According to some articles (like this and this), Go's garbage collector can only take up to 25% of available CPUs, and it seems that this number is actually the result of the golang developers hard work - they're trying to make this number rather small.
However, since in my case I want to run GC at specific timings (by runtime.GC()) and I also want the GC finish as soon as possible, I wonder if it's possible to make Go's GC use up to, say, 100% of available CPUs, so that the GC finishes earlier.
Is this possible?
Context
My code has deterministic busy and idle times. Since the busy part should run very fast (it's too slow if GC is fired), I want to run GC within the idle times, which are also relatively short and so the GC should also run fast. I'm not going to non-GC languages because hard real-time isn't required and I'm not so smart to manage memory correctly.
I found it. If I set GODEBUG=gcstoptheworld=1 or GODEBUG=gcstoptheworld=2, then the manual GC utilizes all the available CPUs, although this apparently disables concurrent GC. Ref: https://golang.org/pkg/runtime/
In my case this was enough. But I actually want to know how to utilize more CPUs when the concurrent GC works. It seems that simply increasing the values of gcGoalUtilization and gcBackgroundUtilization in runtime/mgc.go and buiding go from source does not work. Hmm...
EDIT
This definitely achieved better CPU utilizations, but in fact I could not see a noticeable speedup (according to go tool trace). Maybe I'm missing something.
I'm looking for option something similar to -Xmx in Java, that is to assign maximum runtime memory that my Go application can utilise. Was checking the runtime , but not entirely if that is the way to go.
I tried setting something like this with func SetMaxStack(), (likely very stupid)
debug.SetMaxStack(5000000000) // bytes
model.ExcelCreator()
The reason why I am looking to do this is because currently there is ample amount of RAM available but the application won't consume more than 4-6% , I might be wrong here but it could be forcing GC to happen much faster than needed leading to performance issue.
What I'm doing
Getting large dataset from RDBMS system , processing it to write out in excel.
Another reason why I am looking for such an option is to limit the maximum usage of RAM on the server where it will be ultimately deployed.
Any hints on this would greatly appreciated.
The current stable Go (1.10) has only a single knob which may be used to trade memory for lower CPU usage by the garbage collection the Go runtime performs.
This knob is called GOGC, and its description reads
The GOGC variable sets the initial garbage collection target percentage. A collection is triggered when the ratio of freshly allocated data to live data remaining after the previous collection reaches this percentage. The default is GOGC=100. Setting GOGC=off disables the garbage collector entirely. The runtime/debug package's SetGCPercent function allows changing this percentage at run time. See https://golang.org/pkg/runtime/debug/#SetGCPercent.
So basically setting it to 200 would supposedly double the amount of memory the Go runtime of your running process may use.
Having said that I'd note that the Go runtime actually tries to adjust the behaviour of its garbage collector to the workload of your running program and the CPU processing power at hand.
I mean, that normally there's nothing wrong with your program not consuming lots of RAM—if the collector happens to sweep the garbage fast enough without hampering the performance in a significant way, I see no reason to worry about: the Go's GC is
one of the points of the most intense fine-tuning in the runtime,
and works very good in fact.
Hence you may try to take another route:
Profile memory allocations of your program.
Analyze the profile and try to figure out where the hot spots
are, and whether (and how) they can be optimized.
You might start here
and continue with the gazillion other
intros to this stuff.
Optimize. Typically this amounts to making certain buffers
reusable across different calls to the same function(s)
consuming them, preallocating slices instead of growing them
gradually, using sync.Pool where deemed useful etc.
Such measures may actually increase the memory
truly used (that is, by live objects—as opposed to
garbage) but it may lower the pressure on the GC.
I am refining a large body of native code which uses a few static critical sections and never calls DeleteCriticalSection, leaving them to process exit to clean up.
There are no leaks and no concerns about the total number of CS getting too high, I'm just wondering if there are any long-term Windows consequences to not cleaning them up. We have regression test suites that will launch a program thousands of times a day, although end users are not likely to do anything like that.
Because of the range of deployed machines we have to consider Windows XP as well and this native code is run from a managed application.
A critical section is just a block of memory unless contention is detected, at which time an event object is created for synchronization. Process exit would clean up any lingering events. If you were creating these at runtime dynamically and not freeing them, it would be bad. If the ones not getting cleaned up are a fixed amount for each process, I wouldn't worry about it.
In principle, every process resource is cleaned up when the process exits. Kernel resources like event objects definitely follow this principle.
The short answer is probably not. The long answer is, this is a lazy programming practice and should be fixed.
To use DeleteCriticalSection correctly, one needs to shutdown in an orderly manner so that no other thread owns or attempts to own the section before/after it is deleted. And programmers get lazy to define and implement how shutdown will work for their program.
There are many things you can do with no immediate measurable consequences - but that does not make it right. Also similar attitude towards other handles/objects in the same code base will have cumulative effect and could add up to "consequences".
I'm currently reviewing/refactoring a multithreaded application which is supposed to be multithreaded in order to be able to use all the available cores and theoretically deliver a better / superior performance (superior is the commercial term for better :P)
What are the things I should be aware when programming multithreaded applications?
I mean things that will greatly impact performance, maybe even to the point where you don't gain anything with multithreading at all but lose a lot by design complexity. What are the big red flags for multithreading applications?
Should I start questioning the locks and looking to a lock-free strategy or are there other points more important that should light a warning light?
Edit: The kind of answers I'd like are similar to the answer by Janusz, I want red warnings to look up in code, I know the application doesn't perform as well as it should, I need to know where to start looking, what should worry me and where should I put my efforts. I know it's kind of a general question but I can't post the entire program and if I could choose one section of code then I wouldn't be needing to ask in the first place.
I'm using Delphi 7, although the application will be ported / remake in .NET (c#) for the next year so I'd rather hear comments that are applicable as a general practice, and if they must be specific to either one of those languages
One thing to definitely avoid is lots of write access to the same cache lines from threads.
For example: If you use a counter variable to count the number of items processed by all threads, this will really hurt performance because the CPU cache lines have to synchronize whenever the other CPU writes to the variable.
One thing that decreases performance is having two threads with much hard drive access. The hard drive would jump from providing data for one thread to the other and both threads would wait for the disk all the time.
Something to keep in mind when locking: lock for as short a time as possible. For example, instead of this:
lock(syncObject)
{
bool value = askSomeSharedResourceForSomeValue();
if (value)
DoSomethingIfTrue();
else
DoSomtehingIfFalse();
}
Do this (if possible):
bool value = false;
lock(syncObject)
{
value = askSomeSharedResourceForSomeValue();
}
if (value)
DoSomethingIfTrue();
else
DoSomtehingIfFalse();
Of course, this example only works if DoSomethingIfTrue() and DoSomethingIfFalse() don't require synchronization, but it illustrates this point: locking for as short a time as possible, while maybe not always improving your performance, will improve the safety of your code in that it reduces surface area for synchronization problems.
And in certain cases, it will improve performance. Staying locked for long lengths of time means that other threads waiting for access to some resource are going to be waiting longer.
More threads then there are cores, typically means that the program is not performing optimally.
So a program which spawns loads of threads usually is not designed in the best fashion. A good example of this practice are the classic Socket examples where every incoming connection got it's own thread to handle of the connection. It is a very non scalable way to do things. The more threads there are, the more time the OS will have to use for context switching between threads.
You should first be familiar with Amdahl's law.
If you are using Java, I recommend the book Java Concurrency in Practice; however, most of its help is specific to the Java language (Java 5 or later).
In general, reducing the amount of shared memory increases the amount of parallelism possible, and for performance that should be a major consideration.
Threading with GUI's is another thing to be aware of, but it looks like it is not relevant for this particular problem.
What kills performance is when two or more threads share the same resources. This could be an object that both use, or a file that both use, a network both use or a processor that both use. You cannot avoid these dependencies on shared resources but if possible, try to avoid sharing resources.
Run-time profilers may not work well with a multi-threaded application. Still, anything that makes a single-threaded application slow will also make a multi-threaded application slow. It may be an idea to run your application as a single-threaded application, and use a profiler, to find out where its performance hotspots (bottlenecks) are.
When it's running as a multi-threaded aplication, you can use the system's performance-monitoring tool to see whether locks are a problem. Assuming that your threads would lock instead of busy-wait, then having 100% CPU for several threads is a sign that locking isn't a problem. Conversely, something that looks like 50% total CPU utilitization on a dual-processor machine is a sign that only one thread is running, and so maybe your locking is a problem that's preventing more than one concurrent thread (when counting the number of CPUs in your machine, beware multi-core and hyperthreading).
Locks aren't only in your code but also in the APIs you use: e.g. the heap manager (whenever you allocate and delete memory), maybe in your logger implementation, maybe in some of the O/S APIs, etc.
Should I start questioning the locks and looking to a lock-free strategy
I always question the locks, but have never used a lock-free strategy; instead my ambition is to use locks where necessary, so that it's always threadsafe but will never deadlock, and to ensure that locks are acquired for a tiny amount of time (e.g. for no more than the amount of time it takes to push or pop a pointer on a thread-safe queue), so that the maximum amount of time that a thread may be blocked is insignificant compared to the time it spends doing useful work.
You don't mention the language you're using, so I'll make a general statement on locking. Locking is fairly expensive, especially the naive locking that is native to many languages. In many cases you are reading a shared variable (as opposed to writing). Reading is threadsafe as long as it is not taking place simultaneously with a write. However, you still have to lock it down. The most naive form of this locking is to treat the read and the write as the same type of operation, restricting access to the shared variable from other reads as well as writes. A read/writer lock can dramatically improve performance. One writer, infinite readers. On an app I've worked on, I saw a 35% performance improvement when switching to this construct. If you are working in .NET, the correct lock is the ReaderWriterLockSlim.
I recommend looking into running multiple processes rather than multiple threads within the same process, if it is a server application.
The benefit of dividing the work between several processes on one machine is that it is easy to increase the number of servers when more performance is needed than a single server can deliver.
You also reduce the risks involved with complex multithreaded applications where deadlocks, bottlenecks etc reduce the total performance.
There are commercial frameworks that simplifies server software development when it comes to load balancing and distributed queue processing, but developing your own load sharing infrastructure is not that complicated compared with what you will encounter in general in a multi-threaded application.
I'm using Delphi 7
You might be using COM objects, then, explicitly or implicitly; if you are, COM objects have their own complications and restrictions on threading: Processes, Threads, and Apartments.
You should first get a tool to monitor threads specific to your language, framework and IDE. Your own logger might do fine too (Resume Time, Sleep Time + Duration). From there you can check for bad performing threads that don't execute much or are waiting too long for something to happen, you might want to make the event they are waiting for to occur as early as possible.
As you want to use both cores you should check the usage of the cores with a tool that can graph the processor usage on both cores for your application only, or just make sure your computer is as idle as possible.
Besides that you should profile your application just to make sure that the things performed within the threads are efficient, but watch out for premature optimization. No sense to optimize your multiprocessing if the threads themselves are performing bad.
Looking for a lock-free strategy can help a lot, but it is not always possible to get your application to perform in a lock-free way.
Threads don't equal performance, always.
Things are a lot better in certain operating systems as opposed to others, but if you can have something sleep or relinquish its time until it's signaled...or not start a new process for virtually everything, you're saving yourself from bogging the application down in context switching.
In an embedded application (written in C, on a 32-bit processor) with hard real-time constraints, the execution time of critical code (specially interrupts) needs to be constant.
How do you insure that time variability is not introduced in the execution of the code, specifically due to the processor's caches (be it L1, L2 or L3)?
Note that we are concerned with cache behavior due to the huge effect it has on execution speed (sometimes more than 100:1 vs. accessing RAM). Variability introduced due to specific processor architecture are nowhere near the magnitude of cache.
If you can get your hands on the hardware, or work with someone who can, you can turn off the cache. Some CPUs have a pin that, if wired to ground instead of power (or maybe the other way), will disable all internal caches. That will give predictability but not speed!
Failing that, maybe in certain places in the software code could be written to deliberately fill the cache with junk, so whatever happens next can be guaranteed to be a cache miss. Done right, that can give predictability, and perhaps could be done only in certain places so speed may be better than totally disabling caches.
Finally, if speed does matter - carefully design the software and data as if in the old day of programming for an ancient 8-bit CPU - keep it small enough for it all to fit in L1 cache. I'm always amazed at how on-board caches these days are bigger than all of RAM on a minicomputer back in (mumble-decade). But this will be hard work and takes cleverness. Good luck!
Two possibilities:
Disable the cache entirely. The application will run slower, but without any variability.
Pre-load the code in the cache and "lock it in". Most processors provide a mechanism to do this.
It seems that you are referring to x86 processor family that is not built with real-time systems in mind, so there is no real guarantee for constant time execution (CPU may reorder micro-instructions, than there is branch prediction and instruction prefetch queue which is flushed each time when CPU wrongly predicts conditional jumps...)
This answer will sound snide, but it is intended to make you think:
Only run the code once.
The reason I say that is because so much will make it variable and you might not even have control over it. And what is your definition of time? Suppose the operating system decides to put your process in the wait queue.
Next you have unpredictability due to cache performance, memory latency, disk I/O, and so on. These all boil down to one thing; sometimes it takes time to get the information into the processor where your code can use it. Including the time it takes to fetch/decode your code itself.
Also, how much variance is acceptable to you? It could be that you're okay with 40 milliseconds, or you're okay with 10 nanoseconds.
Depending on the application domain you can even further just mask over or hide the variance. Computer graphics people have been rendering to off screen buffers for years to hide variance in the time to rendering each frame.
The traditional solutions just remove as many known variable rate things as possible. Load files into RAM, warm up the cache and avoid IO.
If you make all the function calls in the critical code 'inline', and minimize the number of variables you have, so that you can let them have the 'register' type.
This should improve the running time of your program. (You probably have to compile it in a special way since compilers these days tend to disregard your 'register' tags)
I'm assuming that you have enough memory not to cause page faults when you try to load something from memory. The page faults can take a lot of time.
You could also take a look at the generated assembly code, to see if there are lots of branches and memory instuctions that could change your running code.
If an interrupt happens in your code execution it WILL take longer time. Do you have interrupts/exceptions enabled?
Understand your worst case runtime for complex operations and use timers.