I have a networking Linux application which receives RTP streams from multiple destinations, does very simple packet modification and then forwards the streams to the final destination.
How do I decide how many threads I should have to process the data? I suppose, I cannot open a thread for each RTP stream as there could be thousands. Should I take into account the number of CPU cores? What else matters?
Thanks.
It is important to understand the purpose of using multiple threads on a server; many threads in a server serve to decrease latency rather than to increase speed. You don't make the cpu more faster by having more threads but you make it more likely a thread will always appear at within a given period to handle a request.
Having a bunch of threads which just move data in parallel is a rather inefficient shot-gun (Creating one thread per request naturally just fails completely). Using the thread pool pattern can be a more effective, focused approach to decreasing latency.
Now, in the thread pool, you want to have at least as many threads as you have CPUs/cores. You can have more than this but the extra threads will again only decrease latency and not increase speed.
Think the problem of organizing server threads as akin to organizing a line in a super market. Would you like to have a lot of cashiers who work more slowly or one cashier who works super fast? The problem with the fast cashier isn't speed but rather that one customer with a lot of groceries might still take up a lot of their time. The need for many threads comes from the possibility that a few request that will take a lot of time and block all your threads. By this reasoning, whether you benefit from many slower cashiers depends on whether your have the same number of groceries or wildly different numbers. Getting back to the basic model, what this means is that you have to play with your thread number to figure what is optimal given the particular characteristics of your traffic, looking at the time taken to process each request.
Classically the number of reasonable threads is depending on the number of execution units, the ratio of IO to computation and the available memory.
Number of Execution Units (XU)
That counts how many threads can be active at the same time. Depending on your computations that might or might not count stuff like hyperthreads -- mixed instruction workloads work better.
Ratio of IO to Computation (%IO)
If the threads never wait for IO but always compute (%IO = 0), using more threads than XUs only increase the overhead of memory pressure and context switching. If the threads always wait for IO and never compute (%IO = 1) then using a variant of poll() or select() might be a good idea.
For all other situations XU / %IO gives an approximation of how many threads are needed to fully use the available XUs.
Available Memory (Mem)
This is more of a upper limit. Each thread uses a certain amount of system resources (MemUse). Mem / MemUse gives you an approximation of how many threads can be supported by the system.
Other Factors
The performance of the whole system can still be constrained by other factors even if you can guess or (better) measure the numbers above. For example, there might be another service running on the system, which uses some of the XUs and memory. Another problem is general available IO bandwidth (IOCap). If you need less computing resources per transferred byte than your XUs provide, obviously you'll need to care less about using them completely and more about increasing IO throughput.
For more about this latter problem, see this Google Talk about the Roofline Model.
I'd say, try using just ONE thread; it makes programming much easier. Although you'll need to use something like libevent to multiplex the connections, you won't have any unexpected synchronisation issues.
Once you've got a working single-threaded implementation, you can do performance testing and make a decision on whether a multi-threaded one is necessary.
Even if a multithreaded implementation is necessary, it may be easier to break it into several processes instead of threads (i.e. not sharing address space; either fork() or exec multiple copies of the process from a parent) if they don't have a lot of shared data.
You could also consider using something like Python's "Twisted" to make implementation easier (this is what it's designed for).
Really there's probably not a good case for using threads over processes - but maybe there is in your case, it's difficult to say. It depends how much data you need to share between threads.
I would look into a thread pool for this application.
http://threadpool.sourceforge.net/
Allow the thread pool to manage your threads and the queue.
You can tweak the maximum and minimum number of threads used based on performance profiling later.
Listen to the people advising you to use libevent (or OS specific utilities such as epoll/kqueue). In the case of many connections this is an absolute must because, like you said, creating threads will be an enormous perfomance hit, and select() also doesn't quite cut it.
Let your program decide. Add code to it that measures throughput and increases/decreases the number of threads dynamically to maximize it.
This way, your application will always perform well, regardless of the number of execution cores and other factors
It is a good idea to avoid trying to create one (or even N) threads per client request. This approach is classically non-scalable and you will definitely run into problems with memory usage or context switching. You should look at using a thread pool approach instead and look at the incoming requests as tasks for any thread in the pool to handle. The scalability of this approach is then limited by the ideal number of threads in the pool - usually this is related to the number of CPU cores. You want to try to have each thread use exactly 100% of the CPU on a single core - so in the ideal case you would have 1 thread per core, this will reduce context switching to zero. Depending on the nature of the tasks, this might not be possible, maybe the threads have to wait for external data, or read from disk or whatever so you may find that the number of threads is increased by some scaling factor.
Related
I'm working on a project using the TCP protocol that may have to work with many 100s or more connections at once.
As such, I am uncertain as to what method I should collect and send this data.
I was wondering whether the principal of more threads = more performance applied here.
My reason for doubt is because all data still has to be fed through the network connection, of which most devices only have 1 active at a time. In addition, I know that repeated context switching can reduce performance as well.
However, I've seen from other sources suggesting that multithreading does indeed scale network performance to a point, and if that's true, why?
Currently, I'm using the Non-Boost variant of ASIO to handle networking.
Thanks in advance for any assistance.
ASIO is a wrapper around epoll/IOCP, and as such is optimized for high-performance non-blocking I/O. It's possible to achieve hundreds of thousands of simultaneous connections with this setup on a single thread. Indeed, the old-fashioned "a thread per client" setup could never reach this level is performance due to the context switching overhead.
With that said, depending on the protocol used, handling network requests and replies takes some CPU time, and on a high-rate network it might saturate the single CPU core on which the io_service is running. In that case it is possible to parallelize the io_service so that completion routines can run on more than one core. Still no context switching would take place if the number of threads doesn't exceed the number of available CPU cores/hardware threads. Context switching occurs when the same core needs to handle multiple threads and also when switching between user and kernel mode (i.e. twice for each system call).
Benchmark your server to see how many clients it can handle on a single thread. Chances are it will be enough. Parallelizing io_service comes at a cost of having to deal with completion routines running in parallel, which almost always requires additional synchronization, which means additional overhead.
You want about the same number of threads as you have CPU cores, including hypertreaded ones. Not more.
Each thread deals with a subset of the sockets. That way, you maximize CPU parallelism, but minimize overhead.
If you truly need in the 100s of connections and require low latency, you should consider UDP, where a single socket can receive from many remote addresses. But you then have to implement reliability yourself. Still, that's how multi-player AAA games servers are typically run. And there's good reasons for it.
Multi-Threading vs Single-Threading is a hard topic, and I think it all depends on the point of view of your implementation.
If you have a good event-driven system on one thread probably using single thread for low level network IO will be better.
Spawning threads have on itself a performance penalty as the system will need to attend them, of course it will be helpful to use the extra processors, but as you said when finally getting into the low level all threads will need some kind of synchronization, penalty again, unless you are using one socket per thread.
One mayor drawback of multi-threading (one socket per thread) on networks is that most of the time you system will be subject to 'slow loris' attacks.
Wikipedia for slow loris
Computerphile video on slow loris
So, I think you are better using multi-thread for other long waiting or time consuming tasks. Of course you should use non-blocking IO.
I know there are many questions about this, yet I still couldn't find the answer that helps me.
Let's take a small tcp server with epoll and we want it to utilize as many cpu cores as possible. I've thought about 2 ways it could be done, but none of them worked really well.
1 - Each thread has its own epoll fd and in a "while(1)" loop uses "epoll_wait()" and processes the requests.
2 - Only one epoll fd and creating a new thread for each request when processing it.
In one single thread I could do around 25k req/s, so I was assuming the first method would help a lot, but in reality when I used 2 epoll fd the app could only process ~10k req/s. Obviously I didn't even consider a 2nd method a real one, it was meant to fail, so yeah.
So basically my question is: how should I implement multithreading so it can really utilize more cpu cores?
The socket is non-blocking, TCP_NODELAY, TCP_FASTOPEN set, and I'm using EPOLLET mode as well.
To use multiple cores, you would want to split the process into different threads, and have each thread waiting on it's own file descriptor. However, in this case, if you are only waiting on a single file descriptor, simply multi-threading it and using blocking reads on each file descriptor may be more efficient. You can also affine different threads to different cores, as the scheduler will often try to place different threads on the same core (because their TLBs are the same), so using:
int sched_setaffinity(pid_t pid,size_t cpusetsize,cpu_set_t *mask);
Would help you affine things separately. Obviously, if you have more FDs than CPUs, you are going to have to make tradeoffs.
Here's what I am thinking: If you have two threads (like you tried) that aren't CPU bound, but largley waiting on I/O, the scheduler will think "they both have the same TLB footprint, and are both just waiting on I/O - so I'll just leave them both on the same CPU". It's a logical thing to do, will give good CPU and cache performance, but you need less latency than this (because roughly speaking, OPS/sec = 1/Latency) - so lock those two threads to different cores with the command above - at least see what it does.
Please be more specific about how data being processed with your 1st option, is there any data synchronization between the fd(s) ? Maybe that's what lowering overall performance.
And for the other option, the more reasonable way to go is using 1 epollfd and calling epoll_wait on it in multiple threads. It's kinda more complicated but may give better performance for absolutely io bound apps given there are no (or little) data dependence between the fd(s).
This question already has answers here:
How can multithreading speed up an application (when threads can't run concurrently)?
(9 answers)
Closed 9 years ago.
My professor causally mentioned that we should program multi-thread programs even if we are using a unicore processor however because of the lack of time , he did not elaborate on it .
I would like to know what are the benefits of a multi-thread program in a unicore processor ??
It won't be as significant as a multi-core system but it can still provide some benefits.
Mainly all the benefits that you are going to get will be regarding to the context switch that will happen after a input miss to the already executing thread. Executing thread may be waiting for anything such as a hardware resource or a branch mis-prediction or even data transfer after a cache miss.
At this point the waiting thread can be executed to benefit from this "waiting time". But of course context switch will take some time. Also managing threads inside the code rather than sequential computation can create some extra complexity to your program. And as it has been said, some applications needs to be multi-threaded so there is no escape from the context switch in some cases.
Some applications need to be multi-threaded. Multi-threading isn't just about improving performance by using more cores, it's also about performing multiple tasks at once.
Take Skype for example - The GUI needs to be able to accept the text you're entering, display it on the screen, listen for new messages coming from the user you're talking to, and display them. This wouldn't be a trivial task in a single threaded application.
Even if there's only one core available, the OS thread scheduler will give you the illusion of parallelism.
Usually it is about not blocking. Running many threads on a single core still gives the illusion of concurrency. So you can have, say, a thread doing IO while another one does user interactions. The user interaction thread is not blocked while the other does IO, so the user is free to carry on interacting.
Benefits could be different.
One of the widely used examples is the application with GUI, which supposed to perform some kind of computations. If you will have a single thread - the user will have to wait the result before dealing something else with the application, but if you start it in the separate thread - user interface could be still available for user during the computation process. So, multi-thread program could emulate multi-task environment even on a unicore system. That's one of the points.
As others have already mentioned, not blocking is one application. Another one is separation of logic for unrelated tasks that are to be executed simultaneously. Using threads for that leaves handling of scheduling these tasks to the OS.
However, note that it may also be possible to implement similar behavior using asynchronous operations in a single thread. "Future" and boost::asio provide ways of doing non-blocking stuff without necessarily resorting to multiple threads.
I think it depends a bit on how exactly you design your threads and which logic is actually in the thread. Some benefits you can even get on a single core:
A thread can wrap a blocking/long-during call you can't circumvent otherwise. For some operations there are polling mechanisms, but not for all.
A thread can wrap an almost standalone part of your application that has virtually no interaction with other code. For example background polling for updates, monitoring some resource (e.g. free storage), checking internet connectivity. If you keep them in a separate thread you can keep the code relatively simple in its own 'runtime' without caring too much about the impact on the main program, the sole communication with the main logic is usually a single 'event'.
In some environments you might get more processing time. This mainly depends on how your OS scheduling system works, but if this allocates time per thread, the more threads you have the more your app will be scheduled.
Some benefits long-term:
Where it's not hard to do you benefit if your hardware evolves. You never know what's going to happen, today your app runs on a single-core embedded device, tomorrow that embedded device gets a quad core. Programming threaded from the beginning improves your future scalability.
One example is an environment where you can deterministically assign work to a thread, e.g. based on some hash all related operations end up in the same thread. The advantage for single cores is 'small' but it's not hard to do as you need little synchronization primitives so the overhead stays small.
That said, I think there are situations where it's very ill advise:
As soon as your required synchronization mechanism with other threads becomes complex (e.g. multiple locks, lots of critical sections, ...). It might still be then that multi-threading gives you a benefit when effectively moving to multiple CPUs, but the overhead is huge both for your single core and your programming time.
For instance think about operations that block because of slow peripheral devices (harddisk access etc.). While these are waiting, even the single core can do other things asyncronously.
In a lot of applications the bottleneck is not CPU processing power. So when the program flow is waiting for completion of IO requests (user input, network/disk IO), critical resources to be available, or any sort of asynchroneously triggered events, the CPU can be scheduled to do other work instead of just blocking.
In this case you don't necessarily need multiple threads that can actually run in parallel. Cooperative multi-tasking concepts like asynchroneous IO, coroutines, or fibers come into mind.
If however the application's bottleneck is CPU processing power (constantly 100% CPU usage), then it makes sense to increase the number of CPUs available to the application. At that point it is easier to scale the application up to use more CPUs if it was designed to run in parallel upfront.
As far as I can see, one answer was not yet given:
You will have to write multithreaded applications in the future!
The average number of cores will double every 18 months in the future. People have learned single-threaded programming for 50 years now, and now they are confronted with devices that have multiple cores. The programming style in a multi-threaded environment differs significantly from single-threaded programming. This refers to low-level aspects like avoiding race conditions and proper synchronization, as well as the high-level aspects like the general algorithm design.
So in addition to the points already mentioned, it's also about writing future-proof software, scalability and the development of the skills that are required to achieve these goals.
I'm developing a backend for a networking product, that serves a dozen of clients (N = 10-100). Each connection requires 2 periodic tasks, the heartbeat, and downloading of telemetry via SSH, each at H Hz. There are also extra events of different kind coming from the frontend. By nature of every of the tasks, there is a solid part of waiting in select call on each connection's socket, which allows OS to switch between threads often to serve other clients while waiting for response.
In my initial implementation, I create 3 threads per connection (heartbeat, telemetry, extra), each waiting on a single condition variable, which is poked every time there is something to do in a workqueue. The workqueue is filled with the above-mentioned periodic events using a timer and commands from the frontend.
I have a few questions here.
Would it be a good idea to switch a worker thread pool approach to Intel TBB tasks? If so, to which value of threads do I need to initialize tbb::task_scheduler_init?
In the current approach with 300 threads waiting on a conditional variable, which is signaled N * H * 3 times per second, it is likely to become a bottleneck for scalability (especially on the side which calls signal). Are there any better approaches for waking up just one worker per task?
How is waking of a worker thread implemented in TBB?
Thanks for your suggestions!
Its difficult to say if switching to TBB would be a good approach or not. What are your performance requirements, and what are the performance numbers for the current implementation? If the current solution is good enough, than its probably not worth-while to switch.
If you want to compare the both (current impl vs TBB) to know which gives better performance, then you could do what is called a "Tracer bullet" (from the book The Pragmatic Programmer) for each implementation and compare the results. In simpler terms, do a reduced prototype of each and compare the results.
As mentioned in this answer, its typically not a good idea to try to do performance improvements without having concrete evidence that what you're going to change will improve.
Besides all of that, you could consider making a thread pool with the number of threads being some function of the number of CPU cores (maybe a factor of 1 or 1.5 threads per core) The threads would take off tasks from a common work-queue. There would be 3 types of tasks: heartbeat, telemetry, extra. This should reduce the negative impacts caused by context switching when using large numbers of threads.
I am considering the use of potentially hundreds of threads to implement tasks that manage devices over a network.
This is a C++ application running on a powerpc processor with a linux kernel.
After an initial phase when each task does synchronization to copy data from the device into the task, the task becomes idle, and only wakes up when it receives an alarm, or needs to change some data (configuration), which is rare after the start phase. Once all tasks reach the "idle" phase, I expect that only a few per second will need to wake.
So, my main concern is, if I have hundreds of threads will they have a negative impact on the system once they become idle?
Thanks.
amso
edit:
I'm updating the question based on the answers that I got. Thanks guys.
So it seems that having a ton of threads idling (IO blocked, waiting, sleeping, etc), per se , will not have an impact on the system in terms of responsiveness.
Of course, they will spend extra money for each thread's stack and TLS data but that's okay as long as we throw more memory at the thing (making it more €€€)
But then, other issues have to be accounted for. Having 100s of threads waiting will likely increase memory usage on the kernel, due to the need of wait queues or other similar resources. There's also a latency issue, which looks non-deterministic. To check the responsiveness and memory usage of each solution one should measure it and compare.
Finally, the whole idea of hundreds of threads that will be mostly idling may be modeled like a thread pool. This reduces a bit of code linearity but dramatically increases the scalability of the solution and with propper care can be easily tunable to adjust the compromise between performance and resource usage.
I think that's all. Thanks everyone for their input.
--
amso
Each thread has overhead - most importantly each one has its own stack and TLS. Performance is not that much of a problem since they will not get any time slices unless they actually do anything. You may still want to consider using thread pools.
Chiefly they will use up address space and memory for stacks; once you get, say, 1000 threads, this gets quite significant as I've seen that 10M per thread is typical for stacks (on x86_64). It is changable, but only with care.
If you have a 32-bit processor, address space will be the main limitation once you hit 1000s of threads, you can easily exhaust the AS.
They use up some kernel memory, but probably not as much as userspace.
Edit: of course threads share address space with each other only if they are in the same process; I am assuming that they are.
I'm not a Linux hacker, but assuming that Linux's thread scheduling is similar to Windows'...
Yes, of course the will be some impact. Every bit of memory you consume will potentially have some impact.
However, in a time-sliced environment, threads that are in a Wait/Sleep/Join state will not consume CPU cycles until they are awoken.
I would be worried about offering 1:1 thread-connections mappings, if nothing else because it leaves you rather exposed to denial of service attacks. (pthread_create() is a fairly expensive operation compared to just a call to accept())
EboMike has already answered the question directly - provided threads are blocked and not busy-waiting then they won't consume much in the way of resources although they will occupy memory and swap for all the per-thread state.
I'm learning the basics of the kernel now. I can't give you a specific answer yet; I'm still a noob... but here are some things for you to chew on.
Linux implements each POSIX thread as a unique process. This will create overhead as others have mentioned. In addition to this, your waiting model appears flawed any way you do it. If you create one conditional variable for each thread, then I think (based off of my interpretation of the website below) that you'll actually be expending a lot of kernel memory, as each thread would be placed into its own wait queue. If instead you break your threads up for each group of X threads to share a conditional variable, then you've got problems as well because every time the variable signals, you must wake up _EVERY_DARN_PROCESS_ in that variable's wait queue.
I also assume that you will need to do some object sharing an synchronization. In this case, your code may get slower because of the need to wake up all processes waiting on a resource, as I mentioned earlier.
I know this wasn't much help, but as I said, I'm a kernel noob. Hope it helped a little.
http://book.chinaunix.net/special/ebook/PrenticeHall/PrenticeHallPTRTheLinuxKernelPrimer/0131181637/ch03lev1sec7.html
I'm not sure what "device" you are talking about, but if it's a file descriptor, I'd suggest that you look at starting to migrate to using either poll or epoll (Id suggest the latter given the description of how active you expect each file descriptor to be). That way, you could use one process which would be responsible for all the fds.