In my multithreaded application and I see heavy lock contention in it, preventing good scalability across multiple cores. I have decided to use lock free programming to solve this.
How can I write a lock free structure?
Short answer is:
You cannot.
Long answer is:
If you are asking this question, you do not probably know enough to be able to create a lock free structure. Creating lock free structures is extremely hard, and only experts in this field can do it. Instead of writing your own, search for an existing implementation. When you find it, check how widely it is used, how well is it documented, if it is well proven, what are the limitations - even some lock free structure other people published are broken.
If you do not find a lock free structure corresponding to the structure you are currently using, rather adapt the algorithm so that you can use some existing one.
If you still insist on creating your own lock free structure, be sure to:
start with something very simple
understand memory model of your target platform (including read/write reordering constraints, what operations are atomic)
study a lot about problems other people encountered when implementing lock free structures
do not just guess if it will work, prove it
heavily test the result
More reading:
Lock free and wait free algorithms at Wikipedia
Herb Sutter: Lock-Free Code: A False Sense of Security
Use a library such as Intel's Threading Building Blocks, it contains quite a few lock -free structures and algorithms. I really wouldn't recommend attempting to write lock-free code yourself, it's extremely error prone and hard to get right.
Writing thread-safe lock free code is hard; but this article from Herb Sutter will get you started.
As sblundy pointed out, if all objects are immutable, read-only, you don't need to worry about locking, however, this means you may have to copy objects a lot. Copying usually involves malloc and malloc uses locking to synchronize memory allocations across threads, so immutable objects may buy you less than you think (malloc itself scales rather badly and malloc is slow; if you do a lot of malloc in a performance critical section, don't expect good performance).
When you only need to update simple variables (e.g. 32 or 64 bit int or pointers), perform simply addition or subtraction operations on them or just swap the values of two variables, most platforms offer "atomic operations" for that (further GCC offers these as well). Atomic is not the same as thread-safe. However, atomic makes sure, that if one thread writes a 64 bit value to a memory location for example and another thread reads from it, the reading one either gets the value before the write operation or after the write operation, but never a broken value in-between the write operation (e.g. one where the first 32 bit are already the new, the last 32 bit are still the old value! This can happen if you don't use atomic access on such a variable).
However, if you have a C struct with 3 values, that want to update, even if you update all three with atomic operations, these are three independent operations, thus a reader might see the struct with one value already being update and two not being updated. Here you will need a lock if you must assure, the reader either sees all values in the struct being either the old or the new values.
One way to make locks scale a lot better is using R/W locks. In many cases, updates to data are rather infrequent (write operations), but accessing the data is very frequent (reading the data), think of collections (hashtables, trees). In that case R/W locks will buy you a huge performance gain, as many threads can hold a read-lock at the same time (they won't block each other) and only if one thread wants a write lock, all other threads are blocked for the time the update is performed.
The best way to avoid thread-issues is to not share any data across threads. If every thread deals most of the time with data no other thread has access to, you won't need locking for that data at all (also no atomic operations). So try to share as little data as possible between threads. Then you only need a fast way to move data between threads if you really have to (ITC, Inter Thread Communication). Depending on your operating system, platform and programming language (unfortunately you told us neither of these), various powerful methods for ITC might exist.
And finally, another trick to work with shared data but without any locking is to make sure threads don't access the same parts of the shared data. E.g. if two threads share an array, but one will only ever access even, the other one only odd indexes, you need no locking. Or if both share the same memory block and one only uses the upper half of it, the other one only the lower one, you need no locking. Though it's not said, that this will lead to good performance; especially not on multi-core CPUs. Write operations of one thread to this shared data (running one core) might force the cache to be flushed for another thread (running on another core) and these cache flushes are often the bottle neck for multithread applications running on modern multi-core CPUs.
As my professor (Nir Shavit from "The Art of Multiprocessor Programming") told the class: Please don't. The main reason is testability - you can't test synchronization code. You can run simulations, you can even stress test. But it's rough approximation at best. What you really need is mathematical correctness proof. And very few capable understanding them, let alone writing them.
So, as others had said: use existing libraries. Joe Duffy's blog surveys some techniques (section 28). The first one you should try is tree-splitting - break to smaller tasks and combine.
Immutability is one approach to avoid locking. See Eric Lippert's discussion and implementation of things like immutable stacks and queues.
in re. Suma's answer, Maurice Herlithy shows in The Art of Multiprocessor Programming that actually anything can be written without locks (see chapter 6). iirc, This essentially involves splitting tasks into processing node elements (like a function closure), and enqueuing each one. Threads will calculate the state by following all nodes from the latest cached one. Obviously this could, in worst case, result in sequential performance, but it does have important lockless properties, preventing scenarios where threads could get scheduled out for long peroids of time when they are holding locks. Herlithy also achieves theoretical wait-free performance, meaning that one thread will not end up waiting forever to win the atomic enqueue (this is a lot of complicated code).
A multi-threaded queue / stack is surprisingly hard (check the ABA problem). Other things may be very simple. Become accustomed to while(true) { atomicCAS until I swapped it } blocks; they are incredibly powerful. An intuition for what's correct with CAS can help development, though you should use good testing and maybe more powerful tools (maybe SKETCH, upcoming MIT Kendo, or spin?) to check correctness if you can reduce it to a simple structure.
Please post more about your problem. It's difficult to give a good answer without details.
edit immutibility is nice but it's applicability is limited, if I'm understanding it right. It doesn't really overcome write-after-read hazards; consider two threads executing "mem = NewNode(mem)"; they could both read mem, then both write it; not the correct for a classic increment function. Also, it's probably slow due to heap allocation (which has to be synchronized across threads).
Inmutability would have this effect. Changes to the object result in a new object. Lisp works this way under the covers.
Item 13 of Effective Java explains this technique.
Cliff Click has dome some major research on lock free data structures by utilizing finite state machines and also posted a lot of implementations for Java. You can find his papers, slides and implementations at his blog: http://blogs.azulsystems.com/cliff/
Use an existing implementation, as this area of work is the realm of domain experts and PhDs (if you want it done right!)
For example there is a library of code here:
http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/research/srg/netos/lock-free/
Most lock-free algorithms or structures start with some atomic operation, i.e. a change to some memory location that once begun by a thread will be completed before any other thread can perform that same operation. Do you have such an operation in your environment?
See here for the canonical paper on this subject.
Also try this wikipedia article article for further ideas and links.
The basic principle for lock-free synchronisation is this:
whenever you are reading the structure, you follow the read with a test to see if the structure was mutated since you started the read, and retry until you succeed in reading without something else coming along and mutating while you are doing so;
whenever you are mutating the structure, you arrange your algorithm and data so that there is a single atomic step which, if taken, causes the entire change to become visible to the other threads, and arrange things so that none of the change is visible unless that step is taken. You use whatever lockfree atomic mechanism exists on your platform for that step (e.g. compare-and-set, load-linked+store-conditional, etc.). In that step you must then check to see if any other thread has mutated the object since the mutation operation began, commit if it has not and start over if it has.
There are plenty of examples of lock-free structures on the web; without knowing more about what you are implementing and on what platform it is hard to be more specific.
If you are writing your own lock-free data structures for a multi-core cpu, do not forget about memory barriers! Also, consider looking into Software Transaction Memory techniques.
Well, it depends on the kind of structure, but you have to make the structure so that it carefully and silently detects and handles possible conflicts.
I doubt you can make one that is 100% lock-free, but again, it depends on what kind of structure you need to build.
You might also need to shard the structure so that multiple threads work on individual items, and then later on synchronize/recombine.
As mentioned, it really depends on what type of structure you're talking about. For instance, you can write a limited lock-free queue, but not one that allows random access.
Reduce or eliminate shared mutable state.
In Java, utilize the java.util.concurrent packages in JDK 5+ instead of writing your own. As was mentioned above, this is really a field for experts, and unless you have a spare year or two, rolling your own isn't an option.
Can you clarify what you mean by structure?
Right now, I am assuming you mean the overall architecture. You can accomplish it by not sharing memory between processes, and by using an actor model for your processes.
Take a look at my link ConcurrentLinkedHashMap for an example of how to write a lock-free data structure. It is not based on any academic papers and doesn't require years of research as others imply. It simply takes careful engineering.
My implementation does use a ConcurrentHashMap, which is a lock-per-bucket algorithm, but it does not rely on that implementation detail. It could easily be replaced with Cliff Click's lock-free implementation. I borrowed an idea from Cliff, but used much more explicitly, is to model all CAS operations with a state machine. This greatly simplifies the model, as you'll see that I have psuedo locks via the 'ing states. Another trick is to allow laziness and resolve as needed. You'll see this often with backtracking or letting other threads "help" to cleanup. In my case, I decided to allow dead nodes on the list be evicted when they reach the head, rather than deal with the complexity of removing them from the middle of the list. I may change that, but I didn't entirely trust my backtracking algorithm and wanted to put off a major change like adopting a 3-node locking approach.
The book "The Art of Multiprocessor Programming" is a great primer. Overall, though, I'd recommend avoiding lock-free designs in the application code. Often times it is simply overkill where other, less error prone, techniques are more suitable.
If you see lock contention, I would first try to use more granular locks on your data structures rather than completely lock-free algorithms.
For example, I currently work on multithreaded application, that has a custom messaging system (list of queues for each threads, the queue contains messages for thread to process) to pass information between threads. There is a global lock on this structure. In my case, I don't need speed so much, so it doesn't really matter. But if this lock would become a problem, it could be replaced by individual locks at each queue, for example. Then adding/removing element to/from the specific queue would didn't affect other queues. There still would be a global lock for adding new queue and such, but it wouldn't be so much contended.
Even a single multi-produces/consumer queue can be written with granular locking on each element, instead of having a global lock. This may also eliminate contention.
If you read several implementations and papers regarding the subject, you'll notice there is the following common theme:
1) Shared state objects are lisp/clojure style inmutable: that is, all write operations are implemented copying the existing state in a new object, make modifications to the new object and then try to update the shared state (obtained from a aligned pointer that can be updated with the CAS primitive). In other words, you NEVER EVER modify an existing object that might be read by more than the current thread. Inmutability can be optimized using Copy-on-Write semantics for big, complex objects, but thats another tree of nuts
2) you clearly specify what allowed transitions between current and next state are valid: Then validating that the algorithm is valid become orders of magnitude easier
3) Handle discarded references in hazard pointer lists per thread. After the reference objects are safe, reuse if possible
See another related post of mine where some code implemented with semaphores and mutexes is (partially) reimplemented in a lock-free style:
Mutual exclusion and semaphores
Related
I have a data structure, say a MinHeap. It has methods like peek(), removeElement() and addElement(). removeElement() and addElement() can produce inconsistent states if they are not made thread safe (because they involve increasing/decreasing the currentHeapSize).
Now, I want to implement this data structure, the functional way. I have read that in functional programming immutability is the key which leads to thread safety. How do I implement that here? Should I avoid incrementing/decrementing the currentHeapSize? If so, how? I would like some direction with this.
Edit #1
#YuvalItzchakov and #Dima have pointed out saying that I need to return a new collection everytime I do an insert/delete, which makes sense. But wouldn't that hamper the performance critically?
My use case is that I will be getting a stream of data and I keep adding it to the heap. When ever someone requests data, the root of the min heap is returned. So here insertion happens very rapidly. Wouldn't creating a new Heap for every insert prove to be costly? I think it would. If so, how does functional programming really help? Is it just a theoretical concept or does it have practical implications as well?
The problem of parallel access to the same data structure is twofold. First, we need to serialize parallel updates. #Tim gave a comprehensive answer to this. Second, in the case there are many readers, we may want to allow them to read in parallel with writing. And in this case immutability plays its role. Without it, writers have to wait the readers to finish.
There isn't really a "functional" way to have a data structure that can be updated by multiple threads. In fact one reason that functional programming is so good in a multi-threaded environment is because there aren't any shared data structures like this.
However in the real world this problem comes up all the time, so you need some way to serialise access to the shared data structure. The most crude way is simply to put a big lock around the whole code and only allow one thread to run at once (e.g. with a Mutex). With clever design this can be made reasonably efficient, but it can be difficult to get right and complicated to maintain.
A more sophisticated approach is to have a thread-safe queue of requests to your data structure and a single worker thread that processes these requests one-by-one. One popular framework that supports this model is Akka Actors. You wrap your data structure in an Actor which then receives requests to read or modify the data structure. The Akka framework will ensure that only one message is processed at once.
In your case your the actor would manage the heap and receive updates from the stream which would go into the heap. Other threads can then make requests that will be processes in a sequential, thread-safe way. It is best if these request perform specific queries on the heap, rather than just returning the whole heap every time.
You may use cats Ref type class
https://typelevel.org/cats-effect/concurrency/ref.html
But it is that AtomicReference realization, or write some java.util.concurent.ConcurentHashMap wrapper
I've been working a lot with concurrency at the practical level, and therefore I've also started to study it theoretically to gain insight into this field of computer science.
However, I've trouble understanding the following:
Why cannot a Lock for 2-threads be implemented using only 1 shared variable satisfying mutual exclusion and deadlock freedom?
More generally, why is at least n shared variables needed for a n-thread lock satisfying mutual exclusion and deadlock freedom?
Consider two threads A and B. I see that A must write to this variable in order to signify it acquires the lock. The variable could be a boolean. Is it because that A needs to read the variable before writing it, and this is two operations? (not done atomically)
Most likely, you're reading things that make assumptions about the platform's capabilities that are no longer realistic. You're probably considering the case where a CPU has no prefetching, no posted writes, total read and store ordering, no compiler optimization that affect memory visibility or memory operation ordering, and no risk of word tearing, but does not have an atomic "read-modify-write" operation like increment or compare-exchange. With these assumptions, there's really no way to do it with one variable.
This is an interesting theoretical problem, but has very little practical relevance. Modern CPUs do have all of those optimizations -- they prefetch reads, they post writes to buffers, they re-order reads and stores, and compilers optimize away memory options. Word tearing is typically not an issue for aligned operations to native integer types. But, more importantly, modern CPUs have sophisticated, high-performance atomic operations such as increment, decrement, compare-exchange, and so on.
When you write synchronization primitives, the exercise is highly platform-specific. The combination of capabilities available to you varies from platform to platform. Even more importantly, their costs vary drastically from platform to platform, so even if many solutions are possible, they may not be equally good.
Lastly, you have to have a deep understanding of what each primitive actually makes the platform do. For example, on modern Intel CPUs, there is hyper-threading. It's important that, for example, a thread waiting for a spinlock doesn't starve another thread sharing the physical core. That requires deep understanding of how hyper-threading actually works. Similarly, it's easy to code a spinlock so that you take the mother of all mispredicted branches when you acquire the lock and blow out the pipelines at the instant where performance is the most critical. You need to understand how branch prediction works and how it interacts with instruction pipelining to avoid this issue.
The vast majority of programmers should never, ever write synchronization primitives and use them in actual, real world code. Getting them to work with assured reliability is hard, and getting them to perform properly is much, much harder. And to top it off, it's not possible to measure their performance easily. (Of course, it's great to experiment, so long as you don't get an exaggerated sense of the usefulness of your experimental code.)
Back in my days as a BeOS programmer, I read this article by Benoit Schillings, describing how to create a "benaphore": a method of using atomic variable to enforce a critical section that avoids the need acquire/release a mutex in the common (no-contention) case.
I thought that was rather clever, and it seems like you could do the same trick on any platform that supports atomic-increment/decrement.
On the other hand, this looks like something that could just as easily be included in the standard mutex implementation itself... in which case implementing this logic in my program would be redundant and wouldn't provide any benefit.
Does anyone know if modern locking APIs (e.g. pthread_mutex_lock()/pthread_mutex_unlock()) use this trick internally? And if not, why not?
What your article describes is in common use today. Most often it's called "Critical Section", and it consists of an interlocked variable, a bunch of flags and an internal synchronization object (Mutex, if I remember correctly). Generally, in the scenarios with little contention, the Critical Section executes entirely in user mode, without involving the kernel synchronization object. This guarantees fast execution. When the contention is high, the kernel object is used for waiting, which releases the time slice conductive for faster turnaround.
Generally, there is very little sense in implementing synchronization primitives in this day and age. Operating systems come with a big variety of such objects, and they are optimized and tested in significantly wider range of scenarios than a single programmer can imagine. It literally takes years to invent, implement and test a good synchronization mechanism. That's not to say that there is no value in trying :)
Java's AbstractQueuedSynchronizer (and its sibling AbstractQueuedLongSynchronizer) works similarly, or at least it could be implemented similarly. These types form the basis for several concurrency primitives in the Java library, such as ReentrantLock and FutureTask.
It works by way of using an atomic integer to represent state. A lock may define the value 0 as unlocked, and 1 as locked. Any thread wishing to acquire the lock attempts to change the lock state from 0 to 1 via an atomic compare-and-set operation; if the attempt fails, the current state is not 0, which means that the lock is owned by some other thread.
AbstractQueuedSynchronizer also facilitates waiting on locks and notification of conditions by maintaining CLH queues, which are lock-free linked lists representing the line of threads waiting either to acquire the lock or to receive notification via a condition. Such notification moves one or all of the threads waiting on the condition to the head of the queue of those waiting to acquire the related lock.
Most of this machinery can be implemented in terms of an atomic integer representing the state as well as a couple of atomic pointers for each waiting queue. The actual scheduling of which threads will contend to inspect and change the state variable (via, say, AbstractQueuedSynchronizer#tryAcquire(int)) is outside the scope of such a library and falls to the host system's scheduler.
I was reading the SQLite FAQ, and came upon this passage:
Threads are evil. Avoid them.
I don't quite understand the statement "Thread are evil". If that is true, then what is the alternative?
My superficial understanding of threads is:
Threads make concurrence happen. Otherwise, the CPU horsepower will be wasted, waiting for (e.g.) slow I/O.
But the bad thing is that you must synchronize your logic to avoid contention and you have to protect shared resources.
Note: As I am not familiar with threads on Windows, I hope the discussion will be limited to Linux/Unix threads.
When people say that "threads are evil", the usually do so in the context of saying "processes are good". Threads implicitly share all application state and handles (and thread locals are opt-in). This means that there are plenty of opportunities to forget to synchronize (or not even understand that you need to synchronize!) while accessing that shared data.
Processes have separate memory space, and any communication between them is explicit. Furthermore, primitives used for interprocess communication are often such that you don't need to synchronize at all (e.g. pipes). And you can still share state directly if you need to, using shared memory, but that is also explicit in every given instance. So there are fewer opportunities to make mistakes, and the intent of the code is more explicit.
Simple answer the way I understand it...
Most threading models use "shared state concurrency," which means that two execution processes can share the same memory at the same time. If one thread doesn't know what the other is doing, it can modify the data in a way that the other thread doesn't expect. This causes bugs.
Threads are "evil" because you need to wrap your mind around n threads all working on the same memory at the same time, and all of the fun things that go with it (deadlocks, racing conditions, etc).
You might read up about the Clojure (immutable data structures) and Erlang (message passsing) concurrency models for alternative ideas on how to achieve similar ends.
What makes threads "evil" is that once you introduce more than one stream of execution into your program, you can no longer count on your program to behave in a deterministic manner.
That is to say: Given the same set of inputs, a single-threaded program will (in most cases) always do the same thing.
A multi-threaded program, given the same set of inputs, may well do something different every time it is run, unless it is very carefully controlled. That is because the order in which the different threads run different bits of code is determined by the OS's thread scheduler combined with a system timer, and this introduces a good deal of "randomness" into what the program does when it runs.
The upshot is: debugging a multi-threaded program can be much harder than debugging a single-threaded program, because if you don't know what you are doing it can be very easy to end up with a race condition or deadlock bug that only appears (seemingly) at random once or twice a month. The program will look fine to your QA department (since they don't have a month to run it) but once it's out in the field, you'll be hearing from customers that the program crashed, and nobody can reproduce the crash.... bleah.
To sum up, threads aren't really "evil", but they are strong juju and should not be used unless (a) you really need them and (b) you know what you are getting yourself into. If you do use them, use them as sparingly as possible, and try to make their behavior as stupid-simple as you possibly can. Especially with multithreading, if anything can go wrong, it (sooner or later) will.
I would interpret it another way. It's not that threads are evil, it's that side-effects are evil in a multithreaded context (which is a lot less catchy to say).
A side effect in this context is something that affects state shared by more than one thread, be it global or just shared. I recently wrote a review of Spring Batch and one of the code snippets used is:
private static Map<Long, JobExecution> executionsById = TransactionAwareProxyFactory.createTransactionalMap();
private static long currentId = 0;
public void saveJobExecution(JobExecution jobExecution) {
Assert.isTrue(jobExecution.getId() == null);
Long newId = currentId++;
jobExecution.setId(newId);
jobExecution.incrementVersion();
executionsById.put(newId, copy(jobExecution));
}
Now there are at least three serious threading issues in less than 10 lines of code here. An example of a side effect in this context would be updating the currentId static variable.
Functional programming (Haskell, Scheme, Ocaml, Lisp, others) tend to espouse "pure" functions. A pure function is one with no side effects. Many imperative languages (eg Java, C#) also encourage the use of immutable objects (an immutable object is one whose state cannot change once created).
The reason for (or at least the effect of) both of these things is largely the same: they make multithreaded code much easier. A pure function by definition is threadsafe. An immutable object by definition is threadsafe.
The advantage processes have is that there is less shared state (generally). In traditional UNIX C programming, doing a fork() to create a new process would result in shared process state and this was used as a means of IPC (inter-process communication) but generally that state is replaced (with exec()) with something else.
But threads are much cheaper to create and destroy and they take less system resources (in fact, the operating itself may have no concept of threads yet you can still create multithreaded programs). These are called green threads.
The paper you linked to seems to explain itself very well. Did you read it?
Keep in mind that a thread can refer to the programming-language construct (as in most procedural or OOP languages, you create a thread manually, and tell it to executed a function), or they can refer to the hardware construct (Each CPU core executes one thread at a time).
The hardware-level thread is obviously unavoidable, it's just how the CPU works. But the CPU doesn't care how the concurrency is expressed in your source code. It doesn't have to be by a "beginthread" function call, for example. The OS and the CPU just have to be told which instruction threads should be executed.
His point is that if we used better languages than C or Java with a programming model designed for concurrency, we could get concurrency basically for free. If we'd used a message-passing language, or a functional one with no side-effects, the compiler would be able to parallelize our code for us. And it would work.
Threads aren't any more "evil" than hammers or screwdrivers or any other tools; they just require skill to utilize. The solution isn't to avoid them; it's to educate yourself and up your skill set.
Creating a lot of threads without constraint is indeed evil.. using a pooling mechanisme (threadpool) will mitigate this problem.
Another way threads are 'evil' is that most framework code is not designed to deal with multiple threads, so you have to manage your own locking mechanisme for those datastructures.
Threads are good, but you have to think about how and when you use them and remember to measure if there really is a performance benefit.
A thread is a bit like a light weight process. Think of it as an independent path of execution within an application. The thread runs in the same memory space as the application and therefore has access to all the same resources, global objects and global variables.
The good thing about them: you can parallelise a program to improve performance. Some examples, 1) In an image editing program a thread may run the filter processing independently of the GUI. 2) Some algorithms lend themselves to multiple threads.
Whats bad about them? if a program is poorly designed they can lead to deadlock issues where both threads are waiting on each other to access the same resource. And secondly, program design can me more complex because of this. Also, some class libraries don't support threading. e.g. the c library function "strtok" is not "thread safe". In other words, if two threads were to use it at the same time they would clobber each others results. Fortunately, there are often thread safe alternatives... e.g. boost library.
Threads are not evil, they can be very useful indeed.
Under Linux/Unix, threading hasn't been well supported in the past although I believe Linux now has Posix thread support and other unices support threading now via libraries or natively. i.e. pthreads.
The most common alternative to threading under Linux/Unix platforms is fork. Fork is simply a copy of a program including it's open file handles and global variables. fork() returns 0 to the child process and the process id to the parent. It's an older way of doing things under Linux/Unix but still well used. Threads use less memory than fork and are quicker to start up. Also, inter process communications is more work than simple threads.
In a simple sense you can think of a thread as another instruction pointer in the current process. In other words it points the IP of another processor to some code in the same executable. So instead of having one instruction pointer moving through the code there are two or more IP's executing instructions from the same executable and address space simultaneously.
Remember the executable has it's own address space with data / stack etc... So now that two or more instructions are being executed simultaneously you can imagine what happens when more than one of the instructions wants to read/write to the same memory address at the same time.
The catch is that threads are operating within the process address space and are not afforded protection mechanisms from the processor that full blown processes are. (Forking a process on UNIX is standard practice and simply creates another process.)
Out of control threads can consume CPU cycles, chew up RAM, cause execeptions etc.. etc.. and the only way to stop them is to tell the OS process scheduler to forcibly terminate the thread by nullifying it's instruction pointer (i.e. stop executing). If you forcibly tell a CPU to stop executing a sequence of instructions what happens to the resources that have been allocated or are being operated on by those instructions? Are they left in a stable state? Are they properly freed? etc...
So, yes, threads require more thought and responsibility than executing a process because of the shared resources.
For any application that requires stable and secure execution for long periods of time without failure or maintenance, threads are always a tempting mistake. They invariably turn out to be more trouble than they are worth. They produce rapid results and prototypes that seem to be performing correctly but after a couple weeks or months running you discover that they have critical flaws.
As mentioned by another poster, once you use even a single thread in your program you have now opened a non-deterministic path of code execution that can produce an almost infinite number of conflicts in timing, memory sharing and race conditions. Most expressions of confidence in solving these problems are expressed by people who have learned the principles of multithreaded programming but have yet to experience the difficulties in solving them.
Threads are evil. Good programmers avoid them wherever humanly possible. The alternative of forking was offered here and it is often a good strategy for many applications. The notion of breaking your code down into separate execution processes which run with some form of loose coupling often turns out to be an excellent strategy on platforms that support it. Threads running together in a single program is not a solution. It is usually the creation of a fatal architectural flaw in your design that can only be truly remedied by rewriting the entire program.
The recent drift towards event oriented concurrency is an excellent development innovation. These kinds of programs usually prove to have great endurance after they are deployed.
I've never met a young engineer who didn't think threads were great. I've never met an older engineer who didn't shun them like the plague.
Being an older engineer, I heartily agree with the answer by Texas Arcane.
Threads are very evil because they cause bugs that are extremely difficult to solve. I have literally spent months solving sporadic race-conditions. One example caused trams to suddenly stop about once a month in the middle of the road and block traffic until towed away. Luckily I didn't create the bug, but I did get to spend 4 months full-time to solve it...
It's a tad late to add to this thread, but I would like to mention a very interesting alternative to threads: asynchronous programming with co-routines and event loops. This is being supported by more and more languages, and does not have the problem of race conditions like multi-threading has.
It can replace multi-threading in cases where it is used to wait on events from multiple sources, but not where calculations need to be performed in parallel on multiple CPU cores.
I'm wondering what is the "best" way to make data thread-safe.
Specifically, I need to protect a linked-list across multiple threads -- one thread might try to read from it while another thread adds/removes data from it, or even frees the entire list. I've been reading about locks; they seem to be the most commonly used approach, but apparently they can be problematic (deadlocks). I've also read about atomic-operations as well as thread-local storage.
In your opinion, what would be my best course of action? What's the approach that most programmers use, and for what reason?
One approach that is not heavily used, but quite sound, is to designate one special purpose thread to own every "shared" structure. That thread generally sits waiting on a (thread-safe;-) queue, e.g. in Python a Queue.Queue instance, for work requests (reading or changing the shared structure), including both ones that request a response (they'll pass their own queue on which the response is placed when ready) and ones that don't. This approach entirely serializes all access to the shared resource, remaps easily to a multi-process or distributed architecture (almost brainlessly, in Python, with multiprocessing;-), and absolutely guarantees soundness and lack of deadlocks as well as race conditions as long as the underlying queue object is well-programmed once and for all.
It basically turns the hell of shared data structures into the paradise of message-passing concurrency architectures.
OTOH, it may be a tad higher-overhead than slugging it out the hard way with locks &c;-).
You could consider an immutable collection. Much like how a string in .net has methods such as Replace, Insert, etc. It doesn't modify the string but instead creates a new one, a LinkedList collection can be designed to be immutable as well. In fact, a LinkedList is actually fairly simple to implement this way as compared to some other collection data structures.
Here's a link to a blog post discussing immutable collections and a link to some implementations in .NET.
http://blogs.msdn.com/jaredpar/archive/2009/04/06/immutable-vs-mutable-collection-performance.aspx
Always remember the most important rule of thread safety. Know all the critical sections of your code inside out. And by that, know them like your ABCs. Only if you can identify them at go once asked will you know which areas to operate your thread safety mechanisms on.
After that, remember the rules of thumb:
Look out for all your global
variables / variables on the heap.
Make sure your subroutines are
re-entrant.
Make sure access to shared data is
serialized.
Make sure there are no indirect
accesses through pointers.
(I'm sure others can add more.)
The "best" way, from a safety point of view, is to put a lock on the entire data structure, so that only one thread can touch it at a time.
Once you decide to lock less than the entire structure, presumably for performance reasons, the details of doing this are messy and differ for every data structure, and even variants of the same structure.
My suggestion is to
Start with a global lock on your data structure. Profile your program to see if it's really a problem.
If it is a problem, consider whether there's some other way to distribute the problem. Can you minimize the amount of data in the data structure in question, so that it need not be accessed so often or for so long? If it's a queuing system, for example, perhaps you can keep a local queue per thread, and only move things into or out of a global queue when a local queue becomes over- or under-loaded.
Look at data structures designed to help reduce contention for the particular type of thing you're doing, and implement them carefully and precisely, erring on the side of safety. For the queuing example, work-stealing queues might be what you need.