I'm playing around with process creation/ scheduling in Linux. As part of that, I have a number of concurrent threads computing a basic hash function from a shared in memory buffer. Each thread is created using clone, I'm trying and I'm playing around with the various flags, stack size, to measure process creation time, etc. (hence the use of clone)
My experiments are run on a 2 core i7 with hyperthreading enabled.
In this context, I find that, with all flags enabled (CLONE_VM, CLONE_SIGHAND, CLONE_FILES, CLONE_FS), the time it takes to compute n hash functions doubles when I run 4 processes (ak one per logical cpu) over when I run 2 processes. My understanding is that hyperthreading helps when a process is waiting on IO, so for a CPU bound process, it has almost no effect. Is this correct?
The second observation is that I observe pretty high variance (up to 2 seconds) when computing these hash functions (I compute a hash 1 000 000 times). No other process is running on he system (though there are some background threads). I'm struggling to understand why so much variance? Is it strictly due to how the scheduler happens to schedule the processes? I understand that without using sched_affinity, there is no guarantee that they will be located on different cpus, so can that just be explained by them being placed on the same CPU?
Are there any other ways to guarantee improved reliability without relying on sched_affinity?
The third observation is that, even when I run with just 2 threads (so when each should be scheduled on a diff CPU), I find that the performance goes down (not by much, but a little bit). I'm struggling to understand why that is the case? It's the same read-only buffer, and fits in the cache. Is there some contention in accessing the page table? Would it then be preferable to create two processes with distinct address spaces and explicitly share the segment, marking it as read only?
Different threads still run in the context of one process so they should run on the same CPU the process is run on (usually one process is run on one CPU but that is not guaranteed).
When you run two threads instead of processes you have an overhead of switching threads, the more calculations you do the more this switching needs to be done so it will be slower than the same calculations done in one thread.
Furthermore if you run the same calculations in different processes then there is an even bigger overhead of switching between processes but there is more chance you will run on different CPUs so in the long run this will probably be faster, not so much for short calculations.
Even if you don't think you have other processes running the OS has a lot to do all the time and switches to it's own processes that you aren't always aware of.
All of this emanates from the randomness of switching. Hope I helped a bit.
Related
I have a computer with 4 cores, and I have a program that creates an N x M grid, which could range from a 1 by 1 square up to a massive grid. The program then fills it with numbers and performs calculations on each number, averaging them all together until they reach roughly the same number. The purpose of this is to create a LOT of busy work, so that computing with parallel threads is a necessity.
If we have a optional parameter to select the number of threads used, what number of threads would best optimize the busy work to make it run as quickly as possible?
Would using 4 threads be 4 times as fast as using 1 thread? What about 15 threads? 50? At some point I feel like we will be limited by the hardware (number of cores) in our computer and adding more threads will stop helping (and might even hinder?)
I think the best way to answer is to give a first overview on how threads are managed by the system. Nowadays all processors are actually multi-core and multi-thread per core, but for sake of simplicity let's first imagine a single core processor with single thread. This is physically limited in performing only a single task at the time, but we are still capable of running multitask programs.
So how is this possible? Well it is simply illusion!
The CPU is still performing a single task at the time, but switches between one and the other giving the illusion of multitasking. This process of changing from one task to the other is named Context switching.
During a Context switch all the data related to the task that is running is saved and the data related to the next task is loaded. Depending on the architecture of the CPU data can be saved in registers, cache, RAM, etc. The more the technology advances, the more performing solutions have been discovered. When the task is resumed, the whole data is fetched and the task continues its operations.
This concept introduces many issues in managing tasks, like:
Race condition
Synchronization
Starvation
Deadlock
There are other points, but this is just a quick list since the question does not focus on this.
Getting back to your question:
If we have a optional parameter to select the number of threads used, what number of threads would best optimize the busy work to make it run as quickly as possible?
Would using 4 threads be 4 times as fast as using 1 thread? What about 15 threads? 50? At some point I feel like we will be limited by the hardware (number of cores) in our computer and adding more threads will stop helping (and might even hinder?)
Short answer: It depends!
As previously said, to switch between a task and another, a Context switch is required. To perform this some storing and fetching data operations are required, but these operations are just an overhead for you computation and don't give you directly any advantage. So having too many tasks requires a high amount of Context switching, thus meaning a lot of computational time wasted! So at the end your task might be running slower than with less tasks.
Also, since you tagged this question with pthreads, it is also necessary to check that the code is compiled to run on multiple HW cores. Having a multi core CPU does not guarantee that you multitask code will run on multiple HW cores!
In your particular case of application:
I have a computer with 4 cores, and I have a program that creates an N x M grid, which could range from a 1 by 1 square up to a massive grid. The program then fills it with numbers and performs calculations on each number, averaging them all together until they reach roughly the same number. The purpose of this is to create a LOT of busy work, so that computing with parallel threads is a necessity.
Is a good example of concurrent and data independent computing. This sort of tasks run great on GPU, since operations don't have data correlation and concurrent computing is performed in hardware (modern GPU have thousands of computing cores!)
My question is probably of trivial nature. I parallelised a CFD code using MPI libraries and now I am trying to investigate my parallel efficiency. To start with, I created a case which would provide equal loads among the ranks and constant ratio of volume of calculations over transferred data. Thus, my expectation would be that as I increase the ranks, any runtime changes would be attributed to the communication delays only. However, I realised that subroutines that do not invoke rank communication (so they only do domain calculations, hence they deal with the same load for all ranks) contribute significantly-actually the most- runtime increases. What am I missing here? Does this even make sense?
Does this even make sense?
Yes!
The more processes you create (every process has a rank), the more you reach the limit of your system's capability to execute processes in a truly parallel manner.
Your system (e.g. your computer) can run in parallel a certain amount of processes, when this limit is surpassed, then some processes wait to be executed (thus not all processes run in parallel), which harms performance.
For example, assuming that a computer has 4 cores and you create 4 processes, then every core can execute a process, thus your performance is harmed by the communicated between the processes, if any.
Now, in the same computer, you create 8 processes. What will happen?
4 of the processes will start execute in parallel, but the other 4 will wait for a core to get available, so that they can run too. This is not a truly parallel execution (some processes will execute in linear fashion). Moreover, depending on the OS scheduling policy, some processes may be interleaved, causing overhead at every switch.
I am playing around with pthreads for the first time and have noticed something strange when running on my machine.
I have an Intel i5 with 2 physical cores and 4 virtual cores.
When running my program with 2 threads, I get roughly double the performance, yet when running with 4 threads, I get the same performance as two threads. Why is this the case?
Results with 2 threads:
real 0m9.335s
user 0m18.233s
sys 0m0.132s
Results with 4 threads:
real 0m9.427s
user 0m34.130s
sys 0m0.180s
Edit: The code is fully parallelizable and the threads are running independently without any shared resources.
Because you only really have 2 cores. Hyper-threading will not magically create 2 more cores for you. Hyper-threading makes it possible to run 4 threads on the CPU but not simultaneously. It will still allocate the threads on the two physical cores and switch the threads back and forth in the execution pipeline.
The performance increase you may expect is at BEST 30%.
Keep in mind that hyperthreading is basically a way of reusing spare execution units on the CPU for a separate thread of execution. You're still working with the horsepower of two cores, it's just split four ways.
If your code is optimized such that it fully utilizes most of the available EUs, there's no spare resources left once it's running on both physical cores, so the hyperthreaded cores can't do any better.
This old article from when HyperThreading (HT) was first introduced provides a lot of details on how it works (though I'm sure many improvements have been made over the last 10 years). http://www.intel.com/technology/itj/2002/volume06issue01/vol6iss1_hyper_threading_technology.pdf:
Each logical processor maintains a complete set of the architecture state. The architecture state consists of registers including the general-purpose registers, the control registers, the advanced programmable interrupt controller (APIC) registers, and some machine state registers. From a software perspective, once the architecture state is duplicated, the processor appears to be two processors. The number of transistors to store the architecture state is an extremely small fraction of the total.
However, the following sentence shows where HT can bottleneck:
Logical processors share nearly all other resources on the physical processor, such as caches, execution units, branch predictors, control logic, and buses.
If the threads execution are each keeping one or more of those shared resources (such as the execution unit or buses) 100% busy, then the hyperthreading will not improve throughput. Since benchmarks often exercise one aspect of a system (intentionally or not), it's not surprising that one of these shared processor resources would end up being a bottleneck and prevent HT from showing a benefit.
The performance gain when using multiple threads is very difficult to determine. Hyperthreading is also "less than one extra core" in performance for sure.
Besides from that, you may run into memory throughput issues, or your code is contending over locks or some such now that you have more of them - even if your own code is lock-less doesn't mean that for example I/O or some functions you call are completely able to run in parallel - there are sometimes "hidden" shared resources.
But most likely, your processor just can't go any faster.
I am trying to calculate a process utilization on my machine with Intel hyper-threading.
I have one problem when trying to do the calculation:
I am counting the loops my process is doing when running alone on the physical core
and counting it when another process (identical one) is running on the other logical core (same physical core).
I see there is a diff in the amount of loops my process is doing. I guess it's related to the fact I am running in hyper-threading machine.
Is there a way to know what is the exact running time my process did so I will be able to add it to my calculation when I am trying to calculate the process utilization?
You can only tell how much of the logical CPU's time a process takes. You can't tell how much it uses the physical CPU, and it isn't really defined.
HyperThreading (or, at least, the more modern SMT) doesn't work by dividing the physical CPU time between two threads. It works by assigning work to the execution units within the CPU (and there are several such units).
So it's possible for both threads to run at once - there are several integer execution units, and some others (memory, floating point).
Bottom line - if a thread takes 100% of the logical CPU, then it takes 100% CPU. That's all you can tell.
I've implemented the Barnes-Hut gravity algorithm in C as follows:
Build a tree of clustered stars.
For each star, traverse the tree and apply the gravitational forces from each applicable node.
Update the star velocities and positions.
Stage 2 is the most expensive stage, and so is implemented in parallel by dividing the set of stars. E.g. with 1000 stars and 2 threads, I have one thread processing the first 500 stars and the second thread processing the second 500.
In practice this works: it speeds the computation by about 30% with two threads on a two-core machine, compared to the non-threaded version. Additionally, it yields the same numerical results as the original non-threaded version.
My concern is that the two threads are accessing the same resource (namely, the tree) simultaneously. I have not added any synchronisation to the thread workers, so it's likely they will attempt to read from the same location at some point. Although access to the tree is strictly read-only I am not 100% sure it's safe. It has worked when I've tested it but I know this is no guarantee of correctness!
Questions
Do I need to make a private copy of the tree for each thread?
Even if it is safe, are there performance problems of accessing the same memory from multiple threads?
Update Benchmark results for the curious:
Machine: Intel Atom CPU N270 # 1.60GHz, cpu MHz 800, cache size 512 KB
Threads real user sys
0 69.056 67.324 1.720
1 76.821 66.268 5.296
2 50.272 63.608 10.585
3 55.510 55.907 13.169
4 49.789 43.291 29.838
5 54.245 41.423 31.094
0 means no threading at all; 1 and above means spawn that many worker threads and for the main thread to wait for them. I would not expect much of an improvement for anything beyond 2 threads, since it's entirely CPU bound and that's how many cores there are. It's interesting that an odd number of threads is slightly worse than an even number.
Looking at sys it's apparent that there's a cost with making threads. Currently it's making the threads for each frame (so N*1000 thread creations). This was easy to program (during my 15 minutes on the train this morning). I'll need to think a bit about how to reuse threads...
Update #2 I've made it use a pool of threads, synchronised with two barriers. This has no noticeable performance advantage over recreating the threads each frame.
You don't specify how your data is structured, but in general reading memory from multiple threads simultaneously is safe and does not introduce any performance issues. You only get problems if someone is writing.
It is interesting that you say you're only getting 30% speedup out of two threads. If you have an otherwise idle machine, two or more CPUs and only readonly shared data (i.e. no synchronization) I would expect to see much closer to 50% speed improvement. This suggests that your operation is actually completing so quickly that the overhead of creating the thread is becoming significant in your numbers. Are you running on a hyperthreaded CPU?
If your data is read-only, then no, you do not need to make a private copy of the tree for each thread. This is the biggest advantage that a shared memory threading model offers!
I'm not aware of any performance problems with such a model. If anything, it should be faster depending on if your CPUs can share some of their cache.