How do I control the number of threads that my program is working on?
I have a program that is now ready for mutithreading but one problem is that the program is extremely memory intensive and i have to limit the number of threads running so that i don't run out of ram. The main program goes through and creates a whole bunch of handles and associated threads in suspended state.
I want the program to activate a set number of threads and when one thread finishes, it will automatically unsuspended the next thread in line until all the work has been completed. How do i do this?
Someone has once mentioned something about using a thread handler, but I can't seem to find any information about how to write one or exactly how it would work.
If anyone can help, it would be greatly appreciated.
Using windows and visual c++.
Note: i don't need to worry about the traditional problems of access with the threads, each one is completely independent of each other, its more of like batch processing rather than true mutithreading of a program.
Thanks,
-Faken
Don't create threads explicitly. Create a thread pool, see Thread Pools and queue up your work using QueueUserWorkItem. The thread pool size should be determined by the number of hardware threads available (number of cores and ratio of hyperthreading) and the ratio of CPU vs. IO your work items do. By controlling the size of the thread pool you control the number of maximum concurrent threads.
A Suspended thread doesn't use CPU resources, but it still consumes memory, so you really shouldn't be creating more threads than you want to run simultaneously.
It is better to have only as many threads as your maximum number of simultaneous tasks, and to use a queue to pass units of work to the pool of worker threads.
You can give work to the standard pool of threads created by Windows using the Windows Thread Pool API.
Be aware that you will share these threads and the queue used to submit work to them with all of the code in your process. If, for some reason, you don't want to share your worker threads with other code in your process, then you can create a FIFO queue, create as many threads as you want to run simultaneously and have each of them pull work items out of the queue. If the queue is empty they will block until work items are added to the queue.
There is so much to say here.
There are a few ways
You should only create as many thread handles as you plan on running at the same time, then reuse them when they complete. (Look up thread pool).
This guarantees that you can never have too many running at the same time. This raises the question of funding out when a thread completes. You can have a callback be called just before a thread terminates where a parameter in that callback is the thread handle that just finished. Use Boost bind and boost signals for that. When the callback is called, look for another task for that thread handle and restart the thread. That way all you have to do is add to the "tasks to do" list and the callback will remove the tasks for you. No polling needed, and no worries about too many threads.
Related
I have written a small application on go, which starts 4 threads for doing various things + one main thread. So in total there are 5 threads. But if I'll start activity monitor and monitor the process, this is what I see
First of all why 7 threads. And it is not constant. Sometimes it is 5 and other times it is 7. Also all 4 threads started by main thread ends after doing hat they are suppose to. I verify that threads end by putting a differ statement on the top of thread. Still thread count in Activity monitor stays 7.
Does anyone knows what is going on over here? Are these extra threads started by go runtime? Is there a way to find out how many threads are active my program that are started by my code and not by go runtime.
Yes they are started by the runtime, for example http://play.golang.org/p/c0cIngo_sO it will print 4 goroutines are running.
Goroutines aren't threads, 1 OS thread can handle 100s of goroutines, however if you're doing something heavy or using a blocking system call, the runtime will start a new thread to handle the other goroutines.
I suppose you mean Goroutines when you say threads.
The Go runtime transparently multiplexes lightweight Goroutines onto OS threads. That's also why you don't need to call functions like select()—that's the runtime's job.
If you spawn 7 Go routines and some of them block, the runtime might decide to terminate the idle OS threads. This is why you see less threads than Go routines.
I think you mistake Goroutines for thread.
In your go program, the thread you mean is actually goroutine ，which is a coroutine and is not a real thread , which is implemented by go's runtime(you need to know about go runtime, every go program is running on a runtime, and runtime actually use thread to implement goroutines).Diffrent goroutine may be running in the same thread, or may be not ,but you never know . You can use runtime.GOMAXPROCS for multi-core cpu .
And the threads you see in the monitor are real threads .
I can explain the question better with an example so I am using it?
Suppose our system is Round-Robin scheduled system with each time interval for execution 10ms. If we create two threads in our program , will each thread be executing 10ms or both in combine will execute 10ms?
If they take combine 10ms then who manages context switching between threads?
Note: I am not talking about kernel threads here.
In Linux, the threads contend for CPU with every other thread in the system. In POSIX terms, the threads have system contention scope.
Thus, for your example, each thread will get 10ms.
You can check this by:
Trying to set (via pthread_attr_setscope) the contention scope attribute to PTHREAD_SCOPE_PROCESS - should result in an error.
Get a thread attrbutes via pthread_getattr_np and check via pthread_attr_getscope that
the contention scope is PTHREAD_SCOPE_SYSTEM
Yes they too do have a time-slice.
In linux, threads vye for the resources such as memory,CPU or are waiting for some I/O event to occur. These threads under go through various states like idle,active,ready depending on the avalaibity of the resources. This all working is taken care by "Process Management Subsystem" which consists of Process Schedulars and manages the processes execution and their states.
One can also manipulate the time-period that a process can hold a resource like CPU.
Or the priority of a process can be changed( For e.g "nice").
-Sumeet
I could setup a multi-threaded environment using the .net ThreadPool and I do get a significant performance benefit. This runs in the background of my application.
Now when a new task is requested by the user, I want it to get maximum CPU resources to maximize performance. Hence I would like to temporarily pause all the threads that I began (via the ThreadPool.Queueuserworkitem method) and then resume once the new task, requested by the user in foreground, is completed.
There could be several solutions to my problem:
a. Starting lesser background threads so that any new user request gets some share of the CPU resources. (but I loose the performance gain I had :( )
b. Set higher priority for the thread for a new user requested task. (not sure if this works?)
c. Suspending/resuming the ThreadPool threads I began. But suspending / resuming / interrupting threads is highly discouraged. Moreover, this could get tricky and error prone.
Any other ideas?
Note: when the user makes a request, performing the task would normally not take more than 300ms. However, when I start ThreadPool threads in background, it now takes about 3 seconds to complete (10 times worse)! I am OK if it takes 500-800ms though. All background threads complete in about 8 seconds (and I am OK if they take 1-2 seconds more). Hence, I am trying out option ( a ) for now.
Thanks in advance!
Be noted that Thread scheduling is done by CPU and hence cannot be directed from within a program. Only thing that can be done is setting ThreadPriority (that too on new Threads, not on ThreadPool threads). Check section Limitations of Using the Thread Pool
As your requirement is to suspend all background threads while executing a new task, what you can do is to create a class level flag.
Now you can put checkpoints in methods to be executed in Background task. At the checkpoints, check the class level flag, if it is set, call Thread.Sleep, which should (NOT MUST) trigger thread context switch by OS/CPU thread scheduler.
Putting checkpoints in methods (to be executed by ThreadPool) is analogous to putting checkpoints for cancellation support in background worker.
Can someone list some comparison points between Thread Spawning vs Thread Pooling, which one is better? Please consider the .NET framework as a reference implementation that supports both.
Thread pool threads are much cheaper than a regular Thread, they pool the system resources required for threads. But they have a number of limitations that may make them unfit:
You cannot abort a threadpool thread
There is no easy way to detect that a threadpool completed, no Thread.Join()
There is no easy way to marshal exceptions from a threadpool thread
You cannot display any kind of UI on a threadpool thread beyond a message box
A threadpool thread should not run longer than a few seconds
A threadpool thread should not block for a long time
The latter two constraints are a side-effect of the threadpool scheduler, it tries to limit the number of active threads to the number of cores your CPU has available. This can cause long delays if you schedule many long running threads that block often.
Many other threadpool implementations have similar constraints, give or take.
A "pool" contains a list of available "threads" ready to be used whereas "spawning" refers to actually creating a new thread.
The usefulness of "Thread Pooling" lies in "lower time-to-use": creation time overhead is avoided.
In terms of "which one is better": it depends. If the creation-time overhead is a problem use Thread-pooling. This is a common problem in environments where lots of "short-lived tasks" need to be performed.
As pointed out by other folks, there is a "management overhead" for Thread-Pooling: this is minimal if properly implemented. E.g. limiting the number of threads in the pool is trivial.
For some definition of "better", you generally want to go with a thread pool. Without knowing what your use case is, consider that with a thread pool, you have a fixed number of threads which can all be created at startup or can be created on demand (but the number of threads cannot exceed the size of the pool). If a task is submitted and no thread is available, it is put into a queue until there is a thread free to handle it.
If you are spawning threads in response to requests or some other kind of trigger, you run the risk of depleting all your resources as there is nothing to cap the amount of threads created.
Another benefit to thread pooling is reuse - the same threads are used over and over to handle different tasks, rather than having to create a new thread each time.
As pointed out by others, if you have a small number of tasks that will run for a long time, this would negate the benefits gained by avoiding frequent thread creation (since you would not need to create a ton of threads anyway).
My feeling is that you should start just by creating a thread as needed... If the performance of this is OK, then you're done. If at some point, you detect that you need lower latency around thread creation you can generally drop in a thread pool without breaking anything...
All depends on your scenario. Creating new threads is resource intensive and an expensive operation. Most very short asynchronous operations (less than a few seconds max) could make use of the thread pool.
For longer running operations that you want to run in the background, you'd typically create (spawn) your own thread. (Ab)using a platform/runtime built-in threadpool for long running operations could lead to nasty forms of deadlocks etc.
Thread pooling is usually considered better, because the threads are created up front, and used as required. Therefore, if you are using a lot of threads for relatively short tasks, it can be a lot faster. This is because they are saved for future use and are not destroyed and later re-created.
In contrast, if you only need 2-3 threads and they will only be created once, then this will be better. This is because you do not gain from caching existing threads for future use, and you are not creating extra threads which might not be used.
It depends on what you want to execute on the other thread.
For short task it is better to use a thread pool, for long task it may be better to spawn a new thread as it could starve the thread pool for other tasks.
The main difference is that a ThreadPool maintains a set of threads that are already spun-up and available for use, because starting a new thread can be expensive processor-wise.
Note however that even a ThreadPool needs to "spawn" threads... it usually depends on workload - if there is a lot of work to be done, a good threadpool will spin up new threads to handle the load based on configuration and system resources.
There is little extra time required for creating/spawning thread, where as thread poll already contains created threads which are ready to be used.
This answer is a good summary but just in case, here is the link to Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_pool_pattern
For Multi threaded execution combined with getting return values from the execution, or an easy way to detect that a threadpool has completed, java Callables could be used.
See https://blogs.oracle.com/CoreJavaTechTips/entry/get_netbeans_6 for more info.
Assuming C# and Windows 7 and up...
When you create a thread using new Thread(), you create a managed thread that becomes backed by a native OS thread when you call Start – a one to one relationship. It is important to know only one thread runs on a CPU core at any given time.
An easier way is to call ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem (i.e. background thread), which in essence does the same thing, except those background threads aren’t forever tied to a single native thread. The .NET scheduler will simulate multitasking between managed threads on a single native thread. With say 4 cores, you’ll have 4 native threads each running multiple managed threads, determined by .NET. This offers lighter-weight multitasking since switching between managed threads happens within the .NET VM not in the kernel. There is some overhead associated with crossing from user mode to kernel mode, and the .NET scheduler minimizes such crossing.
It may be important to note that heavy multitasking might benefit from pure native OS threads in a well-designed multithreading framework. However, the performance benefits aren’t that much.
With using the ThreadPool, just make sure the minimum worker thread count is high enough or ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem will be slower than new Thread(). In a benchmark test looping 512 times calling new Thread() left ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem in the dust with default minimums. However, first setting the minimum worker thread count to 512, in this test, made new Thread() and ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem perform similarly.
A side effective of setting a high worker thread count is that new Task() (or Task.Factory.StartNew) also performed similarly as new Thread() and ThreadPool.QueueUserWorkItem.
As a side project I'm currently writing a server for an age-old game I used to play. I'm trying to make the server as loosely coupled as possible, but I am wondering what would be a good design decision for multithreading. Currently I have the following sequence of actions:
Startup (creates) ->
Server (listens for clients, creates) ->
Client (listens for commands and sends period data)
I'm assuming an average of 100 clients, as that was the max at any given time for the game. What would be the right decision as for threading of the whole thing? My current setup is as follows:
1 thread on the server which listens for new connections, on new connection create a client object and start listening again.
Client object has one thread, listening for incoming commands and sending periodic data. This is done using a non-blocking socket, so it simply checks if there's data available, deals with that and then sends messages it has queued. Login is done before the send-receive cycle is started.
One thread (for now) for the game itself, as I consider that to be separate from the whole client-server part, architecturally speaking.
This would result in a total of 102 threads. I am even considering giving the client 2 threads, one for sending and one for receiving. If I do that, I can use blocking I/O on the receiver thread, which means that thread will be mostly idle in an average situation.
My main concern is that by using this many threads I'll be hogging resources. I'm not worried about race conditions or deadlocks, as that's something I'll have to deal with anyway.
My design is setup in such a way that I could use a single thread for all client communications, no matter if it's 1 or 100. I've separated the communications logic from the client object itself, so I could implement it without having to rewrite a lot of code.
The main question is: is it wrong to use over 200 threads in an application? Does it have advantages? I'm thinking about running this on a multi-core machine, would it take a lot of advantage of multiple cores like this?
Thanks!
Out of all these threads, most of them will be blocked usually. I don't expect connections to be over 5 per minute. Commands from the client will come in infrequently, I'd say 20 per minute on average.
Going by the answers I get here (the context switching was the performance hit I was thinking about, but I didn't know that until you pointed it out, thanks!) I think I'll go for the approach with one listener, one receiver, one sender, and some miscellaneous stuff ;-)
use an event stream/queue and a thread pool to maintain the balance; this will adapt better to other machines which may have more or less cores
in general, many more active threads than you have cores will waste time context-switching
if your game consists of a lot of short actions, a circular/recycling event queue will give better performance than a fixed number of threads
To answer the question simply, it is entirely wrong to use 200 threads on today's hardware.
Each thread takes up 1 MB of memory, so you're taking up 200MB of page file before you even start doing anything useful.
By all means break your operations up into little pieces that can be safely run on any thread, but put those operations on queues and have a fixed, limited number of worker threads servicing those queues.
Update: Does wasting 200MB matter? On a 32-bit machine, it's 10% of the entire theoretical address space for a process - no further questions. On a 64-bit machine, it sounds like a drop in the ocean of what could be theoretically available, but in practice it's still a very big chunk (or rather, a large number of pretty big chunks) of storage being pointlessly reserved by the application, and which then has to be managed by the OS. It has the effect of surrounding each client's valuable information with lots of worthless padding, which destroys locality, defeating the OS and CPU's attempts to keep frequently accessed stuff in the fastest layers of cache.
In any case, the memory wastage is just one part of the insanity. Unless you have 200 cores (and an OS capable of utilizing) then you don't really have 200 parallel threads. You have (say) 8 cores, each frantically switching between 25 threads. Naively you might think that as a result of this, each thread experiences the equivalent of running on a core that is 25 times slower. But it's actually much worse than that - the OS spends more time taking one thread off a core and putting another one on it ("context switching") than it does actually allowing your code to run.
Just look at how any well-known successful design tackles this kind of problem. The CLR's thread pool (even if you're not using it) serves as a fine example. It starts off assuming just one thread per core will be sufficient. It allows more to be created, but only to ensure that badly designed parallel algorithms will eventually complete. It refuses to create more than 2 threads per second, so it effectively punishes thread-greedy algorithms by slowing them down.
I write in .NET and I'm not sure if the way I code is due to .NET limitations and their API design or if this is a standard way of doing things, but this is how I've done this kind of thing in the past:
A queue object that will be used for processing incoming data. This should be sync locked between the queuing thread and worker thread to avoid race conditions.
A worker thread for processing data in the queue. The thread that queues up the data queue uses semaphore to notify this thread to process items in the queue. This thread will start itself before any of the other threads and contain a continuous loop that can run until it receives a shut down request. The first instruction in the loop is a flag to pause/continue/terminate processing. The flag will be initially set to pause so that the thread sits in an idle state (instead of looping continuously) while there is no processing to be done. The queuing thread will change the flag when there are items in the queue to be processed. This thread will then process a single item in the queue on each iteration of the loop. When the queue is empty it will set the flag back to pause so that on the next iteration of the loop it will wait until the queuing process notifies it that there is more work to be done.
One connection listener thread which listens for incoming connection requests and passes these off to...
A connection processing thread that creates the connection/session. Having a separate thread from your connection listener thread means that you're reducing the potential for missed connection requests due to reduced resources while that thread is processing requests.
An incoming data listener thread that listens for incoming data on the current connection. All data is passed off to a queuing thread to be queued up for processing. Your listener threads should do as little as possible outside of basic listening and passing the data off for processing.
A queuing thread that queues up the data in the right order so everything can be processed correctly, this thread raises the semaphore to the processing queue to let it know there's data to be processed. Having this thread separate from the incoming data listener means that you're less likely to miss incoming data.
Some session object which is passed between methods so that each user's session is self contained throughout the threading model.
This keeps threads down to as simple but as robust a model as I've figured out. I would love to find a simpler model than this, but I've found that if I try and reduce the threading model any further, that I start missing data on the network stream or miss connection requests.
It also assists with TDD (Test Driven Development) such that each thread is processing a single task and is much easier to code tests for. Having hundreds of threads can quickly become a resource allocation nightmare, while having a single thread becomes a maintenance nightmare.
It's far simpler to keep one thread per logical task the same way you would have one method per task in a TDD environment and you can logically separate what each should be doing. It's easier to spot potential problems and far easier to fix them.
What's your platform? If Windows then I'd suggest looking at async operations and thread pools (or I/O Completion Ports directly if you're working at the Win32 API level in C/C++).
The idea is that you have a small number of threads that deal with your I/O and this makes your system capable of scaling to large numbers of concurrent connections because there's no relationship between the number of connections and the number of threads used by the process that is serving them. As expected, .Net insulates you from the details and Win32 doesn't.
The challenge of using async I/O and this style of server is that the processing of client requests becomes a state machine on the server and the data arriving triggers changes of state. Sometimes this takes some getting used to but once you do it's really rather marvellous;)
I've got some free code that demonstrates various server designs in C++ using IOCP here.
If you're using unix or need to be cross platform and you're in C++ then you might want to look at boost ASIO which provides async I/O functionality.
I think the question you should be asking is not if 200 as a general thread number is good or bad, but rather how many of those threads are going to be active.
If only several of them are active at any given moment, while all the others are sleeping or waiting or whatnot, then you're fine. Sleeping threads, in this context, cost you nothing.
However if all of those 200 threads are active, you're going to have your CPU wasting so much time doing thread context switches between all those ~200 threads.