I wrote a C program which reads a dataset from a file and then applies a data mining algorithm to find the clusters and classes in the data. At the moment I am trying to rewrite this sequential program multithreaded with PThreads and I am newbie to a parallel programming and I have a question about the number of worker threads which struggled my mind:
What is the best practice to find the number of worker threads when you do parallel programming and how do you determine it? Do you try different number of threads and see its results then determine or is there a procedure to find out the optimum number of threads. Of course I'm investigating this question from the performance point of view.
There are a couple of issues here.
As Alex says, the number of threads you can use is application-specific. But there are also constraints that come from the type of problem you are trying to solve. Do your threads need to communicate with one another, or can they all work in isolation on individual parts of the problem? If they need to exchange data, then there will be a maximum number of threads beyond which inter-thread communication will dominate, and you will see no further speed-up (in fact, the code will get slower!). If they don't need to exchange data then threads equal to the number of processors will probably be close to optimal.
Dynamically adjusting the thread pool to the underlying architecture for speed at runtime is not an easy task! You would need a whole lot of additional code to do runtime profiling of your functions. See for example the way FFTW works in parallel. This is certainly possible, but is pretty advanced, and will be hard if you are new to parallel programming. If instead the number of cores estimate is sufficient, then trying to determine this number from the OS at runtime and spawning your threads accordingly will be a much easier job.
To answer your question about technique: Most big parallel codes run on supercomputers with a known architecture and take a long time to run. The best number of processors is not just a function of number, but also of the communication topology (how the processors are linked). They therefore benefit from a testing phase where the best number of processors is determined by measuring the time taken on small problems. This is normally done by hand. If possible, profiling should always be preferred to guessing based on theoretical considerations.
You basically want to have as many ready-to-run threads as you have cores available, or at most 1 or 2 more to ensure no core that's available to you will ever be left idle. The trick is in estimating how many threads will typically be blocked waiting for something else (mostly I/O), as that is totally dependent on your application and even on external entities beyond your control (databases, other distributed services, etc, etc).
In the end, once you've determined about how many threads should be optimal, running benchmarks for thread pool sizes around your estimated value, as you suggest, is good practice (at the very least, it lets you double check your assumptions), especially if, as it appears, you do need to get the last drop of performance out of your system!
Related
What could be a typical or real problem for using parallel programming? It can be quite challenging to implement. On the internet they explain how to use it but not why.
Performance is the most common reason to use parallel programming. But: Not all programs will become faster by using parallel programming. In most cases your algorithm consists of parts that are parallelizable and parts, that are inherently sequential. You always have to reason about the potential performance gain of using parallel programming. In some cases the overhead for using it will actually make your program slower. Have a look at Amdahl's law to learn more about the potential performance improvements you can reach.
If you only want some examples of usage of parallel computations: There are some classes of algorithms that are inherently parallel, see this article the dwarfs of berkeley
Another reason for using a multithreaded application architecture is it's responsiveness. There are certain functions which block program execution for a certain amount of time, i.e. reads from files, network, waiting for user inputs, etc. While waiting like this does not consume CPU power, it often blocks or slows program flow.
Using threads in such case is simply a good practice to make the code clearer. Instead of using (often complex or unintuitive) checks for inputs, integrating those checks into program flow, manual switching between handling input and other tasks, a programmer may choose to use threads and let one thread wait for input, and the other i.e. to perform calculations.
In other words, multiple threads sometimes allow for better use of different resources at your computer's disposal: network, disk, input devices or simply monitor.
Generalization: using multiple threads (including parallel data processing) is advisable when the speed and responsiveness gains outweigh the synchronization costs and work required to parallelize the application.
The reason why there is increased interest in parallel programming is partly because the hardware we use today is more parallel. (multicore processors, many-core GPU). To fully benefit from this hardware you need to program in parallel.
Interestingly, parallel processing also improves battery life:
Having 4 cores at 1Ghz draws less power than one single core at 4Ghz.
A phone with a multicore CPU will try to run as much tasks as possible simultaneously, so it can turn off the CPU when all work is done. This is sometimes called "the rush to idle".
Now, some programs are more easy parallelize than others. You should not randomly try to parallelize your entire code base. But it can be a useful excersise to do so even if there is no business reason: then you will be more ready the day when you really need it.
There are very few problems which can't be solved more quickly by a parallel program than by a serial program. There are very few computers which do not have multiple processing units.
I conclude, therefore, that you should use parallel programming all the time.
I have a CSV file with over 1 million rows. I also have a database that contains such data in a formatted way.
I want to check and verify the data in the CSV file and the data in the database.
Is it beneficial/reduces time to thread reading from the CSV file and use a connection pool to the database?
How well does Ruby handle threading?
I am using MongoDB, also.
It's hard to say without knowing some more details about the specifics of what you want the app to feel like when someone initiates this comparison. So, to answer, some general advice that should apply fairly well regardless of the problem you might want to thread.
Threading does NOT make something computationally less costly
Threading doesn't make things less costly in terms of computation time. It just lets two things happen in parallel. So, beware that you're not falling into the common misconception that, "Threading makes my app faster because the user doesn't wait for things." - this isn't true, and threading actually adds quite a bit of complexity.
So, if you kick off this DB vs. CSV comparison task, threading isn't going to make that comparison take any less time. What it might do is allow you to tell the user, "Ok, I'm going to check that for you," right away, while doing the comparison in a separate thread of execution. You still have to figure out how to get back to the user when the comparison is done.
Think about WHY you want to thread, rather than simply approaching it as whether threading is a good solution for long tasks
Like I said above, threading doesn't make things faster. At best, it uses computing resources in a way that is either more efficient, or gives a better user experience, or both.
If the user of the app (maybe it's just you) doesn't mind waiting for the comparison to run, then don't add threading because you're just going to add complexity and it won't be any faster. If this comparison takes a long time and you'd rather "do it in the background" then threading might be an answer for you. Just be aware that if you do this you're then adding another concern, which is, how do you update the user when the background job is done?
Threading involves extra overhead and app complexity, which you will then have to manage within your app - tread lightly
There are other concerns as well, such as, how do I schedule that worker thread to make sure it doesn't hog the computing resources? Are the setting of thread priorities an option in my environment, and if so, how will adjusting them affect the use of computing resources?
Threading and the extra overhead involved will almost definitely make your comparison take LONGER (in terms of absolute time it takes to do the comparison). The real advantage is if you don't care about completion time (the time between when the comparison starts and when it is done) but instead the responsiveness of the app to the user, and/or the total throughput that can be achieved (e.g. the number of simultaneous comparisons you can be running, and as a result the total number of comparisons you can complete within a given time span).
Threading doesn't guarantee that your available CPU cores are used efficiently
See Green Threads vs. native threads - some languages (depending on their threading implementation) can schedule threads across CPUs.
Threading doesn't necessarily mean your threads wind up getting run in multiple physical CPU cores - in fact in many cases they definitely won't. If all your app's threads run on the same physical core, then they aren't truly running in parallel - they are just splitting CPU time in a way that may make them look like they are running in parallel.
For these reasons, depending on the structure of your app, it's often less complicated to send background tasks to a separate worker process (process, not thread), which can easily be scheduled onto available CPU cores at the OS level. Separate processes (as opposed to separate threads) also remove a lot of the scheduling concerns within your app, because you essentially offload the decision about how to schedule things onto the OS itself.
This last point is pretty important. OS schedulers are extremely likely to be smarter and more efficiently designed than whatever algorithm you might come up with in your app.
I'm creating a multi-threaded application in Linux. here is the scenario:
Suppose I am having x instance of a class BloomFilter and I have some y GB of data(greater than memory available). I need to test membership for this y GB of data in each of the bloom filter instance. It is pretty much clear that parallel programming will help to speed up the task moreover since I am only reading the data so it can be shared across all processes or threads.
Now I am confused about which one to use Cilk, Cilk++ or OpenMP(which one is better). Also I am confused about which one to go for Multithreading or Multiprocessing
Cilk Plus is the current implementation of Cilk by Intel.
They both are multithreaded environment, i.e., multiple threads are spawned during execution.
If you are new to parallel programming probably OpenMP is better for you since it allows an easier parallelization of already developed sequential code. Do you already have a sequential version of your code?
OpenMP uses pragma to instruct the compiler which portions of the code has to run in parallel. If I understand your problem correctly you probably need something like this:
#pragma omp parallel for firstprivate(array_of_bloom_filters)
for i in DATA:
check(i,array_of_bloom_filters);
the instances of different bloom filters are replicated in every thread in order to avoid contention while data is shared among thread.
update:
The paper actually consider an application which is very unbalanced, i.e., different taks (allocated on different thread) may incur in very different workload. Citing the paper that you mentioned "a highly unbalanced task graph that challenges scheduling,
load balancing, termination detection, and task coarsening strategies". Consider that in order to balance computation among threads it is necessary to reduce the task size and therefore increase the time spent in synchronizations.
In other words, good load balancing comes always at a cost. The description of your problem is not very detailed but it seems to me that the problem you have is quite balanced. If this is not the case then go for Cilk, its work stealing approach its probably the best solution for unbalanced workloads.
At the time this was posted, Intel was putting a lot of effort into boosting Cilk(tm) Plus; more recently, some effort has been diverted toward OpenMP 4.0.
It's difficult in general to contrast OpenMP with Cilk(tm) Plus.
If it's not possible to distribute work evenly across threads, one would likely set schedule(runtime) in an OpenMP version, and then at run time try various values of environment variable, such as OMP_SCHEDULE=guided, OMP_SCHEDULE=dynamic,2 or OMP_SCHEDULE=auto. Those are the closest OpenMP analogies to the way Cilk(tm) Plus work stealing works.
Some sparse matrix functions in Intel MKL library do actually scan the job first and determine how much to allocate to each thread so as to balance work. For this method to be useful, the time spent in serial scanning and allocating has to be of lower order than the time spent in parallel work.
Work-stealing, or dynamic scheduling, may lose much of the potential advantage of OpenMP in promoting cache locality by pinning threads with cache locality e.g. by OMP_PROC_BIND=close.
Poor cache locality becomes a bigger issue on a NUMA architecture where it may lead to significant time spent on remote memory access.
Both OpenMP and Cilk(tm) Plus have facilities for switching between serial and parallel execution.
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.
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.