Related
I have read that we use semaphores inside the linux kerenl,and i have read that semaphores has advantages even in one single cpu (we can run only one process\thread). Can anyone please give me an example of a problem that semaphore solves(inside the kernel)?
In my view, there can be a problem only if we have more than one cpu, because two process may call system calls that use the same data structure, and probablly cause problems.
Thank you for your help!
You don't really need more than one CPU for concurrency. The multiple CPUs are really "an implementation detail," a piece of hardware quirkiness that you can abstract away from. Concurrency is a logical property of programs. You can have concurrency without multiple CPUs, and use multiple CPUs without "real concurrency".
Consider a web server. It has to be "concurrent," in the sense that it must serve multiple clients at once, hold information about multiple connections and once, and process multiple requests at once. You can have it literally do this, by having multiple CPUs all working at the same time. Yet, the program only has to appear to do multiple things at once. It could just as well be running on one CPU and context switching to fairly service all the work put to it. The fact that a web-server does multiple things at once is part of its interface: the I/O for the connections are interleaved, if a request has exclusively locked a resource, another request won't start trying to manipulate that same resource, etc. Writing a web server without concurrency produces a program that is wrong.
Semaphores help you with concurrency, by letting you control the way processes access resources. You asked, if you had one process running, how another could run at the same time with only a single core. Well, as I said, concurrency doesn't need multiple cores. The first process can be paused, and the second one started while the first one is still unfinished. This is just an implementation detail; logically, to the program writer, the two processes are running simultaneously, whether there are multiple cores or not. If the program was written without semaphores (or had broken concurrency in some other way), it would be wrong, even on a single core. Physically, this will be because context switching can abruptly pause one computation and start another at any time, and, without semaphores, the newly live thread won't know what resources it can and cannot access. Logically, this will be because the processes are running simultaneously, once you abstract yourself away from the implementation, and, in general, processes running simultaneously can walk over each other if not properly synchronized.
For an example applicable to an OS kernel, consider that every process is logically running concurrently with every other process. A kernel provides the implementation that makes this concurrency work. A resource that two processes may want simultaneously is a hard drive. A semaphore might be used in the kernel to track whether a given drive is currently busy with a read or write. A process trying to read or write to the same disk will ask the kernel to do so, and the kernel can check the semaphore to see that the disk is still busy and force the offending process to wait. Now, an operating system does count as low level code, so in some places, yes, you might want to omit some otherwise vital concurrency safeguards when running on a single CPU, because your job is to handle such implementation details, but higher level parts may still use them.
In contrast, consider a number-crunching program. Let's say it's processing each element of a huge array of data into an equal-sized array of modified data (a functional map operation). It can use multiple CPUs to do this more quickly, but it can also work one CPU. The observable behavior of the program is the same, and you never get any idea that it's doing multiple things at once from its behavior. Numbers go in, numbers come out, who cares what happens in the middle? Writing such a program without the ability to do multiple things at once does not produce a logically incorrect program, just a slow one. Such a program probably does not need semaphores when running on a single CPU, because it didn't need concurrency in the first place.
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.
Many platforms promote asynchrony and parallelism as means for improving responsiveness. I understand the difference generally, but often find it difficult to articulate in my own mind, as well as for others.
I am a workaday programmer and use async & callbacks fairly often. Parallelism feels exotic.
But I feel like they are easily conflated, especially at the language design level. Would love a clear description of how they relate (or don't), and the classes of programs where each is best applied.
When you run something asynchronously it means it is non-blocking, you execute it without waiting for it to complete and carry on with other things. Parallelism means to run multiple things at the same time, in parallel. Parallelism works well when you can separate tasks into independent pieces of work.
Take for example rendering frames of a 3D animation. To render the animation takes a long time so if you were to launch that render from within your animation editing software you would make sure it was running asynchronously so it didn't lock up your UI and you could continue doing other things. Now, each frame of that animation can also be considered as an individual task. If we have multiple CPUs/Cores or multiple machines available, we can render multiple frames in parallel to speed up the overall workload.
I believe the main distinction is between concurrency and parallelism.
Async and Callbacks are generally a way (tool or mechanism) to express concurrency i.e. a set of entities possibly talking to each other and sharing resources.
In the case of async or callback communication is implicit while sharing of resources is optional (consider RMI where results are computed in a remote machine).
As correctly noted this is usually done with responsiveness in mind; to not wait for long latency events.
Parallel programming has usually throughput as the main objective while latency, i.e. the completion time for a single element, might be worse than a equivalent sequential program.
To better understand the distinction between concurrency and parallelism I am going to quote from Probabilistic models for concurrency of Daniele Varacca which is a good set of notes for theory of concurrency:
A model of computation is a model for concurrency when it is able to represent systems as composed of independent autonomous components, possibly communicating with each other. The notion of concurrency should not be confused with the notion of parallelism. Parallel computations usually involve a central control which distributes the work among several processors. In concurrency we stress the independence of the components, and the fact that they communicate with each other. Parallelism is like ancient Egypt, where the Pharaoh decides and the slaves work. Concurrency is like modern Italy, where everybody does what they want, and all use mobile phones.
In conclusion, parallel programming is somewhat a special case of concurrency where separate entities collaborate to obtain high performance and throughput (generally).
Async and Callbacks are just a mechanism that allows the programmer to express concurrency.
Consider that well-known parallel programming design patterns such as master/worker or map/reduce are implemented by frameworks that use such lower level mechanisms (async) to implement more complex centralized interactions.
This article explains it very well: http://urda.cc/blog/2010/10/04/asynchronous-versus-parallel-programming
It has this about asynchronous programming:
Asynchronous calls are used to prevent “blocking” within an application. [Such a] call will spin-off in an already existing thread (such as an I/O thread) and do its task when it can.
this about parallel programming:
In parallel programming you still break up work or tasks, but the key differences is that you spin up new threads for each chunk of work
and this in summary:
asynchronous calls will use threads already in use by the system and parallel programming requires the developer to break the work up, spinup, and teardown threads needed.
async: Do this by yourself somewhere else and notify me when you complete(callback). By the time i can continue to do my thing.
parallel: Hire as many guys(threads) as you wish and split the job to them to complete quicker and let me know(callback) when you complete. By the time i might continue to do my other stuff.
the main difference is parallelism mostly depends on hardware.
My basic understanding is:
Asynchonous programming solves the problem of waiting around for an expensive operation to complete before you can do anything else. If you can get other stuff done while you're waiting for the operation to complete then that's a good thing. Example: keeping a UI running while you go and retrieve more data from a web service.
Parallel programming is related but is more concerned with breaking a large task into smaller chunks that can be computed at the same time. The results of the smaller chunks can then be combined to produce the overall result. Example: ray-tracing where the colour of individual pixels is essentially independent.
It's probably more complicated than that, but I think that's the basic distinction.
I tend to think of the difference in these terms:
Asynchronous: Go away and do this task, when you're finished come back and tell me and bring the results. I'll be getting on with other things in the mean time.
Parallel: I want you to do this task. If it makes it easier, get some folks in to help. This is urgent though, so I'll wait here until you come back with the results. I can do nothing else until you come back.
Of course an asynchronous task might make use of parallelism, but the differentiation - to my mind at least - is whether you get on with other things while the operation is being carried out or if you stop everything completely until the results are in.
It is a question of order of execution.
If A is asynchronous with B, then I cannot predict beforehand when subparts of A will happen with respect to subparts of B.
If A is parallel with B, then things in A are happening at the same time as things in B. However, an order of execution may still be defined.
Perhaps the difficulty is that the word asynchronous is equivocal.
I execute an asynchronous task when I tell my butler to run to the store for more wine and cheese, and then forget about him and work on my novel until he knocks on the study door again. Parallelism is happening here, but the butler and I are engaged in fundamentally different tasks and of different social classes, so we don't apply that label here.
My team of maids is working in parallel when each of them is washing a different window.
My race car support team is asynchronously parallel in that each team works on a different tire and they don't need to communicate with each other or manage shared resources while they do their job.
My football (aka soccer) team does parallel work as each player independently processes information about the field and moves about on it, but they are not fully asynchronous because they must communicate and respond to the communication of others.
My marching band is also parallel as each player reads music and controls their instrument, but they are highly synchronous: they play and march in time to each other.
A cammed gatling gun could be considered parallel, but everything is 100% synchronous, so it is as though one process is moving forward.
Why Asynchronous ?
With today's application's growing more and more connected and also potentially
long running tasks or blocking operations such as Network I/O or Database Operations.So it's very important to hide the latency of these operations by starting them in background and returning back to the user interface quickly as possible. Here Asynchronous come in to the picture, Responsiveness.
Why parallel programming?
With today's data sets growing larger and computations growing more complex. So it's very important to reduce the execution time of these CPU-bound operations, in this case, by dividing the workload into chunks and then executing those chunks simultaneously. We can call this as "Parallel" .
Obviously it will give high Performance to our application.
Asynchronous
Let's say you are the point of contact for your client and you need to be responsive i.e. you need to share status, complexity of operation, resources required etc whenever asked. Now you have a time-consuming operation to be done and hence cannot take this up as you need to be responsive to the client 24/7. Hence, you delegate the time-consuming operation to someone else so that you can be responsive. This is asynchronous.
Parallel programming
Let's say you have a task to read, say, 100 lines from a text file, and reading one line takes 1 second. Hence, you'll require 100 seconds to read the text file. Now you're worried that the client must wait for 100 seconds for the operation to finish. Hence you create 9 more clones and make each of them read 10 lines from the text file. Now the time taken is only 10 seconds to read 100 lines. Hence you have better performance.
To sum up, asynchronous coding is done to achieve responsiveness and parallel programming is done for performance.
Asynchronous: Running a method or task in background, without blocking. May not necessorily run on a separate thread. Uses Context Switching / time scheduling.
Parallel Tasks: Each task runs parallally. Does not use context switching / time scheduling.
I came here fairly comfortable with the two concepts, but with something not clear to me about them.
After reading through some of the answers, I think I have a correct and helpful metaphor to describe the difference.
If you think of your individual lines of code as separate but ordered playing cards (stop me if I am explaining how old-school punch cards work), then for each separate procedure written, you will have a unique stack of cards (don't copy & paste!) and the difference between what normally goes on when run code normally and asynchronously depends on whether you care or not.
When you run the code, you hand the OS a set of single operations (that your compiler or interpreter broke your "higher" level code into) to be passed to the processor. With one processor, only one line of code can be executed at any one time. So, in order to accomplish the illusion of running multiple processes at the same time, the OS uses a technique in which it sends the processor only a few lines from a given process at a time, switching between all the processes according to how it sees fit. The result is multiple processes showing progress to the end user at what seems to be the same time.
For our metaphor, the relationship is that the OS always shuffles the cards before sending them to the processor. If your stack of cards doesn't depend on another stack, you don't notice that your stack stopped getting selected from while another stack became active. So if you don't care, it doesn't matter.
However, if you do care (e.g., there are multiple processes - or stacks of cards - that do depend on each other), then the OS's shuffling will screw up your results.
Writing asynchronous code requires handling the dependencies between the order of execution regardless of what that ordering ends up being. This is why constructs like "call-backs" are used. They say to the processor, "the next thing to do is tell the other stack what we did". By using such tools, you can be assured that the other stack gets notified before it allows the OS to run any more of its instructions. ("If called_back == false: send(no_operation)" - not sure if this is actually how it is implemented, but logically, I think it is consistent.)
For parallel processes, the difference is that you have two stacks that don't care about each other and two workers to process them. At the end of the day, you may need to combine the results from the two stacks, which would then be a matter of synchronicity but, for execution, you don't care again.
Not sure if this helps but, I always find multiple explanations helpful. Also, note that asynchronous execution is not constrained to an individual computer and its processors. Generally speaking, it deals with time, or (even more generally speaking) an order of events. So if you send dependent stack A to network node X and its coupled stack B to Y, the correct asynchronous code should be able to account for the situation as if it was running locally on your laptop.
Generally, there are only two ways you can do more than one thing each time. One is asynchronous, the other is parallel.
From the high level, like the popular server NGINX and famous Python library Tornado, they both fully utilize asynchronous paradigm which is Single thread server could simultaneously serve thousands of clients (some IOloop and callback). Using ECF(exception control follow) which could implement the asynchronous programming paradigm. so asynchronous sometimes doesn't really do thing simultaneous, but some io bound work, asynchronous could really promotes the performance.
The parallel paradigm always refers multi-threading, and multiprocessing. This can fully utilize multi-core processors, do things really simultaneously.
Summary of all above answers
parallel computing:
▪ solves throughput issue.
Concerned with breaking a large task into smaller chunks
▪ is machine related (multi machine/core/cpu/processor needed), eg: master slave, map reduce.
Parallel computations usually involve a central control which distributes the work among several processors
asynchronous:
▪ solves latency issue
ie, the problem of 'waiting around' for an expensive operation to complete before you can do anything else
▪ is thread related (multi thread needed)
Threading (using Thread, Runnable, Executor) is one fundamental way to perform asynchronous operations in Java
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.
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. :)