We Keep Coding

Odd c++/java multi threading performance results compared to single thread

I was struggling since 2 days to understand what is going on with c++ threadpool performance compared to a single thread, then I decided to do the same on java, this is when I noticed that the behaviour is same on c++ and java.. basically my code is simple straight forward.
package com.examples.threading
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.concurrent.atomic.AtomicLong;
public class ThreadPool {
final static AtomicLong lookups = new AtomicLong(0);
final static AtomicLong totalTime = new AtomicLong(0);
public static class Task implements Runnable
{
int start = 0;
Task(int s) {
start = s;
}
#Override
public void run()
{
for (int j = start ; j < start + 3000; j++ ) {
long st = System.nanoTime();
boolean a = false;
long et = System.nanoTime();
totalTime.getAndAdd((et - st));
lookups.getAndAdd(1l);
}
}
}
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// change threads from 1 -> 100 then you will get different numbers
ExecutorService executor = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(1);
for (int i = 0; i <= 1000000; i++)
{
if (i % 3000 == 0) {
Task task = new Task(i);
executor.execute(task);
System.out.println("in time " + (totalTime.doubleValue()/lookups.doubleValue()) + " lookups: " + lookups.toString());
}
}
executor.shutdown();
while (!executor.isTerminated()) {
;
}
System.out.println("in time " + (totalTime.doubleValue()/lookups.doubleValue()) + " lookups: " + lookups.toString());
}
}
now same code when you run with different pool number say like 100 threads, the overall elapsed time will change.
one thread:
in time 36.91493612774451 lookups: 1002000
100 threads:
in time 141.47934530938124 lookups: 1002000
the question is, the code is same why the overall elapsed time is different what is exactly going on here..

You have a couple of obvious possibilities here.
One is that System.nanoTime may serialize internally, so even though each thread is making its call separately, it may internally execute those calls in sequence (and, for example, queue up calls as they come in). This is particularly likely when nanoTime directly accesses a hardware clock, such as on Windows (where it uses Windows' QueryPerformanceCounter).
Another point at which you get essentially sequential execution is your atomic variables. Even though you're using lock-free atomics, the basic fact is that each has to execute a read/modify/write as an atomic sequence. With locked variables, that's done by locking, then reading, modifying, writing, and unlocking. With lock-free, you eliminate some of the overhead in doing that, but you're still stuck with the fact that only one thread can successfully read, modify, and write a particular memory location at a given time.
In this case the only "work" each thread is doing is trivial, and the result is never used, so the optimizer can (and probably will) eliminate it entirely. So all you're really measuring is the time to read the clock and increment your variables.
To gain at least some of the speed back, you could (for one example) give thread thread its own lookups and totalTime variable. Then when all the threads finish, you can add together the values for the individual threads to get an overall total for each.
Preventing serialization of the timing is a little more difficult (to put it mildly). At least in the obvious design, each call to nanoTime directly accesses a hardware register, which (at least with most typical hardware) can only happen sequentially. It could be fixed at the hardware level (provide a high-frequency timer register that's directly readable per-core, guaranteed to be synced between cores). That's a somewhat non-trivial task, and (more importantly) most current hardware just doesn't include such a thing.
Other than that, do some meaningful work in each thread, so when you execute in multiple threads, you have something that can actually use the resources of your multiple CPUs/cores to run faster.

Why is i++ not atomic?

Why is i++ not atomic in Java?
To get a bit deeper in Java I tried to count how often the loop in threads are executed.
So I used a
private static int total = 0;
in the main class.
I have two threads.
Thread 1: Prints System.out.println("Hello from Thread 1!");
Thread 2: Prints System.out.println("Hello from Thread 2!");
And I count the lines printed by thread 1 and thread 2. But the lines of thread 1 + lines of thread 2 don't match the total number of lines printed out.
Here is my code:
import java.util.concurrent.ExecutorService;
import java.util.concurrent.Executors;
import java.util.logging.Level;
import java.util.logging.Logger;
public class Test {
private static int total = 0;
private static int countT1 = 0;
private static int countT2 = 0;
private boolean run = true;
public Test() {
ExecutorService newCachedThreadPool = Executors.newCachedThreadPool();
newCachedThreadPool.execute(t1);
newCachedThreadPool.execute(t2);
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Test.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
run = false;
try {
Thread.sleep(1000);
}
catch (InterruptedException ex) {
Logger.getLogger(Test.class.getName()).log(Level.SEVERE, null, ex);
}
System.out.println((countT1 + countT2 + " == " + total));
}
private Runnable t1 = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (run) {
total++;
countT1++;
System.out.println("Hello #" + countT1 + " from Thread 2! Total hello: " + total);
}
}
};
private Runnable t2 = new Runnable() {
#Override
public void run() {
while (run) {
total++;
countT2++;
System.out.println("Hello #" + countT2 + " from Thread 2! Total hello: " + total);
}
}
};
public static void main(String[] args) {
new Test();
}
}

i++ is probably not atomic in Java because atomicity is a special requirement which is not present in the majority of the uses of i++. That requirement has a significant overhead: there is a large cost in making an increment operation atomic; it involves synchronization at both the software and hardware levels that need not be present in an ordinary increment.
You could make the argument that i++ should have been designed and documented as specifically performing an atomic increment, so that a non-atomic increment is performed using i = i + 1. However, this would break the "cultural compatibility" between Java, and C and C++. As well, it would take away a convenient notation which programmers familiar with C-like languages take for granted, giving it a special meaning that applies only in limited circumstances.
Basic C or C++ code like for (i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) would translate into Java as for (i = 0; i < LIMIT; i = i + 1); because it would be inappropriate to use the atomic i++. What's worse, programmers coming from C or other C-like languages to Java would use i++ anyway, resulting in unnecessary use of atomic instructions.
Even at the machine instruction set level, an increment type operation is usually not atomic for performance reasons. In x86, a special instruction "lock prefix" must be used to make the inc instruction atomic: for the same reasons as above. If inc were always atomic, it would never be used when a non-atomic inc is required; programmers and compilers would generate code that loads, adds 1 and stores, because it would be way faster.
In some instruction set architectures, there is no atomic inc or perhaps no inc at all; to do an atomic inc on MIPS, you have to write a software loop which uses the ll and sc: load-linked, and store-conditional. Load-linked reads the word, and store-conditional stores the new value if the word has not changed, or else it fails (which is detected and causes a re-try).

i++ involves two operations :
read the current value of i
increment the value and assign it to i
When two threads perform i++ on the same variable at the same time, they may both get the same current value of i, and then increment and set it to i+1, so you'll get a single incrementation instead of two.
Example :
int i = 5;
Thread 1 : i++;
// reads value 5
Thread 2 : i++;
// reads value 5
Thread 1 : // increments i to 6
Thread 2 : // increments i to 6
// i == 6 instead of 7

Java specification
The important thing is the JLS (Java Language Specification) rather than how various implementations of the JVM may or may not have implemented a certain feature of the language.
The JLS defines the ++ postfix operator in clause 15.14.2 which says i.a. "the value 1 is added to the value of the variable and the sum is stored back into the variable". Nowhere does it mention or hint at multithreading or atomicity.
For multithreading or atomicity, the JLS provides volatile and synchronized. Additionally, there are the Atomic… classes.

Why is i++ not atomic in Java?
Let's break the increment operation into multiple statements:
Thread 1 & 2 :
Fetch value of total from memory
Add 1 to the value
Write back to the memory
If there is no synchronization then let's say Thread one has read the value 3 and incremented it to 4, but has not written it back. At this point, the context switch happens. Thread two reads the value 3, increments it and the context switch happens. Though both threads have incremented the total value, it will still be 4 - race condition.

i++ is a statement which simply involves 3 operations:
Read current value
Write new value
Store new value
These three operations are not meant to be executed in a single step or in other words i++ is not a compound operation. As a result all sorts of things can go wrong when more than one threads are involved in a single but non-compound operation.
Consider the following scenario:
Time 1:
Thread A fetches i
Thread B fetches i
Time 2:
Thread A overwrites i with a new value say -foo-
Thread B overwrites i with a new value say -bar-
Thread B stores -bar- in i
// At this time thread B seems to be more 'active'. Not only does it overwrite
// its local copy of i but also makes it in time to store -bar- back to
// 'main' memory (i)
Time 3:
Thread A attempts to store -foo- in memory effectively overwriting the -bar-
value (in i) which was just stored by thread B in Time 2.
Thread B has nothing to do here. Its work was done by Time 2. However it was
all for nothing as -bar- was eventually overwritten by another thread.
And there you have it. A race condition.
That's why i++ is not atomic. If it was, none of this would have happened and each fetch-update-store would happen atomically. That's exactly what AtomicInteger is for and in your case it would probably fit right in.
P.S.
An excellent book covering all of those issues and then some is this:
Java Concurrency in Practice

In the JVM, an increment involves a read and a write, so it's not atomic.

If the operation i++ would be atomic you wouldn't have the chance to read the value from it. This is exactly what you want to do using i++ (instead of using ++i).
For example look at the following code:
public static void main(final String[] args) {
int i = 0;
System.out.println(i++);
}
In this case we expect the output to be: 0
(because we post increment, e.g. first read, then update)
This is one of the reasons the operation can't be atomic, because you need to read the value (and do something with it) and then update the value.
The other important reason is that doing something atomically usually takes more time because of locking. It would be silly to have all the operations on primitives take a little bit longer for the rare cases when people want to have atomic operations. That is why they've added AtomicInteger and other atomic classes to the language.

There are two steps:
fetch i from memory
set i+1 to i
so it's not atomic operation.
When thread1 executes i++, and thread2 executes i++, the final value of i may be i+1.

In JVM or any VM, the i++ is equivalent to the following:
int temp = i; // 1. read
i = temp + 1; // 2. increment the value then 3. write it back
that is why i++ is non-atomic.

Concurrency (the Thread class and such) is an added feature in v1.0 of Java. i++ was added in the beta before that, and as such is it still more than likely in its (more or less) original implementation.
It is up to the programmer to synchronize variables. Check out Oracle's tutorial on this.
Edit: To clarify, i++ is a well defined procedure that predates Java, and as such the designers of Java decided to keep the original functionality of that procedure.
The ++ operator was defined in B (1969) which predates java and threading by just a tad.

Is a static counter thread safe in multithreaded application?

public class counting
{
private static int counter = 0;
public void boolean counterCheck(){
counter++;
if(counter==10)
counter=0;
}
}
Method counterCheck can be accessed by multiple threads in my application. I know that static variables are not thread safe. I would appreciate if someone can help me with example or give me reason why I have to synchronize method or block. What will happen if I don't synchronize?

It's clearly not thread-safe. Consider two threads that run in perfect parallel. If the counter is 9, they'll each increment the counter, resulting in the counter being 11. Neither of them will then see that counter equal to 10, so the counter will keep incrementing from then on rather than wrapping as intended.

This is not thread safe, AND this pattern of updating a count from multiple threads is probably the #1 way to achieve negative scaling (it runs slower when you add more threads) of a multi-threaded application.
If you add the necessary locking to make this thread safe then every thread will come to a complete halt while counting. Even if you use atomic operations to update the counter, you will end up bouncing the CPU cache line between every thread that updates the counter.
Now, this is not a problem if each thread operation takes a considerable amount of time before updating the counter. But if each operation is quick, the counter updates will serialize the operations, causing everything to slow down on all the threads.

Biggest danger? Two increments to counter before the counter == 10 check, making the reset to 0 never happen.

It's NOT thread-safe, for multiple reasons. The most obvious one is that you could have two threads going from 9 to 11, as mentioned by other answers.
But since counter++ is not an atomic operation, you could also have two threads reading the same value and incrementing to the same value afterwards. (meaning that two calls in fact increment only by 1).
Or you could have one thread make several modifications, and the other always seeing 0 because due to the Java memory model the other thread might see a value cached in a register.
Good rule of thumb: each time some shared state is accessed by several threads, and one of them is susceptible to modify this shared state, all the accesses, even read-only accesses must be synchronized using the same lock.

Imagine counter is 9.
Thread 1 does this:
counter++; // counter = 10
Thread 2 does this:
counter++; // counter = 11
if(counter==10) // oops
Now, you might think you can fix this with:
if(counter >= 10) counter -= 10;
But now, what happens if both threads check the condition and find that it's true, then both threads decrement counter by 10 (now your counter is negative).
Or at an even lower level, counter++ is actually three operations:
Get counter
Add one to counter
Store counter
So:
Thread 1 gets counter
Thread 2 gets counter
Both threads add one to their counter
Both threads store their counter
In this situation, you wanted counter to be incremented twice, but it only gets incremented once. You could imagine it as if this code was being executed:
c1 = counter;
c2 = counter;
c1 = c1 + 1;
c2 = c2 + 1;
counter = c1; // Note that this has no effect since the next statement overrides it
counter = c2;
So, you could wrap it in a synchronized block, but using an AtomicInteger would be better if you only have a few threads:
public class counting {
private static AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static void counterCheck() {
int value = counter.incrementAndGet();
// Note: This could loop for a very long time if there's a lot of threads
while(value >= 10 && !counter.compareAndSet(value, value - 10)) {
value = counter.get();
}
}
}

first of counter++ by itself is NOT threadsafe
hardware limitations make it equivalent to
int tmp = counter;
tmp=tmp+1;
counter=tmp;
and what happens when 2 threads are there at the same time? one update is lost that's what
you can make this thread safe with a atomicInteger and a CAS loop
private static AtomicInteger counter = new AtomicInteger(0);
public static boolean counterCheck(){
do{
int old = counter.get();
int tmp = old+1;
if(tmp==10)
tmp=0;
}
}while(!counter.compareAndSet(old,tmp));
}

Cyclic barrier Java, How to verify?

I am preparing for interviews and just want to prepare some basic threading examples and structures so that I can use them during my white board coding if I have to.
I was reading about CyclicBarrier and was just trying my hands at it, so I wrote a very simple code:
import java.util.concurrent.CyclicBarrier;
public class Threads
{
/**
* #param args
*/
public static void main(String[] args)
{
// ******************************************************************
// Using CyclicBarrier to make all threads wait at a point until all
// threads reach there
// ******************************************************************
barrier = new CyclicBarrier(N);
for (int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
{
new Thread(new CyclicBarrierWorker()).start();
}
// ******************************************************************
}
static class CyclicBarrierWorker implements Runnable
{
public void run()
{
try
{
long id = Thread.currentThread().getId();
System.out.println("I am thread " + id + " and I am waiting for my friends to arrive");
// Do Something in the Thread
Thread.sleep(1000*(int)(4*Math.random()*10));
// Now Wait till all the thread reaches this point
barrier.await();
}
catch (Exception e)
{
e.printStackTrace();
}
//Now do whatever else after all threads are released
long id1 = Thread.currentThread().getId();
System.out.println("Thread:"+id1+" We all got released ..hurray!!");
System.out.println("We all got released ..hurray!!");
}
}
final static int N = 4;
static CyclicBarrier barrier = null;
}
You can copy paste it as is and run in your compiler.
What I want to verify is that indeed all threads wait at this point in code:
barrier.await();
I put some wait and was hoping that I would see 4 statements appear one after other in a sequential fashion on the console, followed by 'outburst' of "released..hurray" statement. But I am seeing outburst of all the statements together no matter what I select as the sleep.
Am I missing something here ?
Thanks
P.S: Is there an online editor like http://codepad.org/F01xIhLl where I can just put Java code and hit a button to run a throw away code ? . I found some which require some configuration before I can run any code.

The code looks fine, but it might be more enlightening to write to System.out before the sleep. Consider this in run():
long id = Thread.currentThread().getId();
System.out.println("I am thread " + id + " and I am waiting for my friends to arrive");
// Do Something in the Thread
Thread.sleep(1000*8);
On my machine, I still see a burst, but it is clear that the threads are blocked on the barrier.

if you want to avoid the first burst use a random in the sleep
Thread.sleep(1000*(int)(8*Math.rand()));

I put some wait and was hoping that I
would see 4 statements appear one
after other in a sequential fashion on
the console, followed by 'outburst' of
"released..hurray" statement. But I am
seeing outburst of all the statements
together no matter what I select as
the sleep.
The behavior I'm observing is that all the threads created, sleep for approximately the same amount of time. Remember that other threads can perform their work in the interim, and will therefore get scheduled; since all threads created sleep for the same amount of time, there is very little difference between the instants of time when the System.out.println calls are invoked.
Edit: The other answer of sleeping of a random amount of time will aid in understanding the concept of a barrier better, for it would guarantee (to some extent) the possibility of multiple threads arriving at the barrier at different instants of time.

How does semaphore work?

Can the semaphore be lower than 0? I mean, say I have a semaphore with N=3 and I call "down" 4 times, then N will remain 0 but one process will be blocked?
And same the other way, if in the beginning I call up, can N be higher than 3? Because as I see it, if N can be higher than 3 if in the beginning I call up couple of times, then later on I could call down more times than I can, thus putting more processes in the critical section then the semaphore allows me.
If someone would clarify it a bit for me I will much appreciate.
Greg

(Using the terminology from java.util.concurrent.Semaphore given the Java tag. Some of these details are implementation-specific. I suspect your "down" is the Java semaphore's acquire() method, and your "up" is release().)
Yes, your last call to acquire() will block until another thread calls release() or your thread is interrupted.
Yes, you can call release() more times, then down more times - at least with java.util.concurrent.Semaphore.
Some other implementations of a semaphore may have an idea of a "maximum" number of permits, and a call to release beyond that maximum would fail. The Java Semaphore class allows a reverse situation, where a semaphore can start off with a negative number of permits, and all acquire() calls will fail until there have been enough release() calls. Once the number of permits has become non-negative, it will never become negative again.

Calling down when it's 0 should not work. Calling up when it's 3 does work. (I am thinking of Java).
Let me add some more. Many people think of locks like (binary) semaphores (ie - N = 1, so the value of the semaphore is either 0 (held) or 1 (not held)). But this is not quite right. A lock has a notion of "ownership" so it may be "reentrant". That means that a thread that holds a lock, is allowed to call lock() again (effectively moving the count from 0 to -1), because the thread already holds the lock and is allowed to "reenter" it. Locks can also be non reentrant. A lock holder is expected to call unlock() the same number of times as lock().
Semaphores have no notion of ownership, so they cannot be reentrant, although as many permits as are available may be acquired. That means a thread needs to block when it encounters a value of 0, until someone increments the semaphore.
Also, in what I have seen (which is Java), you can increment the semaphore greater than N, and that also sort of has to do with ownership: a Semaphore has no notion of ownership so anybody can give it more permits. Unlike a thread, where whenever a thread calls unlock() without holding a lock, that is an error. (In java it will throw an exception).
Hope this way of thinking about it helps.

Hi Greg consider following example :
public static void main(String [] args) throws InterruptedException {
Semaphore available = new Semaphore(1, true);
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
available.release();
System.out.println("Released : " +available.availablePermits());
available.release();
System.out.println("Released : " +available.availablePermits());
available.release();
System.out.println("Released : " +available.availablePermits());
available.release();
System.out.println("Released : " +available.availablePermits());
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
available.acquire();
System.out.println("Acquire : " +available.availablePermits());
}
If you see the output u will get following :
Acquire : 0
Released : 1
Released : 2
Released : 3
Released : 4
Acquire : 3
Acquire : 2
Acquire : 1
Acquire : 0
And wait is going on.
So basically permit will increase on every release and acquire will decrease it until 0.
Once it reached 0 it will wait until release is called on same object :)

Yes, a negative value means you have processes waiting for the semaphore to be released. A positive value means you can call acquire that many times before the semaphore blocks.
You could think of the value in this way: a positive number means there are that many resources available. A negative value means there are that many entities needing a resource when all resources are taken at the moment. When you acquire a resource you decrement the value, when you release it you increase the value. If the value is still >= 0 after the decrement you get the resource, otherwise your entity is put into a queue.
A nice explanation of semaphores in Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semaphore_(programming)

Just see N as the counter that counts your limited resource. Since you can not have a negative number of resources, N remains >= 0. If the number of your available resources changes, the maximum N has to be changed, too. I wouln't consider it good style to increment n without decrementing it first in any other case.

Using java.util.concurrent.Semaphore with methods acquire() and release(), I think permits will always be >=0. Let's say you want to synchronize threads so that only 1 thread can be inside for loop. If sem is type of Semaphore that has initial value 1, this will not work for more than 2 threads.
while(true){
sem.wait(); // wait is acquire
for(int i=0; i<=5; i++){
try {
Thread.sleep(250);
}catch (InterruptedException e) {}
System.out.println("Thread "+ threadname+ " " + i);
}
sem.signal(); // signal is release }
However, you can implement the Semaphore class from java and make your own class that allows this.
package yourpackage;
import java.util.concurrent.Semaphore;
public class SemaphoreLayer {
public Semaphore s=null;
public String name;
private int val;
public SemaphoreLayer(int i){
s=new Semaphore(i); val=i;
}
public void wait(){
try {
val--;
s.acquire();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
System.out.println("Error signal semaphorelayer");
}}
public void signal(){
if(val<0){val++;}{
s.release();
val++;
}
}
}
Now val can be negative. However, I am not sure that this is completely safe, because if we have signal from one thread and wait from the other and they try val++ and val-- this can be bad. (chances for this are very small but stil they exist, so if you are coding and you have to be 100% no error, I don't recommend using this code )
In conclusion this is why it is better to use concept of monitors in java and key word synchronized.