In a Delphi application, what is the maximum number of concurrent threads that can be running at one time ? Suppose that a single thread processing time is about 100 milliseconds.
The number of concurrent threads is limited by available resources. However, keep in mind that every thread uses a minimum amount of memory (usually 1MB by default, unless you specify differently), and the more threads you run, the more work the OS has to do to manage them, and the more time it takes just to keep switching between them so they have fair opportunity to run. A good rule of thumb is to not have more threads than there are CPUs available, since that will be the maximum number of threads that can physically run at any given moment. But you can certainly have more threads than CPUs, the OS will simply schedule them accordingly, which can degrade performance if you have too many running at a time. So you need to think about why you are using threads in the first place and plan accordingly to trade off between performance, memory usage, overhead, etc. Multi-threaded programming is not trivial, so do not treat it lightly.
This is memory dependent, there is no fixed limit to how many threads or other objects that you can create. At some point, if you allocate too much memory, you may get an "out of memory" exception, so you should think about how many threads you really need to invoke and go from there. Also keep in mind the more threads that you invoke, you should expect the processing time for all of the threads to decrease. So you may not get the performance that you're looking for if you have too many concurrent threads at once. I hope that this helps!
Related
If yes, how does one determine that maximum? That is the most important part to me. I'd really like to have it be set manually. I considered using runtime.GOMAXPROCS(0), as i doubt that more parallelism will yield any additional benefits. The comment seems to suggest, that it is marked for deprecation at some point.
From what I gather, the only limiting factor when it comes to go routines is memory, as a sleeping go routine still requires memory for its stack.
It's not strictly necessary. The number of threads running these goroutines is by default equal to the number of CPU cores on the machine (configurable through GOMAXPROCS), so there will be no contention at the thread level.
However, you might get performance benefits from having fewer goroutines ready to run, because of memory caching effects. For example, on an 8-core machine, if you have 1000 active goroutines that all touch significant amounts of memory, by the time a goroutine gets to run again, the needed memory pages have probably already been evicted from your CPU caches. With fewer goroutines, the odds of a cache hit are better.
As always with performance questions: the only way to be sure is to measure it yourself with a representative workload.
In our testing, we determined that it is best to spawn a fixed number of worker routines and use those to perform all the work. The creation and destruction of goroutines is lightweight, but not entirely free of overhead. That overhead is usually insignificant if the goroutines spend any amount of time blocked.
goroutines are very lightweight so it depends entirely on the system you are running on. An average process should have no problems with less than a million concurrent routines in 4GB Ram. Whether this goes for your target platform is, of course, something we can't answer without knowing what that platform is.
see this article and this, they are usefull
I have 12 tasks to run on an octo-core machine. All tasks are CPU intensive and each will max out a core.
Is there a theoretical reason to avoid stacking tasks on a maxed out core (such as overhead, swapping across tasks) or is it faster to queue everything?
Task switching is a waste of CPU time. Avoid it if you can.
Whatever the scheduler timeslice is set to, the CPU will waste its time every time slice by going into the kernel, saving all the registers, swapping the memory mappings and starting the next task. Then it has to load in all its CPU cache, etc.
Much more efficient to just run one task at a time.
Things are different of course if the tasks use I/O and aren't purely compute bound.
Yes it's called queueing theory https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Queueing_theory. There are many different models https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Queueing_theory for a range of different problems I'd suggest you scan them and pick the one most applicable to your workload then go and read up on how to avoid the worst outcomes for that model, or pick a different, better, model for dispatching your workload.
Although the graph at this link https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:StochasticQueueingQueueLength.png applies to Traffic it will give you an idea of what is happening to response times as your CPU utilisation increases. It shows that you'll reach an inflection point after which things get slower and slower.
More work is arriving than can be processed with subsequent work waiting longer and longer until it can be dispatched.
The more cores you have the further to the right you push the inflection point but the faster things go bad after you reach it.
I would also note that unless you've got some really serious cooling in place you are going to cook your CPU. Depending on it's design it will either slow itself down, making your problem worse, or you'll trigger it's thermal overload protection.
So a simplistic design for 8 cores would be, 1 thread to manage things and add tasks to the work queue and 7 threads that are pulling tasks from the work queue. If the tasks need to be performed within a certain time you can add a TimeToLive value so that they can be discarded rather than executed needlessly. As you are almost certainly running your application in an OS that uses a pre-emptive threading model consider things like using processor affinity where possible because as #Zan-Lynx says task/context switching hurts. Be careful not to try to build your OS'es thread management again as you'll probably wind up in conflict with it.
tl;dr: cache thrash is Bad
You have a dozen tasks. Each will have to do a certain amount of work.
At an app level they each processed a thousand customer records or whatever. That is fixed, it is a constant no matter what happens on the hardware.
At the the language level, again it is fixed, C++, java, or python will execute a fixed number of app instructions or bytecodes. We'll gloss over gc overhead here, and page fault and scheduling details.
At the assembly level, again it is fixed, some number of x86 instructions will execute as the app continues to issue new instructions.
But you don't care about how many instructions, you only care about how long it takes to execute those instructions. Many of the instructions are reads which MOV a value from RAM to a register. Think about how long that will take. Your computer has several components to implement the memory hierarchy - which ones will be involved? Will that read hit in L1 cache? In L2? Will it be a miss in last-level cache so you wait (for tens or hundreds of cycles) until RAM delivers that cache line? Did the virtual memory reference miss in RAM, so you wait (for milliseconds) until SSD or Winchester storage can page in the needed frame? You think of your app as issuing N reads, but you might more productively think of it as issuing 0.2 * N cache misses. Running at a different multi-programming level, where you issue 0.3 * N cache misses, could make elapsed time quite noticeably longer.
Every workload is different, and can place larger or smaller demands on memory storage. But every level of the memory hierarchy depends on caching to some extent, and higher multi-programming levels are guaranteed to impact cache hit rates. There are network- and I/O-heavy workloads where very high multi-programming levels absolutely make sense. But for CPU- and memory-intensive workloads, when you benchmark elapsed times you may find that less is more.
I have a high throughput low latency application (3000 Request/Sec, 100ms per request), and we heavily use Java 8 ConcurrentHashMap for performing lookups. Usually these maps are updated by a single background thread and multiple threads read from these maps.
I am seeing a performance bottleneck, and on profiling I find ConcurrentHashMap.get as being the hotspot and taking majority of the time.
I another case, I see ConcurrentHashMap.computeIfAbsent being the hotspot, although the mapping-function has very small latency and the profile shows computeIfAbsent spending 90% of the time executing itself, and very less time in executing the mapping-function.
My question is there any way i could improve the performance? I have around 80 threads concurrently reading from CHM.
I have around 80 threads concurrently reading from CHM.
The simplest things to do are
if you have a CPU bound process, don't have more active threads than you have CPUs, otherwise this will only add overhead and if these threads hold a lock while not running, because you have too many threads, it will really not help.
increase the number of partitions. You will want to have at least 4x the number of segments/partitions and you have threads accessing a single map. However, you will get strange behaviour in CHM if you access it with more than 40 threads due to the way cache coherency works. I suggest using a more efficient data structure for higher degrees of concurrency. In Java 8 the concurrencyLevel is a hint, but it is better than leaving the default initialise size of 16.
don't spend so much time in CHM. Find a way to do useful work without hitting a shared resource and your threads will run much more efficiently.
If you have any latencies you can see in a low latency system, you have a problem IMHO.
I want to run a batch say 20 CPU intensive comps (basically really long nested for loop) on a machine.
Each of these 20 jobs doesn't share data with the other 19.
If the machine has N cores, should I spin off N-1 of these jobs then? Or N? Or should I just launch all 20, and have Windows figure out how to schedule them?
Unfortunately, there is no simple answer. The only way to know for sure is to implement and then profile your application.
Typically, for maximum throughput, if the jobs are pure CPU, you'd want one per core. Depending on the type of work, this would include one per hyperthread code or just one per "true physical core". (If the work is identical for all 20 jobs, then hyperthreading often slows down the overall work...)
If the jobs have any non-CPU functionaltiy (such as reading a file, waiting on anything, etc), then >1 work item per core tends to be much better. For many situations, this will improve.
Generally, if you aren't sharing data, not blocking on IO, and using lots of CPU and nothing else is running on the box (and probably a few more caveats) using all the CPU's (e.g. N threads) is probably the best idea.
The best choice is probably to make it configurable and profile it and see what happens.
You should use a thread pool of some sort, so it's (reasonably) easy to tune the number of threads without affecting the structure of the program.
Once you've done that, it's a fairly simple matter of testing to find a reasonably optimal number of threads relative to the number of processors available. Chances are that even when/if they look like this should be purely CPU bound, you'll get better efficiency with the number of threads >N, but about the only way to be sure is to test.
Let's say I have a 4-core CPU, and I want to run some process in the minimum amount of time. The process is ideally parallelizable, so I can run chunks of it on an infinite number of threads and each thread takes the same amount of time.
Since I have 4 cores, I don't expect any speedup by running more threads than cores, since a single core is only capable of running a single thread at a given moment. I don't know much about hardware, so this is only a guess.
Is there a benefit to running a parallelizable process on more threads than cores? In other words, will my process finish faster, slower, or in about the same amount of time if I run it using 4000 threads rather than 4 threads?
If your threads don't do I/O, synchronization, etc., and there's nothing else running, 1 thread per core will get you the best performance. However that very likely not the case. Adding more threads usually helps, but after some point, they cause some performance degradation.
Not long ago, I was doing performance testing on a 2 quad-core machine running an ASP.NET application on Mono under a pretty decent load. We played with the minimum and maximum number of threads and in the end we found out that for that particular application in that particular configuration the best throughput was somewhere between 36 and 40 threads. Anything outside those boundaries performed worse. Lesson learned? If I were you, I would test with different number of threads until you find the right number for your application.
One thing for sure: 4k threads will take longer. That's a lot of context switches.
I agree with #Gonzalo's answer. I have a process that doesn't do I/O, and here is what I've found:
Note that all threads work on one array but different ranges (two threads do not access the same index), so the results may differ if they've worked on different arrays.
The 1.86 machine is a macbook air with an SSD. The other mac is an iMac with a normal HDD (I think it's 7200 rpm). The windows machine also has a 7200 rpm HDD.
In this test, the optimal number was equal to the number of cores in the machine.
I know this question is rather old, but things have evolved since 2009.
There are two things to take into account now: the number of cores, and the number of threads that can run within each core.
With Intel processors, the number of threads is defined by the Hyperthreading which is just 2 (when available). But Hyperthreading cuts your execution time by two, even when not using 2 threads! (i.e. 1 pipeline shared between two processes -- this is good when you have more processes, not so good otherwise. More cores are definitively better!) Note that modern CPUs generally have more pipelines to divide the workload, so it's no really divided by two anymore. But Hyperthreading still shares a lot of the CPU units between the two threads (some call those logical CPUs).
On other processors you may have 2, 4, or even 8 threads. So if you have 8 cores each of which support 8 threads, you could have 64 processes running in parallel without context switching.
"No context switching" is obviously not true if you run with a standard operating system which will do context switching for all sorts of other things out of your control. But that's the main idea. Some OSes let you allocate processors so only your application has access/usage of said processor!
From my own experience, if you have a lot of I/O, multiple threads is good. If you have very heavy memory intensive work (read source 1, read source 2, fast computation, write) then having more threads doesn't help. Again, this depends on how much data you read/write simultaneously (i.e. if you use SSE 4.2 and read 256 bits values, that stops all threads in their step... in other words, 1 thread is probably a lot easier to implement and probably nearly as speedy if not actually faster. This will depend on your process & memory architecture, some advanced servers manage separate memory ranges for separate cores so separate threads will be faster assuming your data is properly filed... which is why, on some architectures, 4 processes will run faster than 1 process with 4 threads.)
The answer depends on the complexity of the algorithms used in the program. I came up with a method to calculate the optimal number of threads by making two measurements of processing times Tn and Tm for two arbitrary number of threads ‘n’ and ‘m’. For linear algorithms, the optimal number of threads will be N = sqrt ( (mn(Tm*(n-1) – Tn*(m-1)))/(nTn-mTm) ) .
Please read my article regarding calculations of the optimal number for various algorithms: pavelkazenin.wordpress.com
The actual performance will depend on how much voluntary yielding each thread will do. For example, if the threads do NO I/O at all and use no system services (i.e. they're 100% cpu-bound) then 1 thread per core is the optimal. If the threads do anything that requires waiting, then you'll have to experiment to determine the optimal number of threads. 4000 threads would incur significant scheduling overhead, so that's probably not optimal either.
I thought I'd add another perspective here. The answer depends on whether the question is assuming weak scaling or strong scaling.
From Wikipedia:
Weak scaling: how the solution time varies with the number of processors for a fixed problem size per processor.
Strong scaling: how the solution time varies with the number of processors for a fixed total problem size.
If the question is assuming weak scaling then #Gonzalo's answer suffices. However if the question is assuming strong scaling, there's something more to add. In strong scaling you're assuming a fixed workload size so if you increase the number of threads, the size of the data that each thread needs to work on decreases. On modern CPUs memory accesses are expensive and would be preferable to maintain locality by keeping the data in caches. Therefore, the likely optimal number of threads can be found when the dataset of each thread fits in each core's cache (I'm not going into the details of discussing whether it's L1/L2/L3 cache(s) of the system).
This holds true even when the number of threads exceeds the number of cores. For example assume there's 8 arbitrary unit (or AU) of work in the program which will be executed on a 4 core machine.
Case 1: run with four threads where each thread needs to complete 2AU. Each thread takes 10s to complete (with a lot of cache misses). With four cores the total amount of time will be 10s (10s * 4 threads / 4 cores).
Case 2: run with eight threads where each thread needs to complete 1AU. Each thread takes only 2s (instead of 5s because of the reduced amount of cache misses). With four cores the total amount of time will be 4s (2s * 8 threads / 4 cores).
I've simplified the problem and ignored overheads mentioned in other answers (e.g., context switches) but hope you get the point that it might be beneficial to have more number of threads than the available number of cores, depending on the data size you're dealing with.
4000 threads at one time is pretty high.
The answer is yes and no. If you are doing a lot of blocking I/O in each thread, then yes, you could show significant speedups doing up to probably 3 or 4 threads per logical core.
If you are not doing a lot of blocking things however, then the extra overhead with threading will just make it slower. So use a profiler and see where the bottlenecks are in each possibly parallel piece. If you are doing heavy computations, then more than 1 thread per CPU won't help. If you are doing a lot of memory transfer, it won't help either. If you are doing a lot of I/O though such as for disk access or internet access, then yes multiple threads will help up to a certain extent, or at the least make the application more responsive.
Benchmark.
I'd start ramping up the number of threads for an application, starting at 1, and then go to something like 100, run three-five trials for each number of threads, and build yourself a graph of operation speed vs. number of threads.
You should that the four thread case is optimal, with slight rises in runtime after that, but maybe not. It may be that your application is bandwidth limited, ie, the dataset you're loading into memory is huge, you're getting lots of cache misses, etc, such that 2 threads are optimal.
You can't know until you test.
You will find how many threads you can run on your machine by running htop or ps command that returns number of process on your machine.
You can use man page about 'ps' command.
man ps
If you want to calculate number of all users process, you can use one of these commands:
ps -aux| wc -l
ps -eLf | wc -l
Calculating number of an user process:
ps --User root | wc -l
Also, you can use "htop" [Reference]:
Installing on Ubuntu or Debian:
sudo apt-get install htop
Installing on Redhat or CentOS:
yum install htop
dnf install htop [On Fedora 22+ releases]
If you want to compile htop from source code, you will find it here.
The ideal is 1 thread per core, as long as none of the threads will block.
One case where this may not be true: there are other threads running on the core, in which case more threads may give your program a bigger slice of the execution time.
One example of lots of threads ("thread pool") vs one per core is that of implementing a web-server in Linux or in Windows.
Since sockets are polled in Linux a lot of threads may increase the likelihood of one of them polling the right socket at the right time - but the overall processing cost will be very high.
In Windows the server will be implemented using I/O Completion Ports - IOCPs - which will make the application event driven: if an I/O completes the OS launches a stand-by thread to process it. When the processing has completed (usually with another I/O operation as in a request-response pair) the thread returns to the IOCP port (queue) to wait for the next completion.
If no I/O has completed there is no processing to be done and no thread is launched.
Indeed, Microsoft recommends no more than one thread per core in IOCP implementations. Any I/O may be attached to the IOCP mechanism. IOCs may also be posted by the application, if necessary.
speaking from computation and memory bound point of view (scientific computing) 4000 threads will make application run really slow. Part of the problem is a very high overhead of context switching and most likely very poor memory locality.
But it also depends on your architecture. From where I heard Niagara processors are suppose to be able to handle multiple threads on a single core using some kind of advanced pipelining technique. However I have no experience with those processors.
Hope this makes sense, Check the CPU and Memory utilization and put some threshold value. If the threshold value is crossed,don't allow to create new thread else allow...