Fair comparison of fork() Vs Thread [closed] - c++

Question

It's difficult to tell what is being asked here. This question is ambiguous, vague, incomplete, overly broad, or rhetorical and cannot be reasonably answered in its current form. For help clarifying this question so that it can be reopened, visit the help center.
Closed 12 years ago.
I was having a discussion about the relative cost of fork() Vs thread() for parallelization of a task.
We understand the basic differences between processes Vs Thread
Thread:
Easy to communicate between threads
Fast context switching.
Processes:
Fault tolerance.
Communicating with parent not a real problem (open a pipe)
Communication with other child processes hard
But we disagreed on the start-up cost of processes Vs threads.
So to test the theories I wrote the following code. My question: Is this a valid test of measuring the start-up cost or I am missing something. Also I would be interested in how each test performs on different platforms.
fork.cpp
#include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
#include <vector>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <time.h>
extern "C" int threadStart(void* threadData)
{
return 0;
}
int main(int argc,char* argv[])
{
int threadCount = boost::lexical_cast<int>(argv[1]);
std::vector<pid_t> data(threadCount);
clock_t start = clock();
for(int loop=0;loop < threadCount;++loop)
{
data[loop] = fork();
if (data[looo] == -1)
{
std::cout << "Abort\n";
exit(1);
}
if (data[loop] == 0)
{
exit(threadStart(NULL));
}
}
clock_t middle = clock();
for(int loop=0;loop < threadCount;++loop)
{
int result;
waitpid(data[loop], &result, 0);
}
clock_t end = clock();
std::cout << threadCount << "\t" << middle - start << "\t" << end - middle << "\t"<< end - start << "\n";
}
Thread.cpp
#include <boost/lexical_cast.hpp>
#include <vector>
#include <iostream>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <time.h>
extern "C" void* threadStart(void* threadData)
{
return NULL;
}
int main(int argc,char* argv[])
{
int threadCount = boost::lexical_cast<int>(argv[1]);
std::vector<pthread_t> data(threadCount);
clock_t start = clock();
for(int loop=0;loop < threadCount;++loop)
{
if (pthread_create(&data[loop], NULL, threadStart, NULL) != 0)
{
std::cout << "Abort\n";
exit(1);
}
}
clock_t middle = clock();
for(int loop=0;loop < threadCount;++loop)
{
void* result;
pthread_join(data[loop], &result);
}
clock_t end = clock();
std::cout << threadCount << "\t" << middle - start << "\t" << end - middle << "\t"<< end - start << "\n";
}
I expect Windows to do worse in processes creation.
But I would expect modern Unix like systems to have a fairly light fork cost and be at least comparable to thread. On older Unix style systems (before fork() was implemented as using copy on write pages) that it would be worse.
Anyway My timing results are:
> uname -a
Darwin Alpha.local 10.4.0 Darwin Kernel Version 10.4.0: Fri Apr 23 18:28:53 PDT 2010; root:xnu-1504.7.4~1/RELEASE_I386 i386
> gcc --version | grep GCC
i686-apple-darwin10-gcc-4.2.1 (GCC) 4.2.1 (Apple Inc. build 5659)
> g++ thread.cpp -o thread -I~/include
> g++ fork.cpp -o fork -I~/include
> foreach a ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 )
foreach? ./thread ${a} >> A
foreach? end
> foreach a ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 15 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 )
foreach? ./fork ${a} >> A
foreach? end
vi A
Thread: Fork:
C Start Wait Total C Start Wait Total
==============================================================
1 26 145 171 1 160 37 197
2 44 198 242 2 290 37 327
3 62 234 296 3 413 41 454
4 77 275 352 4 499 59 558
5 91 107 10808 5 599 57 656
6 99 332 431 6 665 52 717
7 130 388 518 7 741 69 810
8 204 468 672 8 833 56 889
9 164 469 633 9 1067 76 1143
10 165 450 615 10 1147 64 1211
12 343 585 928 12 1213 71 1284
15 232 647 879 15 1360 203 1563
20 319 921 1240 20 2161 96 2257
30 461 1243 1704 30 3005 129 3134
40 559 1487 2046 40 4466 166 4632
50 686 1912 2598 50 4591 292 4883
60 827 2208 3035 60 5234 317 5551
70 973 2885 3858 70 7003 416 7419
80 3545 2738 6283 80 7735 293 8028
90 1392 3497 4889 90 7869 463 8332
100 3917 4180 8097 100 8974 436 9410
Edit:
Doing a 1000 children caused the fork version to fail.
So I have reduced the children count. But doing a single test also seems unfair so here is a range of values.

Answer 1

mumble ... I do not like your solution for many reasons:
You are not taking in account the execution time of child processes/thread.
You should compare cpu-usage not the bare elapsed time. This way your statistics will not depend from, e.g., disk access congestion.
Let your child process do something. Remember that "modern" fork uses copy-on-write mechanisms to avoid to allocate memory to the child process until needed. It is too easy to exit immediately. This way you avoid quite all the disadvantages of fork.
CPU time is not the only cost you have to account. Memory consumption and slowness of IPC are both disadvantages of fork solution.
You could use "rusage" instead of "clock" to measure real resource usage.
P.S. I do not think you can really measure the process/thread overhead writing a simple test program. There are too many factors and, usually, the choice between threads and processes is driven by other reasons than mere cpu-usage.

Answer 2

Under Linux fork is a special call to sys_clone, either within the library or within the kernel. Clone has lots of switches to flip on and off, and each of them effects how expensive it is to start.
The actual library function clone is probably more expensive than fork though because it does more, though most of that is on the child side (stack swapping and calling a function by pointer).

Answer 3

What that micro-benchmark shows is that thread creation and joining (there are no fork results when I'm writing this) takes tens or hundreds of microseconds (assuming your system has CLOCKS_PER_SEC=1000000, which it probably has, since it's an XSI requirement).
Since you said that fork() takes 3 times the cost of threads, we are still talking tenths of a millisecond at worst. If that is noticeable on an application, you could use pools of processes/threads, like Apache 1.3 did. In any case, I'd say that startup time is a moot point.
The important difference of threads vs processes (on Linux and most Unix-likes) is that on processes you choose explicitly what to share, using IPC, shared memory (SYSV or mmap-style), pipes, sockets (you can send file descriptors over AF_UNIX sockets, meaning you get to choose which fd's to share), ... While on threads almost everything is shared by default, whether there's a need to share it or not. In fact, that is the reason Plan 9 had rfork() and Linux has clone() (and recently unshare()), so you can choose what to share.