Multicore + Hyperthreading - how are threads distributed?

Question

I was reading a review of the new Intel Atom 330, where they noted that Task Manager shows 4 cores - two physical cores, plus two more simulated by Hyperthreading.

Suppose you have a program with two threads. Suppose also that these are the only threads doing any work on the PC, everything else is idle. What is the probability that the OS will put both threads on the same core? This has huge implications for program throughput.

If the answer is anything other than 0%, are there any mitigation strategies other than creating more threads?

I expect there will be different answers for Windows, Linux, and Mac OS X.

---

Using sk's answer as Google fodder, then following the links, I found the GetLogicalProcessorInformation function in Windows. It speaks of "logical processors that share resources. An example of this type of resource sharing would be hyperthreading scenarios." This implies that jalf is correct, but it's not quite a definitive answer.

Solution 1

Linux has quite a sophisticated thread scheduler which is HT aware. Some of its strategies include:

Passive Loadbalancing: If a physical CPU is running more than one task the scheduler will attempt to run any new tasks on a second physical processor.

Active Loadbalancing: If there are 3 tasks, 2 on one physical cpu and 1 on the other when the second physical processor goes idle the scheduler will attempt to migrate one of the tasks to it.

It does this while attempting to keep thread affinity because when a thread migrates to another physical processor it will have to refill all levels of cache from main memory causing a stall in the task.

So to answer your question (on Linux at least); given 2 threads on a dual core hyperthreaded machine, each thread will run on its own physical core.

Solution 2

A sane OS will try to schedule computationally intensive tasks on their own cores, but problems arise when you start context switching them. Modern OS's still have a tendency to schedule things on cores where there is no work at scheduling time, but this can result in processes in parallel applications getting swapped from core to core fairly liberally. For parallel apps, you do not want this, because you lose data the process might've been using in the caches on its core. People use processor affinity to control for this, but on Linux, the semantics of sched_affinity() can vary a lot between distros/kernels/vendors, etc.

If you're on Linux, you can portably control processor affinity with the Portable Linux Processor Affinity Library (PLPA). This is what OpenMPI uses internally to make sure processes get scheduled to their own cores in multicore and multisocket systems; they've just spun off the module as a standalone project. OpenMPI is used at Los Alamos among a number of other places, so this is well-tested code. I'm not sure what the equivalent is under Windows.

Solution 3

I have been looking for some answers on thread scheduling on Windows, and have some empirical information that I'll post here for anyone who may stumble across this post in the future.

I wrote a simple C# program that launches two threads. On my quad core Windows 7 box, I saw some surprising results.

When I did not force affinity, Windows spread the workload of the two threads across all four cores. There are two lines of code that are commented out - one that binds a thread to a CPU, and one that suggests an ideal CPU. The suggestion seemed to have no effect, but setting thread affinity did cause Windows to run each thread on their own core.

To see the results best, compile this code using the freely available compiler csc.exe that comes with the .NET Framework 4.0 client, and run it on a machine with multiple cores. With the processor affinity line commented out, Task Manager showed the threads spread across all four cores, each running at about 50%. With affinity set, the two threads maxed out two cores at 100%, with the other two cores idling (which is what I expected to see before I ran this test).

EDIT: I initially found some differences in performance with these two configurations. However, I haven't been able to reproduce them, so I edited this post to reflect that. I still found the thread affinity interesting since it wasn't what I expected.

using System;
using System.Collections.Generic;
using System.Linq;
using System.Diagnostics;
using System.Runtime.InteropServices;
using System.Threading.Tasks;

class Program
{
    [DllImport("kernel32")]
    static extern int GetCurrentThreadId();

    static void Main(string[] args)
    {
        Task task1 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ThreadFunc(1));
        Task task2 = Task.Factory.StartNew(() => ThreadFunc(2));
        Stopwatch time = Stopwatch.StartNew();
        Task.WaitAll(task1, task2);
        Console.WriteLine(time.Elapsed);
    }

    static void ThreadFunc(int cpu)
    {
        int cur = GetCurrentThreadId();
        var me = Process.GetCurrentProcess().Threads.Cast<ProcessThread>().Where(t => t.Id == cur).Single();
        //me.ProcessorAffinity = (IntPtr)cpu;     //using this line of code binds a thread to each core
        //me.IdealProcessor = cpu;                //seems to have no effect

        //do some CPU / memory bound work
        List<int> ls = new List<int>();
        ls.Add(10);
        for (int j = 1; j != 30000; ++j)
        {
            ls.Add((int)ls.Average());
        }
    }
}

Solution 4

The probability is essentially 0% that the OS won't utilize as many physical cores as possible. Your OS isn't stupid. Its job is to schedule everything, and it knows full well what cores it has available. If it sees two CPU-intensive threads, it will make sure they run on two physical cores.

Edit Just to elaborate a bit, for high-performance stuff, once you get into MPI or other serious parallelization frameworks, you definitely want to control what runs on each core.

The OS will make a sort of best-effort attempt to utilize all cores, but it doesn't have the long-term information that you do, that "this thread is going to run for a very long time", or that "we're going to have this many threads executing in parallel". So it can't make perfect decisions, which means that your thread will get assigned to a new core from time to time, which means you'll run into cache misses and similar, which costs a bit of time. For most purposes, it's good enough, and you won't even notice the performance difference. And it also plays nice with the rest of the system, if that matters. (On someone's desktop system, that's probably fairly important. In a grid with a few thousand CPU's dedicated to this task, you don't particularly want to play nice, you just want to use every clock cycle available).

So for large-scale HPC stuff, yes, you'll want each thread to stay on one core, fixed. But for most smaller tasks, it won't really matter, and you can trust the OS's scheduler.

Solution 5

This is a very good and relevant question. As we all know, a hyper-threaded core is not a real CPU/core. Instead, it is a virtual CPU/core (from now on I'll say core). The Windows CPU scheduler as of Windows XP is supposed to be able to distinguish hyperthreaded (virtual) cores from real cores. You might imagine then that in this perfect world it handles them 'just right' and it is not an issue. You would be wrong.

Microsoft's own recommendation for optimizing a Windows 2008 BizTalk server recommends disabling HyperThreading. This suggests, to me, that the handling of hyper-threaded cores isn't perfect and sometimes threads get a time slice on a hyper-threaded core and suffer the penalty (a fraction of the performance of a real core, 10% I'd guess, and Microsoft guesses 20-30%).

Microsoft article reference where they suggest disabling HyperThreading to improve server efficiency: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc615012(BTS.10).aspx

It is the SECOND recommendation after BIOS update, that is how important they consider it. They say:

FROM MICROSOFT:

"Disable hyper-threading on BizTalk Server and SQL Server computers

It is critical hyper-threading be turned off for BizTalk Server computers. This is a BIOS setting, typically found in the Processor settings of the BIOS setup. Hyper-threading makes the server appear to have more processors/processor cores than it actually does; however hyper-threaded processors typically provide between 20 and 30% of the performance of a physical processor/processor core. When BizTalk Server counts the number of processors to adjust its self-tuning algorithms; the hyper-threaded processors cause these adjustments to be skewed which is detrimental to overall performance. "

Now, they do say it is due to it throwing off the self-tuning algorithms, but then go on to mention contention problems (suggesting it is a larger scheduling issue, at least to me). Read it as you will, but I think it says it all. HyperThreading was a good idea when were with single CPU systems, but is now just a complication that can hurt performance in this multi-core world.

Instead of completely disabling HyperThreading, you can use programs like Process Lasso (free) to set default CPU affinities for critical processes, so that their threads never get allocated to virtual CPUs.

So.... I don't think anyone really knows just how well the Windows CPU Scheduler handles virtual CPUs, but I think it is safe to say that XP handles it worst, and they've gradually improved it since then, but it still isn't perfect. In fact, it may NEVER be perfect because the OS doesn't have any knowledge of what threads are best to put on these slower virtual cores. That may be the issue there, and why Microsoft recommends disabling HyperThreading in server environments.

Also remember even WITHOUT HyperThreading, there is the issue of 'core thrashing'. If you can keep a thread on a single core, that's a good thing, as it reduces the core change penalties.

View more solutions