Is there any use in using the select() function ?
From my (small) experience I tend to believe that threads are enough.
So I wonder, is select() just a didactic tool for people who don't yet know threads ?
Consider the following example. You have a moderately busy web server with something like 100K connections. You're not using select or anything like it so you have one thread per connection, implying 100K threads which quickly becomes a problem.
Even if you tweak your system until it allows such a monstrosity, most of the threads will just wait on a socket. Wouldn't it be better if there was a mechanism to notify you when a socket becomes interesting ?
Put another way, threading and select-like mechanisms are complementary. You just can't use threads to replace the simple thing select does: monitoring file descriptors.
Single-threaded polling is by far simpler to use, implement and (most importantly) understand. Concurrent programming adds a huge intellectual cost to your project: Synchronising data is tricky and error-prone, locking introduces many opportunities for bugs, lock-free data structures cause performance hits, and the program flow becomes hard to visualize mentally (or "serialize" perhaps).
By contrast, single-threaded polling (maybe with epoll/kqueue rather than select) gives you generally very good performance (depending of course on what exactly you're doing in response to data) while remaining straight-forward.
In Linux in particular, you can have timerfds, eventfds, signalfds and inotify-fds, as well as nested epoll-fds, all sitting together in your polling set, giving you an very uniform way of dealing with all sorts of "asynchronous" events. If eventually you need more performance, you have a single point of parallelism by running several pollers concurrently, and much of the data synchronisation is done for you by the kernel, which promises that only one single thread receives a successful poll in the event of readiness.
Related
I have to do a program client-server in c where server can use n-threads that can work simultaneously for manage the request of clients.
For do it I use a socket that use a listener that put the new FD (of new connection request) in a list and then the threads can take it when they are able to do.
I know that I can use pipe too for communication between thread.
Is the socket the best way ? And why or why not?
Sorry for my bad English
To communicate between threads you can use socket as well as shared memory.
To do multithreading there are many libraries available on github, one of them I used is the below one.
https://github.com/snikulov/prog_posix_threads/blob/master/workq.c
I tried and tested the same way what you want. it works perfect!
There's one very nice resource related to socket multiplexing which I think you should stop and read after reading this answer. That resource is entitled The C10K problem, and it details numerous solutions to the problem people faced in the year 2000, of handling 10000 clients.
Of those solutions, multithreading is not the primary one. Indeed, multithreading as an optimisation should be one of your last resorts, as that optimisation will interfere with the instruments you use to diagnose other optimisations.
In general, here is how you should perform optimisations, in order to provide guaranteed justifications:
Use a profiler to determine the most significant bottlenecks (in your single-threaded program).
Perform your optimisation upon one of the more significant bottlenecks.
Use the profiler again, with the same set of data, to verify that your optimisation worked correctly.
You can repeat these steps ad infinitum until you decide the improvements are no longer tangible (meaning, good luck observing the differences between before and after). Following these steps will provide you with data you can show your employer, if he/she asks you what you've been doing for the last hour, so make sure you save the output of your profiler at each iteration.
Optimisations are per-machine; what this means is that an optimisation for your machine might actually be slower on another machine. For example, you may use a buffer of 4096 bytes for your machine, while the cache lines for another machine might indicate that 512 bytes is a better idea.
Hence, ideally, we should design programs and modules in such a way that their resources are minimal and can be easily be scaled up, substituted and/or otherwise adjusted for other machines. This can be difficult, as it means in the buffer example above you might start off with a buffer of one byte; you'd most likely need to study finite state machines to achieve that, and using buffers of one byte might not always be technically feasable (i.e. when dealing with fields that are guaranteed to be a certain width; you should use that width as your minimum limit, and scale up from there). The reward is ultra-portable and ultra-optimisable in all situations.
Keep in mind that extra threads use extra resources; we tend to assume that the stack space reserved for a thread can grow to 1MB, so 10000 sockets occupying 10000 threads (in a thread-per-socket model) would occupy about 10GB of memory! Yikes! The minimal resources method suggests that we should start off with one thread, and scale up from there, using a multithreading profiler to measure performance like in the three steps above.
I think you'll find, though, that for anything purely socket-driven, you likely won't need more than one thread, even for 10000 clients, if you study the C10K problem or use some library which has been engineered based on those findings (see your comments for one such suggestion). We're not talking about masses of number crunching, here; we're talking about socket operations, which the kernel likely processes using a single core, and so you can likely match that single core with a single thread, and avoid any context switching or thread synchronisation troubles/overheads incurred by multithreading.
Say I have multiple threads and all threads call the same function at approximately the same time.
Is there a calling convention which would only allow one instance of the function at any time? What I mean is that the function called by the second thread would only start after the function called by the first thread had returned.
Or are these calling conventions compiler specific? I don't have a whole lot of experience using them.
(Skip to the bottom if you don't care about the threading mumbo-jumbo)
As mentioned before, this is not a "calling convention" but a general problem of computing: concurrency. And the particular case where two or more threads can enter a shared zone at a time, and have a different outcome, is called a race condition (and also extends to/from electronics, and other areas).
The hard thing about threading is that computing is such a deterministic affair, but when threading gets involved, it adds a degree of uncertainty, which vary per platform/OS.
A one-thread affair would guarantee that it can do all tasks in the same order, always, but when you got multiple threads, and the order depends on how fast they can complete a task, shared other applications wanting to use the CPU, then the underlying hardware affects the results.
There's not much of a "sure fire way to do threading", as there's techniques, tools and libraries to deal with individual cases.
Locking in
The most well known technique is using semaphores (or locks), and the most well known semaphore is the mutex one, which only allows one thread at a time to access a shared space, by having a sort of "flag" that is raised once a thread has entered.
if (locked == NO)
{
locked = YES;
// Do ya' thing
locked = NO;
}
The code above, although it looks like it could work, it would not guarantee against cases where both threads pass the if () and then set the variable (which threads can easily do). So there's hardware support for this kind of operation, that guarantees that only one thread can execute it: The testAndSet operation, that checks and then, if available, sets the variable. (Here's the x86 instruction from the instruction set)
On the same vein of locks and semaphores, there's also the read-write lock, that allows multiple readers and one writer, specially useful for things with low volatility. And there's many other variations, some that limit an X amount of threads and whatnot.
But overall, locks are lame, since they are basically forcing serialisation of multi-threading, where threads actually need to get stuck trying to get a lock (or just testing it and leaving). Kinda defeats the purpose of having multiple threads, doesn't it?
The best solution in terms of threading, is to minimise the amount of shared space that threads need to use, possibly, elmininating it completely. Maybe use rwlocks when volatility is low, try to have "try and leave" kind of threads, that check if the lock is up, and then go away if it isn't, etc.
As my OS teacher once said (in Zen-like fashion): "The best kind of locking is the one you can avoid".
Thread Pools
Now, threading is hard, no way around it, that's why there are patterns to deal with such kind of problems, and the Thread Pool Pattern is a popular one, at least in iOS since the introduction of Grand Central Dispatch (GCD).
Instead of having a bunch of threads running amok and getting enqueued all over the place, let's have a set of threads, waiting for tasks in a "pool", and having queues of things to do, ideally, tasks that shouldn't overlap each other.
Now, the thread pattern doesn't solve the problems discussed before, but it changes the paradigm to make it easier to deal with, mentally. Instead of having to think about "threads that need to execute such and such", you just switch the focus to "tasks that need to be executed" and the matter of which thread is doing it, becomes irrelevant.
Again, pools won't solve all your problems, but it will make them easier to understand. And easier to understand may lead to better solutions.
All the theoretical things above mentioned are implemented already, at POSIX level (semaphore.h, pthreads.h, etc. pthreads has a very nice of r/w locking functions), try reading about them.
(Edit: I thought this thread was about Obj-C, not plain C, edited out all the Foundation and GCD stuff)
Calling convention defines how stack & registers are used to implement function calls. Because each thread has its own stack & registers, synchronising threads and calling convention are separate things.
To prevent multiple threads from executing the same code at the same time, you need a mutex. In your example of a function, you'd typically put the mutex lock and unlock inside the function's code, around the statements you don't want your threads to be executing at the same time.
In general terms: Plain code, including function calls, does not know about threads, the operating system does. By using a mutex you tap into the system that manages the running of threads. More details are just a Google search away.
Note that C11, the new C standard revision, does include multi-threading support. But this does not change the general concept; it simply means that you can use C library functions instead of operating system specific ones.
I'm writing app that has many independant threads. While I'm doing quite low level, dangerous stuff there, threads may fail (SIGSEGV, SIGBUS, SIGFPE) but they should not kill whole process. Is there a way to do it proper way?
Currently I intercept aforementioned signals and in their signal handler then I call pthread_exit(NULL). It seems to work but since pthread_exit is not async-signal-safe function I'm a bit concerned about this solution.
I know that splitting this app into multiple processes would solve the problem but in this case it's not an feasible option.
EDIT: I'm aware of all the Bad Things™ that can happen (I'm experienced in low-level system and kernel programming) due to ignoring SIGSEGV/SIGBUS/SIGFPE, so please try to answer my particular question instead of giving me lessons about reliability.
The PROPER way to do this is to let the whole process die, and start another one. You don't explain WHY this isn't appropriate, but in essence, that's the only way that is completely safe against various nasty corner cases (which may or may not apply in your situation).
I'm not aware of any method that is 100% safe that doesn't involve letting the whole process. (Note also that sometimes just the act of continuing from these sort of errors are "undefined behaviour" - it doesn't mean that you are definitely going to fall over, just that it MAY be a problem).
It's of course possible that someone knows of some clever trick that works, but I'm pretty certain that the only 100% guaranteed method is to kill the entire process.
Low-latency code design involves a careful "be aware of the system you run on" type of coding and deployment. That means, for example, that standard IPC mechanisms (say, using SysV msgsnd/msgget to pass messages between processes, or pthread_cond_wait/pthread_cond_signal on the PThreads side) as well as ordinary locking primitives (adaptive mutexes) are to be considered rather slow ... because they involve something that takes thousands of CPU cycles ... namely, context switches.
Instead, use "hot-hot" handoff mechanisms such as the disruptor pattern - both producers as well as consumers spin in tight loops permanently polling a single or at worst a small number of atomically-updated memory locations that say where the next item-to-be-processed is found and/or to mark a processed item complete. Bind all producers / consumers to separate CPU cores so that they will never context switch.
In this type of usecase, whether you use separate threads (and get the memory sharing implicitly by virtue of all threads sharing the same address space) or separate processes (and get the memory sharing explicitly by using shared memory for the data-to-be-processed as well as the queue mgmt "metadata") makes very little difference because TLBs and data caches are "always hot" (you never context switch).
If your "processors" are unstable and/or have no guaranteed completion time, you need to add a "reaper" mechanism anyway to deal with failed / timed out messages, but such garbage collection mechanisms necessarily introduce jitter (latency spikes). That's because you need a system call to determine whether a specific thread or process has exited, and system call latency is a few micros even in best case.
From my point of view, you're trying to mix oil and water here; you're required to use library code not specifically written for use in low-latency deployments / library code not under your control, combined with the requirement to do message dispatch with nanosec latencies. There is no way to make e.g. pthread_cond_signal() give you nsec latency because it must do a system call to wake the target up, and that takes longer.
If your "handler code" relies on the "rich" environment, and a huge amount of "state" is shared between these and the main program ... it sounds a bit like saying "I need to make a steam-driven airplane break the sound barrier"...
In linux.
I want to build an autoclicker that will have an enable/disable function when a key is pressed. Obviously there should be 2 things running in parallel (the clicker itself, and the enable/disable function)
What are the cons and pros of each implementation:
Using a thread which will handle the autoclicking function and another main thread (for the enable/disable etc...)
Or using the syscall select and wait for input/keyboard?
Using select is better for performance, especially when you could have potentially hundreds of simultaneous operations. However it can be difficult to write the code correctly and the style of coding is very different from traditional single threaded programming. For example, you need to avoid calling any blocking methods as it could block your entire application.
Most people find using threads simpler because the majority of the code resembles ordinary single threaded code. The only difficult part is in the few places where you need interthread communication, via mutexes or other synchronization mechanisms.
In your specific case it seems that you will only need a small number of threads, so I'd go for the simpler programming model using threads.
Given the amount of work you're doing, it probably doesn't matter.
For high performance applications, there is a difference. In these cases, you need to be handling several thousand connections simultaneously; in such cases, you hand off new connections to new threads.
Creating several thousand threads is expensive, so selecting is used for efficiency. Actually different techniques such as kqueue or epoll are used for optimal switching.
I say it doesn't matter, because you're likely only going to create the thread once and have exactly two threads running for the lifetime of the application.
I have implemented a lockless queue using the hazard pointer methodology explained in http://www.research.ibm.com/people/m/michael/ieeetpds-2004.pdf using GCC CAS instructions for the implementation and pthread local storage for thread local structures.
I'm now trying to evaluate the performance of the code I have written, in particular I'm trying to do a comparison between this implementation and the one that uses locks (pthread mutexes) to protect the queue.
I'm asking this question here because I tried comparing it with the "locked" queue and I found that this has better performances with respect to the lockless implementation. The only test I tried is creating 4 thread on a 4-core x86_64 machine doing 10.000.000 random operations on the queue and it it significantly faster than the lockless version.
I want to know if you can suggest me an approach to follow, i.e. what kind of operation I have to test on the queue and what kind of tool I can use to see where my lockless code is wasting its time.
I also want to understand if it is possible that the performance are worse for the lockless queue just because 4 threads are not enough to see a major improvement...
Thanks
First point: lock-free programming doesn't necessarily improve speed. Lock-free programming (when done correctly) guarantees forward progress. When you use locks, it's possible for one thread to crash (e.g., go into an infinite loop) while holding a mutex. When/if that happens, no other thread waiting on that mutex can make any more progress. If that mutex is central to normal operation, you may easily have to restart the entire process before any more work can be done at all. With lock-free programming, no such circumstance can arise. Other threads can make forward progress, regardless of what happens in any one thread1.
That said, yes, one of the things you hope for is often better performance -- but to see it, you'll probably need more than four threads. Somewhere in the range of dozens to hundreds of threads would give your lock-free code a much better chance of showing improved performance over a lock-based queue. To really do a lot of good, however, you not only need more threads, but more cores as well -- at least based on what I've seen so far, with four cores and well-written code, there's unlikely to be enough contention over a lock for lock-free programming to show much (if any) performance benefit.
Bottom line: More threads (at least a couple dozen) will improve the chances of the lock-free queue showing a performance benefit, but with only four cores, it won't be terribly surprising if the lock-based queue still keeps up. If you add enough threads and cores, it becomes almost inevitable that the lock-free version will win. The exact number of threads and cores necessary is hard to predict, but you should be thinking in terms of dozens at a minimum.
1 At least with respect to something like a mutex. Something like a fork-bomb that just ate all the system resources might be able to deprive the other threads of enough resources to get anything done -- but some care with things like quotas can usually prevent that as well.
The question is really to what workloads you are optimizing for. If congestion is rare, lock structures on modern OS are probably not too bad. They mainly use CAS instructions under the hood as long as they are on the fast path. Since these are quite optimized out it will be difficult to beat them with your own code.
Our own implementation can only win substantially for the congested part. Just random operations on the queue (you are not too precise in your question) will probably not do this if the average queue length is much longer than the number of threads that hack on it in parallel. So you must ensure that the queue is short, perhaps by introducing a bias about the random operation that is chosen if the queue is too long or too short. Then I would also charge the system with at least twice as much threads than there are cores. This would ensure that wait times (for memory) don't play in favor of the lock version.
The best way in my opinion is to identify hotspots in your application with locks
by profiling the code.Introduce the lockless mechanism and measure the same again.
As mentioned already by other posters, there may not be a significant improvement
at lower scale (number of threads, application scale, number of cores) but you might
see throughput improvements as you scale up the system.This is because deadlock
situations have been eliminated and threads are always making forward progress.
Another way of looking at an advantage with lockless schemes are that to some
extent one decouples system state from application performance because there
is no kernel/scheduler involvement and much of the code is userland except
for CAS which is a hw instruction.
With locks that are heavily contended, threads block and are scheduled once
locks are obtained which basically means they are placed at the end of the run
queue (for a specific prio level).Inadvertently this links the application to system
state and response time for the app now depends on the run queue length.
Just my 2 cents.