Recursive parallel function not using all cores - c++

Question

I recently implemented a recursive negamax algorithm, which I parallelized using OpenMP.
The interesting part is this:
#pragma omp parallel for
for (int i = 0; i < (int) pos.size(); i++)
{
int val = -negamax(pos[i].first, -player, depth - 1).first;
#pragma omp critical
if (val >= best)
{
best = val;
move = pos[i].second;
}
}
On my Intel Core i7 (4 physical cores and hyper threading), I observed something very strange: while running the algorithm, it was not using all 8 available threads (logical cores), but only 4.
Can anyone explain why is it so? I understand the reasons the algorithm doesn't scale well, but why doesn't it use all the available cores?
EDIT: I changed thread to core as it better express my question.

Answer 1

First, check whether you have enough iteration count, pos.size(). Obviously this should be a sufficient number.
Recursive parallelism is an interesting pattern, but it may not work very well with OpenMP, unless you're using OpenMP 3.0's task, Cilk, or TBB. There are several things that need to be considered:
(1) In order to use a recursive parallelism, you mostly need to explicitly call omp_set_nested(1). AFAIK, most implementations of OpenMP do not recursively spawn parallel for, because it may end up creating thousands physical threads, just exploding your operating system.
Until OpenMP 3.0's task, a OpenMP has a sort of 1-to-1 mapping of logical parallel task to a physical task. So, it won't work well in such recursive parallelism. Try out, but don't be surprised if even thousands threads are created!
(2) If you really want to use recursive parallelism with a traditional OpenMP, you need to implement code that controls the number of active threads:
if (get_total_thread_num() > TOO_MANY_THREADS) {
// Do not use OpenMP
...
} else {
#pragma omp parallel for
...
}
(3) You may consider OpenMP 3.0's task. In your code, there could be huge number of concurrent tasks due to a recursion. To be efficiently working on a parallel machine, there must be an efficient mapping algorithm these logical concurrent tasks to physical threads (or logical processor, core). A raw recursive parallelism in OpenMP will create actual physical threads. OpenMP 3.0's task does not.
You may refer to my previous answer related to a recursive parallelism: C OpenMP parallel quickSort.
(4) Intel's Cilk Plus and TBB support full nested and recursive parallelism. In my small test program, the performance was far better than OpenMP 3.0. But, that was 3 years ago. You should check the latest OpenMP's implementation.
I have not a detailed knowledge of negamax and minimax. But, my gut says that using recursive pattern and a lock are unlikely to give a speedup. A simple Google search gives me: http://supertech.csail.mit.edu/papers/dimacs94.pdf
"But negamax is not a efficient serial search algorithm, and thus, it
makes little sense to parallelize it."

Answer 2

Optimal parallelism level has some additional considerations except as much threads as available. For example, operation systems used to schedule all threads of a single process to a single processor to optimize cache performance (unless the programmer changed it explicitly).
I guess OpenMP makes similar considerations when executing such code and you cannot always assume the maximum thread number is executed/

Answer 3

Whaddya mean all 8 available threads ? A CPU like that can probably run 100s of threads ! You may believe that 4 cores with hyper-threading equates to 8 threads, but your OpenMP installation probably doesn't.
Check:
Has the environment variable OMP_NUM_THREADS been created and set ? If it is set to 4 there's your answer, your OpenMP environment is configured to start only 4 threads, at most.
If that environment variable hasn't been set, investigate the use, and impact, of the OpenMP routines omp_get_num_threads() and omp_set_num_threads(). If the environment variable has been set then omp_set_num_threads() will override it at run time.
Whether 8 hyper-threads outperform 4 real threads.
Whether oversubscribing, eg setting OMP_NUM_THREADS to 16, does anything other than ruin performance.