Slashdot Log In
Multi-Threaded Programming Without the Pain
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Mar 22, 2007 08:32 AM
from the chicken-run dept.
from the chicken-run dept.
holden karau writes "Gigahertz are out and cores are in. Programmers must begin to develop applications that take full advantage of the increasing number of cores present in modern computers. However, multi-threaded development has been notoriously hard to do. Researcher Stefanus Du Toit discusses and demonstrates RapidMind, a software system he co-authored, that takes the pain out of multi-threaded programming in C++. For his demo he created a program on the PlayStation 3 representing thousands of chickens, each independently tracked by a single processing core. The talk itself is interesting but the demo is golden."
Related Stories
[+]
Technology: Donald Knuth Rips On Unit Tests and More 556 comments
eldavojohn writes "You may be familiar with Donald Knuth from his famous Art of Computer Programming books but he's also the father of TeX and, arguably, one of the founders of open source. There's an interesting interview where he says a lot of stuff I wouldn't have predicted. One of the first surprises to me was that he didn't seem to be a huge proponent of unit tests. I use JUnit to test parts of my projects maybe 200 times a day but Knuth calls that kind of practice a 'waste of time' and claims 'nothing needs to be "mocked up."' He also states that methods to write software to take advantage of parallel programming hardware (like multi-core systems that we've discussed) are too difficult for him to tackle due to ever-changing hardware. He even goes so far as to vent about his unhappiness toward chipmakers for forcing us into the multicore realm. He pitches his idea of 'literate programming' which I must admit I've never heard of but find it intriguing. At the end, he even remarks on his adage that young people shouldn't do things just because they're trendy. Whether you love him or hate him, he sure has some interesting/flame-bait things to say."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Full
Abbreviated
Hidden
Loading... please wait.
Which Comes First? (Score:5, Funny)
--josh
Re:Which Comes First? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Which Comes First? (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:Which Comes First? (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
I think what he meant was 'each tracked in a separate thread'...obviously each core is still handling many threads. I haven't watched the presentation and don't plan on it until later today, too much to do and I'd rather read something about it. It just sounds like it provides an efficient high level way to write a multi threaded app. Evolutionary but not revolutionary?
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
Oh, and there's no such thing as "easy" multi-threading. Hell, the average programmer can't even grasp OO, so what makes them think they can grasp threading which has many many more aspects to it?
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:4, Interesting)
Fsck the chickens...show me what this does with a real game or a real world app that lends itself to highly parallel operations, then demo it on a quad quad core Xenon.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Not scalable? I beg to differ. Thousands threads for sure scale are a lot better then when you just have two or four or whatever, since with thousands you don't really have an upper limit of how many CPU you want to throw at the problem. The real issue with threads is that OS threads are extremely slow, so you can't have thousands threads or your machine would go to a crawl. Threads also are painful to work with since the languages just aren't up to the task.
However for both these issues there exist solutions, namely Erlang, using user-level threads there is no upper limits and you really can have each chicken have its own thread without a problem and the language is also build from the base up to work nicely with threads.
Now I haven't yet seen the talk, bittorrent still busy downloading it, but I seriously doubt that it will just be yet-another-simple-wrapper class.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Informative)
Using the threadpool concept, however, you can tune the size of the threadpool via performance metrics from the threads in the threadpool for the optimum size of threadpool, after which you can place however many objects on the pool you'd like. Generally, this is based on the work the thread has to do. If there is no I/O blocking, I've found that 2-3 threads per CPU with moderate CPU time work units will load it to 100% (read moderate CPU time work units as work units that take on the order of 100-1000 ms to complete). If you start adding in any type of I/O blocking, including large amounts of memory access, then that number goes up. A DB retriever system wound up running 64 threads for my particular work load due primarily to the lag involved in the synchronous calls made to the DB. I could have tuned that further using future tasks and reducing the number of threads (a Doug Lea addition to the JDK 1.5 and also available in his previous concurrency library) but my particular case didn't have any negative effects by running 64 threads, so we left it at that. This particular DB access module ran across 64 systems (64*64 threads) serving roughly 35K concurrent customers.
I haven't run Erlang, so can't comment. I have heard nice things about it though, and I'm curious about it. One day I'll have enough time to play with it.
Parent
Re:Huh? (Score:5, Insightful)
What makes these programming languages easy to grasp the massive concurrency of is one of 2 things:
1) In Erlang and Termite (A scheme dialect) there is no mutable state, and no globals. Every function is in essence a "service" that simply gets messages and then responds with replies. There is no need to think about locking in such a system and very easy message passing idioms to do what you would normally do with mutable object orientation.
2) In languages like Haskell, there is no concept of a "thread" at all... not even a single thread. There is no concept of "ordering". Things are defined as they are in mathematics.. as relationships between functions and variables. There is no mutable state allowed. This strictness allows the compiler to make very deep conclusions as to what can be parallelized. The compiler can then load balance under the covers across any number of procs without exposing any issues of concurrency to the user at all.
So yes, in Java (and OO in general), concurrency is very, very difficult. In other paradigms though it can be trivial, or even transparent.
Parent
RapidMind = vendor lock-in (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:RapidMind = vendor lock-in (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:RapidMind = vendor lock-in (Score:4, Informative)
Does anyone know if there is progress being made on this?
The GPUs will ship with C compilers soon enough. They are already supporting limited forms of C. Actually we will see hybrid CPUs (the cell being a first example) which are capable of massive amounts of parallel math operations stacked in along side some of your CPU cores in time. As the number of cores grows, room is made for specialized processors where that makes sense in the market.
Parent
Functional programming (Score:4, Interesting)
The main problem I see is that there is lack of focus in the functional arena. Many current functional languages are designed to use a VM with bytecode (Erlang for example) and don't support native threads easily (often requiring multiple VM instances and slow[er] message passing). The languages that do support native compiling almost always have other problems like horrible syntax (O'Caml, Lisp) or just general lack of refinement. Arguably Haskell comes the closest but suffers from a complicated and large backend support requirement like Java.
Without native thread support it's hard to take advantage of multiple processor cores. Too bad we don't see more mature native compiled functional languages out there.
What?! (Score:5, Interesting)
You choose to go with a multi-threaded application when it is necessary. Anyone who just starts adding threads because they feel they need to utilize the number of cores is a complete idiot in my book. Hell, why don't we just put spin locks in there so your CPU usage shoots up and it looks like I'm using it to its full potential?
My point is that there have been a few applications I've written that require a multi-threaded solution. Perhaps this API would have made my life easier but I doubt it as I had to pretty much structure by hand each thread. There are frameworks, graphical libraries and that also use multi-threading that the scheduler has taken care of in the past. Hurray for multi-core if you use those.
A good programmer keeps things as simple as possible. They will be easier to maintain in the future. I'm afraid that this is unneeded layer of abstraction or some nut case trying to "utilize cores" for the sake of it. No one has only one application running at one time. The OS is usually running, you have a network process, etc. If I write my application to use one core, I'm giving the user more options to do with the other cores whatever he wants. Let the scheduler work with the futuristic hardware and sort that crap out.
Also, not everyone is multi-core already. Take use into consideration please!
Re:What?! (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe what he is saying is that if your an application developer who is pushing the limits of what a single core is capable of in terms of performance, then you are going to see decreasing rate of improvement and then stagnation because the focus of hardware development is shifting away from more power in a single core to more power because there are more cores.
At some point you will hit a wall, and for single-threaded applications you're going to reach a point where there isn't any more power to be had.
Therefore if you want to tap that extra power that a multi-core processor has, you will by definition *need* to start multi-threaded programming. This isn't about you people who are happy with the speed and power that you already have, research is pointless if you already have everything you could possibly need. This is for the people who push the edge, at some point if you need more you will need to learn to multi-thread correctly.
And a simpler way to do it, is gold in my books.
*From a former University classmate of Stephanos*
Parent
what a joke (Score:5, Insightful)
From the site [rapidmind.net]:
Man thats some funny stuff. Wow that cracked me up. A *games* company using a tool that has this level of indirection?!? I sure hope these guys got a lot of money from their sucker VC to roll in.
Look guys. There is no multi-processing silver bullet. It isn't even such a hard problem, *if you stop trying to solve it at such a low level*. Break your application into separate pieces that, *don't need to communicate very often.* Then this is the same kind of problem scalable websites like Google, MySpace, Hotmail and so on, have already, just without having to factor in the reliability issues. Finer grained multi-threading just leads to deadlocks and is really hard to debug. If you *really must* render the same sphere on 100 processors at the same time, then you need the speed of a custom coded solution. But you don't so let it go. The main loop of your program will be just fine as a single threaded implementation, 1 processor will do, and farm the 10% code / 90 % heavy lifting out in big clean chunks to other processors. If you find yourself writing some bizzare multi-threaded message passing system so that you can have 100s of threads all modifying the same live object model at the same time -- you are fucked, just forget about it 'cause you will never be able to debug that one killer bug that you know is going to get you right as you go to ship.
Toy Supercomputer (Score:4, Interesting)
The PS3 doesn't seem to have the PCI-Express bus that would solve all these problems. For some reason Sony left out its old pet, FireWire, which could have added buses at 800Mbps each. There doesn't seem to be any expansion whatsoever, except changing the HD on the single SATA connector. To use what it's got, a huge amount of complex, heterogeneous IO management is necessary to use its power.
It's strange to think that a $600 machine with around 5Gbps throughput and 7Tbps processing is a "toy", but the cropped IO makes the PS3 look that way, relative to its full power. Maybe a HW mod, even at $500 or possibly up to $2000, that adds PCIe for a half-dozen 2x10Gig-E cards, or even InfiniBand, will make this crazy little toy into more than just a development platform for games or prototypes for really expensive Cell machines. Who's got the way out?
Comments from the presenter (Score:5, Insightful)
Good morning slashdot!
As the (slightly terrified to find himself mentioned on slashdot) presenter in the video linked to above I thought I'd respond to a couple of comments in bulk. First off, I'm part of a much bigger team at RapidMind that builds this software to make targeting multicore and stream processors easier -- the system and the "chicken demo" was a group effort, and you can read more about it and the company in general in the article linked to from here [rapidmind.net], which unfortunately is PDF-only.
For those crying out about multi-threading not being the solution: you're absolutely right! Our platform's approach to programming multi-core processors is to expose a data parallel model. In this model, the programmer explicitly deals with parallel programming (writing algorithms to work well on arbitrarily many cores) but all of the standard multi-threading issues such as deadlocks and race conditions are avoided, and the developer doesn't worry about how many cores there actually are.
And no, the chicken demo didn't run each chicken on an individual core ;). But it did automatically scale to however many cores were available -- 6 SPUs and a PPU on the PS3, and 16 SPUs and 2 PPUs on a Cell Blade (on which we originally showed the simulation at GDC 2006).
If you want to learn more, drop by our website at http://www.rapidmind.net [rapidmind.net]. You can sign up for a free no-strings-attached evaluation version if you want to try it yourself.
Re:Bah humbug (Score:4, Insightful)
Multithreading is a tool. Just like more traditional tools, like the hammer, this one is useful for certain applications. But multithreading is not the only tool at your disposal - people need to stop looking at everything as if it were a nail.
Parent
Re:Bah humbug (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not sure I follow you there. Lightweight process models are perfect for multi-cores. The more the merrier. Given the andundance of high-quality networking and commodity machines, heavyweight programs outside of very niche areas that use internal threads are less suitable for distributed computing than lighteight process models that can call across the network or the OS to other lightweight processes. A heavywight process can only scale to the number of cores avaiable on the machine it is running on, whereas a flock of lightweight processes can scale to the locally available cores and onto to other machines in a distributed fashion without a major bump in the road between local and remote. Any machine that has multi-cores today could easily run, say, one Ruby process per core with negligible overhead.
Parent
Re:Bah humbug (Score:4, Insightful)
And it's silly for it to be "on the way out".
Anyone remember the Amiga? It had a preemptive multitasking OS that lacked hardware memory protection because the hardware it was running on couldn't support it. And while the OS itself was very fast and efficient, the overall system was relatively crash-prone, because any memory-related programming error in any running application had a decent chance of taking down the system.
Fast forward to today. Every computer sold has hardware memory protection built-in. Anyone who doesn't know why that's a good thing needs to spend time on an Amiga.
And yet, despite that, threads are all the rage. Why? Because people have this idiotic belief that they're somehow "more efficient" than processes. Such people probably program about as well as they think, which is to say not very well. Threads are indeed more efficient at context switching than processes, but the real question is: does that really matter? In the vast majority of cases, it doesn't, because in the vast majority of cases multiple threads are being used to make the user interface responsive. There's no way a human being can tell the difference between a millisecond-level context switch time and a microsecond-level one.
On top of that, processes bring one critical advantage to the table that threads don't: memory protection. And for the same reason memory protection is important at the OS and hardware level, so too is it important at the process and thread level: it allows clean, protected separation of concern and greater overall application stability.
The vast, vast majority of applications that are multithreaded don't actually need the slight additional context switch performance advantage that threads bring to the table, but they very much need the memory protection facilities that processes bring to the table. Which is another way of saying that if your application needs concurrency, you're a fool if you blindly use threads instead of processes.
Even Windows supports fork() these days, with the POSIX subsystem (available, as far as I know, on any Windows 2000 and later system), so creating a clone of your current process is dirt simple even under Windows. End result: application authors have no good reason to use threads over processes unless they've actually done the math and can prove that their application really needs the slight performance advantage of threads more than the significant reliability advantage of processes.
As to the other reason for using threads, the sharing of memory, there's this really cool new technology out these days. Maybe you've heard of it. It's called "shared memory". It's only been available for 20 years or so. No wonder most people haven't heard of it. Being forced to explicitly declare what's shared and what isn't is a good thing, because it makes you program easier to maintain, easier to debug, and more reliable -- all at the same time.
The bottom line is this: if you need concurrency in your application, you should be using processes, not threads. If you insist on using threads, you'd better have a damned good reason for it, because the reliability implications of threads are hugely negative while the performance implications are modest at best.
Parent
Re:Bah humbug (Score:5, Interesting)
If you need concurrency in your apps, there isn't that much between threads and processes. However, if you need interprocess-communication then you are far better off with threads, they are significantly faster wrt locking than processes as all process-based locks must be done at the OS level, using shared (and finite) system resources. Threads can just use a critical section and have done with it, almost no overhead.
Threads are not more efficient at context switching than processes, the same procedure happens whether a thread is switched, or a process is (in fact, a process is really an app with 1 thread). However, as threads can share memory more efficiently, locking is often not needed as much so they appear to be more efficient.
The best argument for threads v processes is Apache. Personally, I agree with the Apache group that Apache 2 with its thread-based model is better. They should know.
Parent
Re:Don't Bother (Score:4, Funny)
Parent
Re:400MB download (Score:5, Funny)
Parent