In particular, I'm looking at using TPL to start (and wait for) external processes. Does the TPL look at total machine load (both CPU and I/O) before deciding to start another task (hence -- in my case -- another external process)?
For example:
I've got about 100 media files that need to be encoded or transcoded (e.g. from WAV to FLAC or from FLAC to MP3). The encoding is done by launching an external process (e.g. FLAC.EXE or LAME.EXE). Each file takes about 30 seconds. Each process is mostly CPU-bound, but there's some I/O in there. I've got 4 cores, so the worst case (transcoding by piping the decoder into the encoder) still only uses 2 cores. I'd like to do something like:
Parallel.ForEach(sourceFiles,
sourceFile =>
TranscodeUsingPipedExternalProcesses(sourceFile));
Will this kick off 100 tasks (and hence 200 external processes competing for the CPU)? Or will it see that the CPU's busy and only do 2-3 at a time?
You're going to run into a couple of issues here. The starvation avoidance mechanism of the scheduler will see your tasks as blocked as they wait on processes. It will find it hard to distinguish between a deadlocked thread and one simply waiting for a process to complete. As a result it may schedule new tasks if your tasks run or a long time (see below). The hillclimbing heuristic should take into account the overall load on the system, both from your application and others. It simply tries to maximize work done, so it will add more work until the overall throughput of the system stops increasing and then it will back off. I don't think this will effect your application but the stavation avoidance issue probably will.
You can find more detail as to how this all works in Parallel Programming with Microsoft®.NET, Colin Campbell, Ralph Johnson, Ade Miller, Stephen Toub (an earlier draft is online).
"The .NET thread pool automatically manages the number of worker
threads in the pool. It adds and removes threads according to built-in
heuristics. The .NET thread pool has two main mechanisms for injecting
threads: a starvation-avoidance mechanism that adds worker
threads if it sees no progress being made on queued items and a hillclimbing
heuristic that tries to maximize throughput while using as
few threads as possible.
The goal of starvation avoidance is to prevent deadlock. This kind
of deadlock can occur when a worker thread waits for a synchronization
event that can only be satisfied by a work item that is still pending
in the thread pool’s global or local queues. If there were a fixed
number of worker threads, and all of those threads were similarly
blocked, the system would be unable to ever make further progress.
Adding a new worker thread resolves the problem.
A goal of the hill-climbing heuristic is to improve the utilization
of cores when threads are blocked by I/O or other wait conditions
that stall the processor. By default, the managed thread pool has one
worker thread per core. If one of these worker threads becomes
blocked, there’s a chance that a core might be underutilized, depending
on the computer’s overall workload. The thread injection logic
doesn’t distinguish between a thread that’s blocked and a thread
that’s performing a lengthy, processor-intensive operation. Therefore,
whenever the thread pool’s global or local queues contain pending
work items, active work items that take a long time to run (more than
a half second) can trigger the creation of new thread pool worker
threads.
The .NET thread pool has an opportunity to inject threads every
time a work item completes or at 500 millisecond intervals, whichever
is shorter. The thread pool uses this opportunity to try adding threads
(or taking them away), guided by feedback from previous changes in
the thread count. If adding threads seems to be helping throughput,
the thread pool adds more; otherwise, it reduces the number of
worker threads. This technique is called the hill-climbing heuristic.
Therefore, one reason to keep individual tasks short is to avoid
“starvation detection,” but another reason to keep them short is to
give the thread pool more opportunities to improve throughput by
adjusting the thread count. The shorter the duration of individual
tasks, the more often the thread pool can measure throughput and
adjust the thread count accordingly.
To make this concrete, consider an extreme example. Suppose
that you have a complex financial simulation with 500 processor-intensive
operations, each one of which takes ten minutes on average
to complete. If you create top-level tasks in the global queue for each
of these operations, you will find that after about five minutes the
thread pool will grow to 500 worker threads. The reason is that the
thread pool sees all of the tasks as blocked and begins to add new
threads at the rate of approximately two threads per second.
What’s wrong with 500 worker threads? In principle, nothing, if
you have 500 cores for them to use and vast amounts of system
memory. In fact, this is the long-term vision of parallel computing.
However, if you don’t have that many cores on your computer, you are
in a situation where many threads are competing for time slices. This
situation is known as processor oversubscription. Allowing many
processor-intensive threads to compete for time on a single core adds
context switching overhead that can severely reduce overall system
throughput. Even if you don’t run out of memory, performance in this
situation can be much, much worse than in sequential computation.
(Each context switch takes between 6,000 and 8,000 processor cycles.)
The cost of context switching is not the only source of overhead.
A managed thread in .NET consumes roughly a megabyte of stack
space, whether or not that space is used for currently executing functions.
It takes about 200,000 CPU cycles to create a new thread, and
about 100,000 cycles to retire a thread. These are expensive operations.
As long as your tasks don’t each take minutes, the thread pool’s
hill-climbing algorithm will eventually realize it has too many threads
and cut back on its own accord. However, if you do have tasks that
occupy a worker thread for many seconds or minutes or hours, that
will throw off the thread pool’s heuristics, and at that point you
should consider an alternative.
The first option is to decompose your application into shorter
tasks that complete fast enough for the thread pool to successfully
control the number of threads for optimal throughput.
A second possibility is to implement your own task scheduler
object that does not perform thread injection. If your tasks are of long
duration, you don’t need a highly optimized task scheduler because
the cost of scheduling will be negligible compared to the execution
time of the task. MSDN® developer program has an example of a
simple task scheduler implementation that limits the maximum degree
of concurrency. For more information, see the section, “Further Reading,”
at the end of this chapter.
As a last resort, you can use the SetMaxThreads method to
configure the ThreadPool class with an upper limit for the number
of worker threads, usually equal to the number of cores (this is the
Environment.ProcessorCount property). This upper limit applies for
the entire process, including all AppDomains."
The short answer is: no.
Internally, the TPL uses the standard ThreadPool to schedule its tasks. So you're actually asking whether the ThreadPool takes machine load into account and it doesn't. The only thing that limits the number of tasks simultaneously running is the number of threads in the thread pool, nothing else.
Is it possible to have the external processes report back to your application once they are ready? In that case you do not have to wait for them (keeping threads occupied).
Ran a test using TPL/ThreadPool to schedule a great number of tasks doing looped spins. Using an external app I've loaded one of the cores to 100% using proc affinity. The number of active tasks never decreased.
Even better, I ran multiple instances of the same CPU intensive .NET TPL enabled app. The number of threads for all the apps was the same, and never went below the number of cores, even though my machine was barely usable.
So theory aside, TPL uses the number of cores available, but never checks on their actual load. A very poor implementation in my opinion.
Related
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!
I would like to reduce the thread-priority of the threads servicing a parallel_for_each, because under heavy load conditions they consume too much processor time relative to other threads in my system.
Questions:
1) Do the servicing threads of a parallel_for_each inherit the thread-priority of the calling thread? In this case I could presumably call SetThreadPriority before and after the parallel_for_each, and everything should be fine.
2) Alternatively is it advisable to call SetThreadPriority within the parallel_for_each? This will clearly invoke the API multiple times for the same threads. Is there a large overhead of doing this?
2.b) Assuming that I do this, will it affect thread-priorities the next time that parallel_for_each is called - ie do I need to somehow reset the priority of each thread afterwards?
3) I'm wondering about thread-priorities in general. Would anyone like to comment: supposing that I had 2 threads contending for a single processor and one was set to "below-normal" while the other was "normal" priority. Roughly what percentage more processor time would the one thread get compared to the other?
All threads initially start at THREAD_PRIORITY_NORMAL. So you'd have to reduce the priority of each thread. Or reduce the priority of the owning process.
There is little overhead in calling SetThreadPriority. Once you have woken up a thread, the additional cost of calling SetThreadPriority is negligible. Once you set the thread's priority it will remain at that value until changed.
Suppose that you have one processor, and two threads ready to run. The scheduler will always choose to run the thread with the higher priority. This means that in your scenario, the below normal threads would never run. In reality, there's a lot more to scheduling than that. For example priority inversion. However, you can think of it like this. If all processors are busy with normal priority threads, then expect lower priority threads to be starved of CPU.
I am working on a very time sensitive application which polls a region of shared memory taking action when it detects a change has occurred. Changes are rare but I need to minimize the time from change to action. Given the infrequency of changes I think the CPU cache is getting cold. Is there a way to reserve a core for my polling thread so that it does not have to compete with other threads for either cache or CPU?
Thread affinity alone (SetThreadAffinityMask) will not be enough. It does not reserve a CPU core, but it does the opposite, it binds the thread to only the cores that you specify (that is not the same thing!).
By constraining the CPU affinity, you reduce the likelihood that your thread will run. If another thread with higher priority runs on the same core, your thread will not be scheduled until that other thread is done (this is how Windows schedules threads).
Without constraining affinity, your thread has a chance of being migrated to another core (taking the last time it was run as metric for that decision). Thread migration is undesirable if it happens often and soon after the thread has run (or while it is running) but it is a harmless, beneficial thing if a couple of dozen milliseconds have passed since it was last scheduled (caches will have been overwritten by then anyway).
You can "kind of" assure that your thread will run by giving it a higher priority class (no guarantee, but high likelihood). If you then use SetThreadAffinityMask as well, you have a reasonable chance that the cache is always warm on most common desktop CPUs (which luckily are normally VIPT and PIPT). For the TLB, you will probably be less lucky, but there's nothing you can do about it.
The problem with a high priority thread is that it will starve other threads because scheduling is implemented so it serves higher priority classes first, and as long as these are not satisfied, lower classes get zero. So, the solution in this case must be to block. Otherwise, you may impair the system in an unfavorable way.
Try this:
create a semaphore and share it with the other process
set priority to THREAD_PRIORITY_TIME_CRITICAL
block on the semaphore
in the other process, after writing data, call SignalObjectAndWait on the semaphore with a timeout of 1 (or even zero timeout)
if you want, you can experiment binding them both to the same core
This will create a thread that will be the first (or among the first) to get CPU time, but it is not running.
When the writer thread calls SignalObjectAndWait, it atomically signals and blocks (even if it waits for "zero time" that is enough to reschedule). The other thread will wake from the Semaphore and do its work. Thanks to its high priority, it will not be interrupted by other "normal" (that is, non-realtime) threads. It will keep hogging CPU time until done, and then block again on the semaphore. At this point, SignalObjectAndWait returns.
Using the Task Manager, you can set the "affinity" of processes.
You would have to set the affinity of your time-critical app to core 4, and the affinity of all the other processes to cores 1, 2, and 3. Assuming four cores of course.
You could call the SetProcessAffinityMask on every process but yours with a mask that excludes just the core that will "belong" to your process, and use it on your process to set it to run just on this core (or, even better, SetThreadAffinityMask just on the thread that does the time-critical task).
Given the infrequency of changes I think the CPU cache is getting cold.
That sounds very strange.
Let's assume your polling thread and the writing thread are on different cores.
The polling thread will be reading the shared memory address and so will be caching the data. That cache line is probably marked as exclusive. Then the write thread finally writes; first, it reads the cache line of memory in (so that line is now marked as shared on both cores) and then it writes. Writing causes the polling thread CPU's cache line to be marked as invalid. The polling thread then comes to read again; if it reads while the writing thread still has the data cached, it will read from the second cores cache, invalidating its cache line and taking ownership for itself. There's a lot of bus traffic overhead to do this.
Another issue is that the writing thread, if it doesn't write often, will almost certainly lose the TLB entry for the page with the shared memory address. Recalculating the physical address is a long, slow process. Since the polling thread polls often, possibly that page is always in that cores TLB; and in that sense, you might well do better, in latency terms, to have both threads on the same core. (Although if they're both compute intensive, they might interfere destructively and that cost could be much higher - I can't know, as I don't know what the threads are doing).
One thing you could do is use a hyperthread on the writing thread core; if you know early on you're going to write, get the hyperthread to read the shared memory address. This will load the TLB and cache while the writing thread is still busy computing, giving you parallelism.
The Win32 function SetThreadAffinityMask() is what you are looking for.
We have to make our system highly scalable and it has been developed for windows platform using VC++. Say initially, we would like to process 100 requests(from msmq) simultaneously. What would be the best approach? Single process with 100 threads or 2 processes with 50-50 threads? What is the gain apart from process memory in case of second approach. does in windows first CPU time is allocated to process and then split between threads for that process, or OS counts the number of threads for each process and allocate CPU on the basis of threads rather than process. We notice that in first case, CPU utilization is 15-25% and we want to consume more CPU. Remember that we would like to get optimal performance thus 100 requests are just for example. We have also noticed that if we increase number of threads of the process above 120, performance degrades due to context switches.
One more point; our product already supports clustering, but we want to utilize more CPU on the single node.
Any suggestions will be highly appreciated.
You cant process more requests than you have CPU cores. "fast" scalable solutions involve setting up thread pools, where the number of active (not blocked on IO) threads == the number of CPU cores. So creating 100 threads because you want to service 100 msmq requests is not good design.
Windows has a thread pooling mechanism called IO Completion Ports.
Using IO Completion ports does push the design to a single process as, in a multi process design, each process would have its own IO Completion Port thread pool that it would manage independently and hence you could get a lot more threads contending for CPU cores.
The "core" idea of an IO Completion Port is that its a kernel mode queue - you can manually post events to the queue, or get asynchronous IO completions posted to it automatically by associating file (file, socket, pipe) handles with the port.
On the other side, the IO Completion Port mechanism automatically dequeues events onto waiting worker threads - but it does NOT dequeue jobs if it detects that the current "active" threads in the thread pool >= the number of CPU cores.
Using IO Completion Ports can potentially increase the scalability of a service a lot, usually however the gain is a lot smaller than expected as other factors quickly come into play when all the CPU cores are contending for the services other resource.
If your services are developed in c++, you might find that serialized access to the heap is a big performance minus - although Windows version 6.1 seems to have implemented a low contention heap so this might be less of an issue.
To summarize - theoretically your biggest performance gains would be from a design using thread pools managed in a single process. But you are heavily dependent on the libraries you are using to not serialize access to critical resources which can quickly loose you all the theoretical performance gains.
If you do have library code serializing your nicely threadpooled service (as in the case of c++ object creation&destruction being serialized because of heap contention) then you need to change your use of the library / switch to a low contention version of the library or just scale out to multiple processes.
The only way to know is to write test cases that stress the server in various ways and measure the results.
The standard approach on windows is multiple threads. Not saying that is always your best solution but there is a price to be paid for each thread or process and on windows a process is more expensive. As for scheduler i'm not sure but you can set the priory of the process and threads. The real benefit to threads is their shared address space and the ability to communicate without IPC, however synchronization must be careful maintained.
If you system is already developed, which it appears to be, it is likely to be easier to implement a multiple process solution especially if there is a chance that latter more then one machine may be utilized. As your IPC from 2 process on one machine can scale to multiple machines in the general case. Most attempts at massive parallelization fail because the entire system is not evaluated for bottle necks. for example if you implement a 100 threads that all write to the same database you may gain little in actual performance and just wait on your database.
just my .02
As I understand, windows thread scheduler does not discriminate beween threads belonging two different processes, provided all of them have the same base priority. My question is if I have two applications one with only one thread and the other with say 50 threads all with same base priority, does it mean that the second process enjoys more CPU time then the first one?
Scheduling in Windows is at the thread granularity. The basic idea behind this approach is that processes don't run but only provide resources and a context in which their threads run. Coming back to your question, because scheduling decisions are made strictly on a thread basis, no consideration is given to what process the thread belongs to. In your example, if process A has 1 runnable thread and process B has 50 runnable threads, and all 51 threads are at the same priority, each thread would receive 1/51 of the CPU time—Windows wouldn't give 50 percent of the CPU to process A and 50 percent to process B.
To understand the thread-scheduling algorithms, you must first understand the priority levels that Windows uses. You can refer here for quick reference.
Try reading Windows Internals for in depth understanding.
All of the above are accurate but if you're worried about the 50 thread process hogging all the CPU, there ARE techniques you can do to ensure that no single process overwhelms the CPU.
IMHO the best way to do this is to use job objects to manage the usage of a process. First call CreateJobObject, then SetInformationJobObject to limit the max CPU usage of the processes in the job object and AssignProcessToJobObject to assign the process with 50 threads to the job object. You can then let the OS ensure that the 50 thread process doesn't consume too much CPU time.
The unit of scheduling is a thread, not a process, so a process with 50 threads, all in a tight loop, will get much more of the cpu than a process with only a single thread, provided all are running at the same priority. This is normally not a concern since most threads in the system are not in a runnable state and will not be up for scheduling; they are waiting on I/O, waiting for input from the user, and so on.
Windows Internals is a great book for learning more about the Windows thread scheduler.
That depends on the behavior of the threads. In general with a 50 : 1 difference in thread count, yes, the application with more threads is going to get a lot more time. However, windows also uses dynamic thread prioritization, which can change this somewhat. Dynamic thread prioritization is described here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20130312225716/http://support.microsoft.com/kb/109228
Relevant excerpt:
The base priority of a thread is the base level from which these upward adjustments are made. The current priority of a thread is called its dynamic priority. Interactive threads that yield before their time slice is up will tend to be adjusted upward in priority from their base priority. Compute-bound threads that do not yield, consuming their entire time slice, will tend to have their priority decreased, but not below the base level. This arrangement is often called heuristic scheduling. It provides better interactive performance and tends to lessen the system impact of "CPU hog" threads.
There is a local 'advanced' setting that purportedly can be used to shade scheduling slightly in favor of the app with focus. With the 'services' setting, there is no preference. In previous versions of Windows, this setting used to be somewhat more granular than just 'applications with focus'(slight preference to app with focus) and 'services' (all equal weigthing)
As this can be set by the user on the targe machine, it seems like it is asking for grief to depend on this setting...