Given a machine with 1 CPU and a lot of RAM. Besides other kinds of applications (web server etc.), there are 2 other server applications running on that machine doing the exact same kind of processing although one uses 10 threads and the other users 1 thread. Assume the processing logic for each request is 100% CPU-bound and typically takes no longer than 2 seconds to finish. The question is whose throughput, in terms of transactions processed per minute, might be better? Why?
Note that the above is not a real environment, I just make up the data to make the question clear. My current thinking is that there should be no difference because the apps are 100% CPU-bound and therefore if the machine can handle 30 requests per minute for the 2nd app, it will also be able to handle 3 requests per minute for each of the 10 threads of the 1st app. But I'm glad to be proven wrong, given the fact that there are other applications running in the machine and one application might not be always given 100% CPU time.
There's always some overhead involved in task switching, so if the threads aren't blocking on anything, fewer threads is generally better. Also, if the threads aren't executing the same part of code, you'll get some cache flushing each time you swtich.
On the other hand, the difference might not be measurable.
Interesting question.
I wrote a sample program that does just this. It has a class that will go do some processor intensive work, then return. I specify the total number of threads I want to run, and the total number of times I want the work to run. The program will then equally divide the work between all the threads (if there's only one thread, it just gets it all) and start them all up.
I ran this on a single proc VM since I could find a real computer with only 1 processor in it anymore.
Run independently:
1 Thread 5000 Work Units - 50.4365sec
10 Threads 5000 Work Units - 49.7762sec
This seems to show that on a one proc PC, with lots of threads that are doing processor intensive work, windows is smart enough not to rapidly switch them back and fourth, and they take about the same amount of time.
Run together (or as close as I could get to pushing enter at the same time):
1 Thread 5000 Work Units - 99.5112sec
10 Threads 5000 Work Units - 56.8777sec
This is the meat of the question. When you run 10 threads + 1 thread, they all seem to be scheduled equally. The 10 threads each took 1/10th longer (because there was an 11th thread running) while the other thread took almost twice its time (really, it got 1/10th of its work done in the first 56sec, then did the other 9/10ths in the next 43sec...which is about right).
The result: Window's scheduler is fair on a thread level, but not on a process level. If you make a lot of threads, it you can leave the other processes that weren't smart enought to make lots of threads high and dry. Or just do it right and us a thread pool :-)
If you're interested in trying it for yourself, you can find my code:
http://teeks99.com/ThreadWorkTest.zip
The scheduling overhead could make the app with 10 threads slower than the one with 1 thread. You won't know for sure unless you create a test.
For some background on multithreading see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thread_(computer_science)
This might very well depend on the operating system scheduler. For example, back in single-thread days the scheduler knew only about processes, and had measures like "niceness" to figure out how much to allocate.
In multithreaded code, there is probably a way in which one process that has 100 threads doesn't get 99% of the CPU time if there's another process that has a single thread. On the other hand, if you have only two processes and one of them is multithreaded I would suspect that the OS may give it more overall time. However, AFAIK nothing is really guaranteed.
Switching costs between threads in the same process may be cheaper than switching between processes (e.g., due to cache behavior).
One thing you must consider is wait time on the other end of the transaction. Having multiple threads will allow you to be waiting for a response on one while preparing the next transaction on the next. At least that's how I understand it. So I think a few threads will turn out better than one.
On the other hand you must consider the overhead involved with dealing on multiple threads. The details of the application are important part of the consideration here.
Related
Every process has at least one thread of execution and I read somewhere that modern Operating Systems only schedule Thread and not process.
So if there are two processes running in the system - P1 with 1 thread and P2 with 100 threads, how will OS scheduling algorithm ensure that both P1 and P2 get approximately same amount of CPU time? If OS blindly schedules threads, P2 will get 100 times more CPU time than P1.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Does it also take into account which Process a particular thread belong to? Otherwise, it seems too easy for a process to hog all the CPU by creating more threads.
Wrong question. Consider two jobs that are trying to solve the exact same problem by doing the same work and are perfectly identical except for one thing -- one uses dozens of threads, the other uses dozens of processes. Why should the one that uses dozens of processes get more CPU time than the one that uses dozens of threads?
Your notion of fairness is not really a sensible one.
Instead, scheduling is more designed around trying to get as much work done as possible per unit time. The assumption is that everything the computer is doing is useful and it benefits competing tasks to have other tasks competing with them finish as quickly as possible too.
This is actually all you need the vast majority of the time. But occasionally you have special situations where this doesn't work. One is ultra-high-priority tasks like keeping video or audio flowing or keeping a user interface responsive. Another is ultra-low-priority tasks where there's an enormous amount of work you want done and you don't want the system to be slow for a long time while you're working on it. Priorities are used for this, and generally the system allows higher-priority threads to interrupt lower-priority ones to keep responsiveness.
In general, "fair thread scheduling" attempts to give each thread an equal amount of CPU time (regardless of how much CPU time all threads in a process get); and "fair process scheduling" attempts to give each process the same amount of CPU time (e.g. by giving threads belonging to different processes unequal amounts of CPU time). These are mutually exclusive - you can't have both (unless each process has the same number of threads).
Note that it's all a broken joke anyway. For example, if one thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running slow due to thermal throttling (and/or because another logical CPU in the same core is busy) and another thread gets 10 ms of time on a CPU that is running faster than normal (e.g. due to "turbo-boost" and/or because the other logical CPU in the core is not being used); then these threads have received an equal amount of CPU time but have not received anything that could be considered "fair" (because one thread might be able to get 20 times as much work done than the other).
Note that it's all unwanted anyway. For example, for a good OS threads would be given a priority to indicate how important the work they do is, and you don't want a high priority thread (doing very important work) to get the same "fair share" of CPU time as a low priority thread (doing irrelevant/unimportant work). For cases where two threads have equal priority you might (in theory) want them to get an "equal" amount of CPU time; but in practice this isn't common and threads block and unblock so often that it isn't worth caring about; and in practice it can lead to "two half finished jobs instead of one completed job and one unstarted job" scenarios that increases the average amount of time a job (e.g. request for work) takes to complete.
If the thread is the basic unit of scheduling (a generally safe assumption these days) then the process scheduler is the one to decide who to allocate the CPUs. How (and whether) it takes thread usage into account is entirely system specific. AND the behavior ma depends upon the type of process. For example, in VMS (and adopted in Windoze) realtime processes are treated differently than other types of processes.
In the VMS-type scheduling, a process with more threads gets more CPU by design. Better for an application to use more threads and for it to use more processes.
Keep in mind that a system may impose limits on the number of threads in a process.
All is entirely theoretical, the question just came to mind and I wasn't entirely sure whats the answer:
Assume you have an application that calculates 4 independent calculations. (Totally independent, doesn't matter what order you do them and you don't need one to calculate another).
Also assume those calculations are long (minutes) and CPU-bound (not waiting for any kind of IO)
1) Now, if you have a 1-processor computer, a single thread application will logically be faster than (or the same as) a multithreaded application. As the computer not able to do more then one thing at a time with one processor, it would "waste" time on context switching and the likes.
So far so good?
2) If you have a 4 processor computer, 4 threads will mostly likely be faster for this than single thread. Right? your computer can now do 4 operations at a time so its just logical to divide your application to 4 threads, and it should complete with the time the longest of the 4 calculations take.
Still good so far?
3) And now the actual part I am confused about - why would I EVER have my application create more threads than the number of processors (well actually - cores) available? I have programmed and have seen applications that create tens and hundreds of threads, but actually - the perfect number is about 8 for an average computer?
P.S. I already read this: Threading vs single thread
but didn't quiet answer that.
Cheers
Why would I EVER have my application create more threads than the number of processors (well actually - cores) available?
One very good reason is if you have threads that wait on events. For example you might have a producer/consumer application in which the producer is reading from some data stream, and that data arrives in bursts: a few hundred (or thousand) records in a batch, followed by nothing for a while, and then another burst. Say you have a 4-core machine. You could have a single producer thread that reads the data and places it in a queue, and three consumer threads to process the queue.
Or, you could have a single producer thread and four consumer threads. Most of the time, the producer thread is idle, giving you four consumer threads to process items from the queue. But when items are available on the data stream, one of the consumer threads gets swapped out in favor of the producer.
That's a simplified example, but substantially similar to programs that I have in production.
More generally, it doesn't make any sense to create more continuously-working (i.e. CPU bound) threads than you have processing units (CPU cores in general, although the existence of hyperthreading muddies the waters a bit). If you know that your threads won't be waiting on external events, then having n+1 threads when you only have n cores will end up wasting time with thread context switches. Note that this is strictly in the context of your program. If there are other applications and OS services running, your application's threads will get swapped out from time to time so that those other apps and services can get a timeslice. But one assumes that, if you're running a CPU-intensive program, you'll limit the other apps and services that are running at the same time.
Your best bet, of course, is to set up a test. On a 4-core machine, test your app with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... threads. Time how long it takes to complete with different numbers of threads. I think you'll find that on a 4-core machine the sweet spot will be 3 or 4; most likely 4 unless there are other apps or OS services that take a lot of CPU.
One reason i could come up with for more threads than cores would be if some threads needed to interface with other parties... waiting for a response from a server.. querying something from the database. This will allow the thread to sleep until an answer is provided. this way other computations wouldn't have to wait. in the 4cores->4thread the thread would wait for input which possibly causes other code to have to wait too
Adding threads to your application is not strictly about performance gains. Some times you want or need to perform more than one task at the same time because that is the most logical way to architect your program.
As an example, perhaps you are writing a game engine, if you take a multi-threaded approach, you may have one thread for physics, one thread for graphics, one thread for networking, one thread for user input, one thread for resource loading from disk etc.
Also James Baxters point is very true as well. Some times threads are waiting on a resource and can not execute further until they access said resource. With only the same number of threads as cores, one core would be going to waste.
I think you are assuming that all programs are CPU bound - remember some of your threads will be waiting for I/O (disk/network/user traffic).
Earlier I asked about processing a datastream and someone suggested to put data in a queue and processing this data on a different thead. If this was to slow, I should use multiple threads.
However, i'm using a system that has one core.
So my question is: why not up the prio of my app, so it gets more CPU time from the OS?
I'm writing a server based app and it will be the only big thing running on there.
What would be the pro's and con's of putting the prio up?:)
If you have only one core, then the only way that multi-threading can help you is if chunks of that work depends on something other than CPU, so one thread can get some work done while another is waiting for data from a disk or network connection.
If your application has a GUI, then it can benefit from multi-threading in that while it would be no quicker to do the processing (slower in fact, though probably negligibly so if the task is very long), it can still react to user input in the meantime.
If you have two or more cores, then you can also gain in CPU-bound operations though doing so varies from trivial to impossible depending on just what that operation is. This is irrelevant to your case, but worth considering generally if code you write could later be run on a multi-core system.
Upping the priority is probably a bad idea though, especially if you have only one core (one advantage of multi-core systems is that people who up priorities can't do as much damage).
All threads have priorities which is a factor of both their process' priority and their priority within that process. A low-priority thread in a high priority process trumps a high-priority thread in a low-priority process.
The scheduler doles out CPU slices in a round-robin fashion to the highest priority threads that have work to do. If there are CPUs left over (which in your case means if there are zero threads at that priority that need to run), then it doles out slices to the next lowest priority, and so on.
Most of the time, most threads aren't doing much anyway, which can be seen from the fact that most of the time CPU usage on most systems is below the 100% mark (hyperthreading skews this, the internal scheduling within the cores means a hyperthreaded system can be fully saturated and seem to be only running at as little as 70%). Anyway, generally stuff gets done and a thread that suddenly has lots to do will do so at normal priority in pretty much the same time it would at a higher.
However, while the benefit to that busy thread of higher priority is generally little or nothing, the decrement is great. Since it's the only thread that gets any CPU time, all other threads are stuck. All other processes therefore hang for a while. Eventually the scheduler notices that they've all been waiting for around 3seconds, and fixes this by boosting them all to highest priority and giving them larger slices than normal. Now we have a burst of activity as threads that got no time are all suddenly highest-priority threads that all want CPU time. There's a spurt of every thread except the high-priority one running, and the system stops from keeling over, though there's likely still a lot of applications showing "Not Responding" in their title bars. It's far from ideal, but it is an effective way to deal with a thread of higher than usual priority grabbing the core for so long.
The threads gradually drop down in priority, and eventually we're back to the situation where the single higher priority thread is the only one that can work.
For extra fun, if our high priority thread in any way depended upon services provided by the lower priority threads, it would have ended up being stuck waiting on them. Hopefully in a way that made it block and stopped itself from doing any damage, but probably not.
In all, thread priorities are to be approached with great caution, and process priorities even more so. They're only really valid if they'll yield quickly and are either essential to the workings of other threads (e.g. some OS processes will be done at a higher priority, finaliser threads in .NET will be higher than the rest of the process, etc) or if sub-millisecond delays can mess things up (some intensive media work requires this).
If you have multiple cores/processors in your system, upping the priority of a single threaded program will not improve your performance by much, because the other cores would still be unused.
The only way to take advantage of multiple processing units is to write your program using multiple threads/processes.
Having said this, setting your multithreaded application to very high priority may lead to some performance improvement, but I really never saw it to be significant, at least in my own tests.
Edit: I see now that you are using only one core. Basically your program will be able to run more often on the CPU than the rest of the processes that are of lower priority. This may bring you a marginal improvement, but not a dramatic one. Since we cannot know what other applications are running at the same time on your system, the golden rule here is to try it yourself with various priority levels and see what happens. It's the only valid way to see if things will be faster or not.
It all depends on why the data processing is slow.
If the data processing is slow because it is a genuinely cpu intensive operation then splitting it out into multiple threads on a single core system is not going to get you any benefit. In this case increasing the task priority would provide some benefit, assuming that there is (user) cpu time being used by other processes.
However, if the data processing operation is slow because of some non-cpu restriction (eg. if it is I/O bound, or relying on another process), then:
Increasing the task priority is going to have negligible impact. Task priority won't affect I/O times and if there is a dependency on another process on the system you may actually harm performance.
Splitting the data processing out into multiple threads can allow the cpu intensive areas to continue processing while waiting for the non-cpu intensive (eg. I/O) areas to complete.
Increasing the priority of a single-threaded process just gives you more (or bigger) time slices on the one core the process is running on. The core can still only do one thing at a time.
If you spin off a thread to handle the data processing, it can run on a different processor core (assuming a multi-core system), and it and your main thread are actually executing at the same time. Much more efficient.
If you use only one thread your server app will only be able to service one request at a time, no matter what its priority. If you use multiple threads you could service many at the same time.
I am writing a CPU-intensive image processing library. To make best use of available CPU, I can detect the total number of cores on my machine and have my library run with that number of threads. When my library to allocate one thread for each core it performs optimally using 100% available processor time.
The above approach works fine when mine is the only CPU-heavy process running. If another CPU-intensive process is running, or even another instance of my own code, then the OS allocates us only a fraction of the available cores and my library then has too many threads running which is both inefficient and inconsiderate to other processes.
So I would like to find a way to determine the "fair share" number of threads to run given a specific load. For example, if two instances of my process are running on an 8-core machine, each would run with 4 threads. Each would need a way to adapt thread count dynamically according to fluctuations in machine load.
So, my question:
Is there any OS feature or third-party library which allows my process to adapt thread count dynamically to use its fair share of the CPU?
My focus is Windows but interested in non-Windows solutions too.
Edit: to be clear, this is about optimization. I am trying to achieve peak efficiency by running the optimal number of threads appropriate to my fair share of the CPU.
In my eyes, the application shouldnt decide how many threads to spawn. This is an information, that the caller should know. In linux, the "-j" or "--jobs" parameter is widely used (Default: 1).
What about also setting the priority of the processing tasks. So if the caller knows, the processing is mission-critical, he can increase the prio (with the knowledge of maybe blocking the (whole) system). Your processing lib would never know, how important the processing of this image would be.
If the caller doesnt care, then the default low-prio is used, which shouldnt affect the rest of the system. If it does, you should look to what is exactly blocking the system (maybe writing image files to the hdd, reduce ram size to prevent swapping, ...). If you figured out that, you can optimize exactly that point.
If you start the processing with (cpu-cores)*2 on low till normal priority, your system should be useable. No one would expect, that this will kill the system.
Just my 2 cents.
Actually it's not a problem of multithreading but a problem of executing many programs simultaneously. This is hard on most PC's operating systems because it conflicts to the idea of time-sharing.
Let's assume some workflow.
Suppose we have 8 cores and we create 8 threads to feed them; ok, that's easy. Next we choose to monitor core loading to summary how many tasks running on a certain core; well, that needs some statistical assumptions, e.g on Linux you can get a 1/5/15-mins load average chart, but that could be done. The statistical chart is clear and now we get a plot about how many CPU-bound processes are running, say, seeing other 3 CPU-intensive processes.
Then we come to the point: we have to make 3 redundant threads to sleep, but which 3?
Usually we choose 3 threads arbitrarily because the scheduler arranges the other 8 CPU-bound threads automatically. In some cases, we explicitly put threads on high load cores to sleep, assign other threads to certain low load cores, and let the scheduler do the rest things. Most scheduling policies also try to "keep CPU cache hot", which means they tend to forbid transferring threads between cores. We reasonably expect our CPU-intensive threads can utilize the core cache since other processes are scheduled to the 3 crowded cores. Everything looks good.
However this could fail in tightly synchronized computation. In this scenario we need to run our 5 threads simultaneously. Simultaneity here means the 5 threads have to gain CPU and run at almost the same time. I don't know if there's any scheduler on PC could do this for us. In most low-load cases, things still work fine because costs to wait for simultaneity is trivial. But when the load of a core is high and even 1 of our 5 threads is disturbed, occasionally we'll find we spend many life cycles in waiting.
It may help to schedule your program as a real-time program but it's not a perfect solution. Statistically it leads to a wider time window for simultaneity when it gains more CPU control priority. I have to say, it's not guaranteed.
Can someone please explain to me how a multi-threaded application can be faster when a single core cpu can only do a single thing at a time. If I have 10 threads then only 1 of those threads is really 'running' at any given moment on a single core cpu and all the extra threads just add context switching overhead. So if each thread has 10 instructions to process then in the end I'm still processing 100 instructions sequentially plus the context switching overhead. Am I missing something here?
A Helpful Analogy About Bananas
Imagine a supermarket with 4 checkout lanes. But there is only one cashier. Should she work on a single register or work on all 4 registers, moving between them?
The obvious answer is that she should stay on one register to avoid wasting time moving between checkout lanes.
But now imagine that when you buy fruit, the scale can take up to 5 minutes to re-calibrate for each specific type of fruit.
While the scale is recalibrating and the register is tied up, suddenly it becomes more efficient overall to rotate over to the next lane and ring up some items there rather than just waiting for the scale to be ready again.
The scale calibrating is non-CPU work (such as disk I/O, network latency, etc.). Rotating to the next register is switching to another thread. And there you have it.
Yes, you are missing the fact that a process might BLOCK to wait for I/O. So, if you use only ONE THREAD in your application, if it blocks to wait for I/O to finish, it will be extremely slow.
On the other hand, if you have multiple threads, your application might have a couple of them waiting for I/O to finish, but the rest of them "executing" while OS gives it access to the SINGLE PROCESSOR.
Do keep in mind that I/O operations compared to CPU operations are orders of magnitude slower.
And yes. Even in single cores, a multithreaded application will probably be faster than a single threaded one. Consider the case of a server process like APACHE running on a single thread. Every time there is a connection waiting for I/O to finish, the rest of the connection will halt waiting for that I/O operation to finish. Of course there is ASYNC-IO. But the programming model to make a huge server like Apache running on a single thread with ASYNC-IO, will be too complicated to maintain, improve or anything else.
You're right, it's not faster on a single-core processor. Most programs do many things at once. Most of these operations are 'bursty' for the processor. They do something, wait for input or output to finish, then do some more. Multithreaded programming allows another operation to use the processor during the wait. Remember, all processors basically do the same thing. The difference is the speed that they can do their operations. The goal then is to keep the processor busy doing useful stuff as much as possible. Multithreaded programming is just a method that makes it easier for programmers to get to that goal.
On a single core, of course it is not faster. But it can make the system more responsive, by not appearing dead to the world while doing a long-running task.
It really depends on that what the threads are doing. If there is a relative big amount of latency, another thread can do its job while other threads are waiting for "themselves".