then take steps to avoid the usual carnage. Use thread pools to execute fine-grained tasks with no interdependencies, using GUI-framework-provided facilities to dispatch outcomes back to the UI. Avoid sharing data between long-running threads; use message queues to pass information between them (and to synchronise).
A more exotic solution is to use languages such as Erlang that are explicit designed for fine-grained parallelism without sacrificing safety and comprehensibility. Concurrency itself is of fundamental importance to the future of computation; threads are simply a horrible, broken way to express it.
The "ideal number of threads" depends on your particular problem and how much parallelism you can exploit. If you have a problem that is "embarassingly parallel" in that it can be subdivided into independent problems with little to no communication between them required, and you have enough cores that you can actually get true parallelism, then how many threads you use depends on things like the problem size, the cache line size, the context switching and spawning overhead, and various other things that is really hard to compute before hand. For such situations, you really have to do some profiling in order to choose an optimal sharding/partitioning of your problem across threads. It typically doesn't make sense, though, to use more threads than you do cores. It is also true that if you have lots of synchronization, then you may, in fact, have a performance penalty for using threads. It's highly dependent on the particular problem as well as how interdependent the various steps are. As a guiding principle, you need to be aware that spawning threads and thread synchronization are expensive operations, but performing computations in parallel can increase throughput if communication and other forms of synchronization is minimal. You should also be aware that threading can lead to very poor cache performance if your threads end up invalidating a mutually shared cache line.
As far as I know, the multi-core architecture in a processor does not effect the program. The actual instruction execution is handled in a lower layer.
my question is,
Given that you have a multicore environment, Can I use any programming practices to utilize the available resources more effectively? How should I change my code to gain more performance in multicore environments?
That is correct. Your program will not run any faster (except for the fact that the core is handling fewer other processes, because some of the processes are being run on the other core) unless you employ concurrency. If you do use concurrency, though, more cores improves the actual parallelism (with fewer cores, the concurrency is interleaved, whereas with more cores, you can get true parallelism between threads).
Making programs efficiently concurrent is no simple task. If done poorly, making your program concurrent can actually make it slower! For example, if you spend lots of time spawning threads (thread construction is really slow), and do work on a very small chunk size (so that the overhead of thread construction dominates the actual work), or if you frequently synchronize your data (which not only forces operations to run serially, but also has a very high overhead on top of it), or if you frequently write to data in the same cache line between multiple threads (which can lead to the entire cache line being invalidated on one of the cores), then you can seriously harm the performance with concurrent programming.
It is also important to note that if you have N cores, that DOES NOT mean that you will get a speedup of N. That is the theoretical limit to the speedup. In fact, maybe with two cores it is twice as fast, but with four cores it might be about three times as fast, and then with eight cores it is about three and a half times as fast, etc. How well your program is actually able to take advantage of these cores is called the parallel scalability. Often communication and synchronization overhead prevent a linear speedup, although, in the ideal, if you can avoid communication and synchronization as much as possible, you can hopefully get close to linear.
It would not be possible to give a complete answer on how to write efficient parallel programs on StackOverflow. This is really the subject of at least one (probably several) computer science courses. I suggest that you sign up for such a course or buy a book. I'd recommend a book to you if I knew of a good one, but the paralell algorithms course I took did not have a textbook for the course. You might also be interested in writing a handful of programs using a serial implementation, a parallel implementation with multithreading (regular threads, thread pools, etc.), and a parallel implementation with message passing (such as with Hadoop, Apache Spark, Cloud Dataflows, asynchronous RPCs, etc.), and then measuring their performance, varying the number of cores in the case of the parallel implementations. This was the bulk of the course work for my parallel algorithms course and can be quite insightful. Some computations you might try parallelizing include computing Pi using the Monte Carlo method (this is trivially parallelizable, assuming you can create a random number generator where the random numbers generated in different threads are independent), performing matrix multiplication, computing the row echelon form of a matrix, summing the square of the number 1...N for some very large number of N, and I'm sure you can think of others.
I don't know if it's the best possible place to start, but I've subscribed to the article feed from Intel Software Network some time ago and have found a lot of interesting thing there, presented in pretty simple way. You can find some very basic articles on fundamental concepts of parallel computing, like this. Here you have a quick dive into openMP that is one possible approach to start parallelizing the slowest parts of your application, without changing the rest. (If those parts present parallelism, of course.) Also check Intel Guide for Developing Multithreaded Applications. Or just go and browse the article section, the articles are not too many, so you can quickly figure out what suits you best. They also have a forum and a weekly webcast called Parallel Programming Talk.
Yes, simply adding more cores to a system without altering the software would yield you no results (with exception of the operating system would be able to schedule multiple concurrent processes on separate cores).
To have your operating system utilise your multiple cores, you need to do one of two things: increase the thread count per process, or increase the number of processes running at the same time (or both!).
Utilising the cores effectively, however, is a beast of a different colour. If you spend too much time synchronising shared data access between threads/processes, your level of concurrency will take a hit as threads wait on each other. This also assumes that you have a problem/computation that can relatively easily be parallelised, since the parallel version of an algorithm is often much more complex than the sequential version thereof.
That said, especially for CPU-bound computations with work units that are independent of each other, you'll most likely see a linear speed-up as you throw more threads at the problem. As you add serial segments and synchronisation blocks, this speed-up will tend to decrease.
I/O heavy computations would typically fare the worst in a multi-threaded environment, since access to the physical storage (especially if it's on the same controller, or the same media) is also serial, in which case threading becomes more useful in the sense that it frees up your other threads to continue with user interaction or CPU-based operations.
You might consider using programming languages designed for concurrent programming. Erlang and Go come to mind.
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.
What are some concrete examples of applications that need to be multi-threaded, or don't need to be, but are much better that way?
Answers would be best if in the form of one application per post that way the most applicable will float to the top.
There is no hard and fast answer, but most of the time you will not see any advantage for systems where the workflow/calculation is sequential. If however the problem can be broken down into tasks that can be run in parallel (or the problem itself is massively parallel [as some mathematics or analytical problems are]), you can see large improvements.
If your target hardware is single processor/core, you're unlikely to see any improvement with multi-threaded solutions (as there is only one thread at a time run anyway!)
Writing multi-threaded code is often harder as you may have to invest time in creating thread management logic.
Some examples
Image processing can often be done in parallel (e.g. split the image into 4 and do the work in 1/4 of the time) but it depends upon the algorithm being run to see if that makes sense.
Rendering of animation (from 3DMax,etc.) is massively parallel as each frame can be rendered independently to others -- meaning that 10's or 100's of computers can be chained together to help out.
GUI programming often helps to have at least two threads when doing something slow, e.g. processing large number of files - this allows the interface to remain responsive whilst the worker does the hard work (in C# the BackgroundWorker is an example of this)
GUI's are an interesting area as the "responsiveness" of the interface can be maintained without multi-threading if the worker algorithm keeps the main GUI "alive" by giving it time, in Windows API terms (before .NET, etc) this could be achieved by a primitive loop and no need for threading:
MSG msg;
while(GetMessage(&msg, hwnd, 0, 0))
{
TranslateMessage(&msg);
DispatchMessage(&msg);
// do some stuff here and then release, the loop will come back
// almost immediately (unless the user has quit)
}
Servers are typically multi-threaded (web servers, radius servers, email servers, any server): you usually want to be able to handle multiple requests simultaneously. If you do not want to wait for a request to end before you start to handle a new request, then you mainly have two options:
Run a process with multiple threads
Run multiple processes
Launching a process is usually more resource-intensive than lauching a thread (or picking one in a thread-pool), so servers are usually multi-threaded. Moreover, threads can communicate directly since they share the same memory space.
The problem with multiple threads is that they are usually harder to code right than multiple processes.
There are really three classes of reasons that multithreading would be applied:
Execution Concurrency to improve compute performance: If you have a problem that can be broken down into pieces and you also have more than one execution unit (processor core) available then dispatching the pieces into separate threads is the path to being able to simultaneously use two or more cores at once.
Concurrency of CPU and IO Operations: This is similar in thinking to the first one but in this case the objective is to keep the CPU busy AND also IO operations (ie: disk I/O) moving in parallel rather than alternating between them.
Program Design and Responsiveness: Many types of programs can take advantage of threading as a program design benefit to make the program more responsive to the user. For example the program can be interacting via the GUI and also doing something in the background.
Concrete Examples:
Microsoft Word: Edit document while the background grammar and spell checker works to add all the green and red squiggle underlines.
Microsoft Excel: Automatic background recalculations after cell edits
Web Browser: Dispatch multiple threads to load each of the several HTML references in parallel during a single page load. Speeds page loads and maximizes TCP/IP data throughput.
These days, the answer should be Any application that can be.
The speed of execution for a single thread pretty much peaked years ago - processors have been getting faster by adding cores, not by increasing clock speeds. There have been some architectural improvements that make better use of the available clock cycles, but really, the future is taking advantage of threading.
There is a ton of research going on into finding ways of parallelizing activities that we traditionally wouldn't think of parallelizing. Even something as simple as finding a substring within a string can be parallelized.
Basically there are two reasons to multi-thread:
To be able to do processing tasks in parallel. This only applies if you have multiple cores/processors, otherwise on a single core/processor computer you will slow the task down compared to the version without threads.
I/O whether that be networked I/O or file I/O. Normally if you call a blocking I/O call, the process has to wait for the call to complete. Since the processor/memory are several orders of magnitude quicker than a disk drive (and a network is even slower) it means the processor will be waiting a long time. The computer will be working on other things but your application will not be making any progress. However if you have multiple threads, the computer will schedule your application and the other threads can execute. One common use is a GUI application. Then while the application is doing I/O the GUI thread can keep refreshing the screen without looking like the app is frozen or not responding. Even on a single processor putting I/O in a different thread will tend to speed up the application.
The single threaded alternative to 2 is to use asynchronous calls where they return immediately and you keep controlling your program. Then you have to see when the I/O completes and manage using it. It is often simpler just to use a thread to do the I/O using the synchronous calls as they tend to be easier.
The reason to use threads instead of separate processes is because threads should be able to share data easier than multiple processes. And sometimes switching between threads is less expensive than switching between processes.
As another note, for #1 Python threads won't work because in Python only one python instruction can be executed at a time (known as the GIL or Global Interpreter Lock). I use that as an example but you need to check around your language. In python if you want to do parallel calculations, you need to do separate processes.
Many GUI frameworks are multi-threaded. This allows you to have a more responsive interface. For example, you can click on a "Cancel" button at any time while a long calculation is running.
Note that there are other solutions for this (for example the program can pause the calculation every half-a-second to check whether you clicked on the Cancel button or not), but they do not offer the same level of responsiveness (the GUI might seem to freeze for a few seconds while a file is being read or a calculation being done).
All the answers so far are focusing on the fact that multi-threading or multi-processing are necessary to make the best use of modern hardware.
There is however also the fact that multithreading can make life much easier for the programmer. At work I program software to control manufacturing and testing equipment, where a single machine often consists of several positions that work in parallel. Using multiple threads for that kind of software is a natural fit, as the parallel threads model the physical reality quite well. The threads do mostly not need to exchange any data, so the need to synchronize threads is rare, and many of the reasons for multithreading being difficult do therefore not apply.
Edit:
This is not really about a performance improvement, as the (maybe 5, maybe 10) threads are all mostly sleeping. It is however a huge improvement for the program structure when the various parallel processes can be coded as sequences of actions that do not know of each other. I have very bad memories from the times of 16 bit Windows, when I would create a state machine for each machine position, make sure that nothing would take longer than a few milliseconds, and constantly pass the control to the next state machine. When there were hardware events that needed to be serviced on time, and also computations that took a while (like FFT), then things would get ugly real fast.
Not directly answering your question, I believe in the very near future, almost every application will need to be multithreaded. The CPU performance is not growing that fast these days, which is compensated for by the increasing number of cores. Thus, if we will want our applications to stay on the top performance-wise, we'll need to find ways to utilize all your computer's CPUs and keep them busy, which is quite a hard job.
This can be done via telling your programs what to do instead of telling them exactly how. Now, this is a topic I personally find very interesting recently. Some functional languages, like F#, are able to parallelize many tasks quite easily. Well, not THAT easily, but still without the necessary infrastructure needed in more procedural-style environments.
Please take this as additional information to think about, not an attempt to answer your question.
The kind of applications that need to be threaded are the ones where you want to do more than one thing at once. Other than that no application needs to be multi-threaded.
Applications with a large workload which can be easily made parallel. The difficulty of taking your application and doing that should not be underestimated. It is easy when your data you're manipulating is not dependent upon other data but v. hard to schedule the cross thread work when there is a dependency.
Some examples I've done which are good multithreaded candidates..
running scenarios (eg stock derivative pricing, statistics)
bulk updating data files (eg adding a value / entry to 10,000 records)
other mathematical processes
E.g., you want your programs to be multithreaded when you want to utilize multiple cores and/or CPUs, even when the programs don't necessarily do many things at the same time.
EDIT: using multiple processes is the same thing. Which technique to use depends on the platform and how you are going to do communications within your program, etc.
Although frivolous, games, in general are becomming more and more threaded every year. At work our game uses around 10 threads doing physics, AI, animation, redering, network and IO.
Just want to add that caution must be taken with treads if your sharing any resources as this can lead to some very strange behavior, and your code not working correctly or even the threads locking each other out.
mutex will help you there as you can use mutex locks for protected code regions, a example of protected code regions would be reading or writing to shared memory between threads.
just my 2 cents worth.
The main purpose of multithreading is to separate time domains. So the uses are everywhere where you want several things to happen in their own distinctly separate time domains.
HERE IS A PERFECT USE CASE
If you like affiliate marketing multi-threading is essential. Kick the entire process off via a multi-threaded application.
Download merchant files via FTP, unzipping the files, enumerating through each file performing cleanup like EOL terminators from Unix to PC CRLF then slam each into SQL Server via Bulk Inserts then when all threads are complete create the full text search indexes for a environmental instance to be live tomorrow and your done. All automated to kick off at say 11:00 pm.
BOOM! Fast as lightening. Heck you have so much time left you can even download merchant images locally for the products you download, save the images as webp and set the product urls to use local images.
Yep I did it. Wrote it in C#. Works like a charm. Purchase a AMD Ryzen Threadripper 64-core with 256gb memory and fast drives like nvme, get lunch come back and see it all done or just stay around and watch all cores peg to 95%+, listen to the pc's fans kick, warm up the room and the look outside as the neighbors lights flicker from the power drain as you get shit done.
Future would be to push processing to GPU's as well.
Ok well I am pushing it a little bit with the neighbors lights flickering but all else was absolutely true. :)