I am developing large dense matrix multiplication code. When I profile the code it sometimes gets about 75% of the peak flops of my four core system and other times gets about 36%. The efficiency does not change between executions of the code. It either starts at 75% and continues with that efficiency or starts at 36% and continues with that efficiency.
I have traced the problem down to hyper-threading and the fact that I set the number of threads to four instead of the default eight. When I disable hyper-threading in the BIOS I get about 75% efficiency consistently (or at least I never see the drastic drop to 36%).
Before I call any parallel code I do omp_set_num_threads(4). I have also tried export OMP_NUM_THREADS=4 before I run my code but it seems to be equivalent.
I don't want to disable hyper-threading in the BIOS. I think I need to bind the four threads to the four cores. I have tested some different cases of GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY but so far I still have the problem that the efficiency is 36% sometimes. What is the mapping with hyper-threading and cores? E.g. do thread 0 and thread 1 correspond to the the same core and thread 2 and thread 3 another core?
How can I bind the threads to each core without thread migration so that I don't have to disable hyper-threading in the BIOS? Maybe I need to look into using sched_setaffinity?
Some details of my current system: Linux kernel 3.13, GCC 4.8,Intel Xeon E5-1620 (four physical cores, eight hyper-threads).
Edit:
This seems to be working well so far
export GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY="0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7"
or
export GOMP_CPU_AFFINITY="0-7"
Edit:
This seems also to work well
export OMP_PROC_BIND=true
Edit:
These options also work well (gemm is the name of my executable)
numactl -C 0,1,2,3 ./gemm
and
taskset -c 0,1,2,3 ./gemm
This isn't a direct answer to your question, but it might be worth looking in to: apparently, hyperthreading can cause your cache to thrash. Have you tried checking out valgrind to see what kind of issue is causing your problem? There might be a quick fix to be had from allocating some junk at the top of every thread's stack so that your threads don't end up kicking each others cache lines out.
It looks like your CPU is 4-way set associative so it's not insane to think that, across 8 threads, you might end up with some really unfortunately aligned accesses. If your matrices are aligned on a multiple of the size of your cache, and if you had pairs of threads accessing areas a cache-multiple apart, any incidental read by a third thread would be enough to start causing conflict misses.
For a quick test -- if you change your input matrices to something that's not a multiple of your cache size (so they're no longer aligned on a boundary) and your problems disappear, then there's a good chance that you're dealing with conflict misses.
My program with single thread uses only 25% of CPU with 2 cores (intel i5-3210M). Why not 50% (one core)? Program is being tested on macbook pro with windows 7 64. I think that problem is hyper-threading and because of this program uses only one logical core (25% of cpu power). How can I give more CPU power to my program?
It's important for me because this program works with big set of data and it takes about 30 hours to finish calculations.
It is expectable as you said with your CPU(which has 4 logical processors). You can search for the ways of transforming your program in order to use more than one threads. I can recommend you to search for "parallel programming", "concurrent programming","multi-threading". if you are using MS VC++ PPL library is so easy to use..OpenMP is a more prowerful tool which is available in Linux also. There are lots more ways and libraries for this issue but you need to choose it according to your OS, compiler, environment, programming language and your problem.
However, the easiest solution is to run it on a desktop machine with a better CPU and cross your fingers to get the results as quick as possible.
This program uses only one logical core (25% of cpu power). How can I give more CPU power to my programm? ...this programm works with big set of data ... it takes about 30 hours to finish calculations.
Divide up your data set into (at least) 4 separate pieces. With that much data, you want to think in terms of indexes into the data instead of copying data elements to 4 separate structures. Create a separate thread for each segment of your data, and have that thread only process one segment. You may need to set a processor affinity for your threads.
If the data streams, or must be processed in order, think in terms of queing elements for processing, where individual threads will then dequeue and process each item. This works well when the enqueue operation is relatively fast compared to processing an item, and can be done by a single master thread, while each dequeue/processing operation is more expensive.
Choosing the correct number of threads is tricky. Modern CPUs and operating systems are designed to switch tasks from time to time. This will always be an expensive operation, but the scheduler will want to do something else every so often, even if your process may seem like the best candidate. Therefore, you can often get the best throughput by overloading your CPUs to a small extent, such that you may want two or three threads per logical cpu. One way to manage this is through use the ThreadPool object.
I've made several measurements of compilation time of wine with HyperThreading enabled and disabled in BIOS on my Core i7 930 #2.8GHz (quad-core) on Linux 2.6.39 x86_64. Each measurement was like this:
git clean -xdf
./configure --prefix=/usr
time make -j$N
where N is number from 1 to 8.
Here're the results ("speed" is 60/real from time(1)):
Here the blue line corresponds to HT disabled and purple one to HT enabled. It appears that when HT is enabled, using 1-4 threads is slower than without HT. I guess this might be related to the kernel not distributing the processes to different cores and reusing second threads of already busy cores.
So, my question: how can I force the kernel to give 1 process per core scheduling higher priority than adding more processes to the same core's different thread? Or, if my reasoning is wrong, how can I have performance with HT not worse than without HT for 1-4 processes running in parallel?
Hyper-threading on Intel chips is implemented as duplication of some of the elements of a pysical core but without enough electronics to be an independent core (e.g. they may share an instruction decoder but I cant recall the specifics of Intel's implementation).
Image a pysical core with HT as 1.5 physical cores that your OS sees as 2 real cores. This doesn't equate to 1.5x speed though (this can vary depending on use case)
In your example, non-HT is faster up to 4 threads because none of the cores are sharing work with their HT pipeline. You see a flatline above 4 threads because now you only have 4 execution threads and you get a little extra overhead context switching between threads.
In the HT example you are a bit slower up to 4 threads probably because some of those threads are being assigned to a real core and it's HT, so you are losing performance as those two execution threads share physical resources. Above 4 threads you are seeing the benefit of the extra execution threads, but you see the beginning of diminishing returns.
You could probably match performance on both cases for up to 4 threads, but likely not with a compilation job. To many processes being spawned for processor affinity to be setup I think. If you instead ran a real parallel job using OpenMP or MPI with X<=4 threads bound to the specific real CPU cores, I think you'd see similar performance between HT-off and -on.
Given a number of threads <= the number of real cores, using HT should be slower because (considered crudely) you are potentially cutting the speed of your cores in half.1
Keep in mind that generally more cores is NOT better than FASTER cores. In fact, the only reason so much work was put into developing multi-core systems is that it became increasingly difficult to make faster and faster ones. So if you cannot have a 20 Ghz processor, then 8 x 3 Ghz ones will have to do.
HT is, I believe, primarily intended as an advantage in contexts where each thread is not necessarily gobbling as much processor as it can; it's doing some particular task that's governed by interaction with a user, such as CAD stuff, video games, etc; these are the kind of applications that benefit from multi-tasking. By contrast, server platforms -- wherein the primary applications tend to thread independent tasks that are not governed by a dependence on anything else, hence are optimally run as fast as possible -- do not benefit directly from multi-tasking; they benefit from speed. make is in the same category, although with a perhaps greater degree of interdependence between threads, which is why you see an advantage for HT from 4-8 threads.
1. This is a simplification. HT doesn't simply double the number of cores and halve their speed, but whatever dynamic is used, the total number of processor cycles per second for the system is not improved. It's the same -- only more fragmented.
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...