Linked by Hadrien Grasland on Thu 19th May 2011 21:31 UTC
Hardware, Embedded Systems Having read the feedback resulting from my previous post on interrupts (itself resulting from an earlier OSnews Asks item on the subject), I've had a look at the way interrupts work on PowerPC v2.02, SPARC v9, Alpha and IA-64 (Itanium), and contribute this back to anyone who's interested (or willing to report any blatant flaw found in my posts). I've also tried to rework a bit my interrupt handling model to make it significantly clearer and have it look more like a design doc and less like a code draft.
Permalink for comment 474095
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE[3]: Pop-up threads
by Neolander on Sat 21st May 2011 09:24 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Pop-up threads"
Neolander
Member since:
2010-03-08

If those are your assumptions, then I can understand your conclusions, but you're assumptions are pretty weak. Hypothetically I could perform nearly any computation in parallel by dividing it into threads. But doing so does not imply better performance. That depends on the ratio of cpu work versus synchronization overhead.

If I create a MT ray tracer on an 8 core processor, which will perform the best?
A) a new thread for each pixel
B) a new thread for each line
C) 8 threads, processing individual lines from a dispatch queue.
D) 8 threads, processing 1/8th of the image at a time

The answer here is obviously not A or B. For performance it never makes any sense to have more threads than cores.

C and D are probably close, but C could win since some cores might finish their work before others, leaving them idle.

Good point, I should try to avoid having more running threads than there are available CPUs. I like this raytracer example a lot, except that I'd argue that in this case the synchronization overhead is close to zero since IIRC raytracers render individual pixels independently. Threading overhead here will be mostly caused by the cost of context switches and thread creation/anihilation. But that's totally nitpicking.

No, what leaves me wondering here is, how I/O calls can be managed in this model.

That's because you see, if you have 16 running threads, a 8-core processor, and suddenly 4 threads have to do I/O, then they can simply use blocking calls without worrying because 4 threads from the 8 ones that weren't running will take their place.

Now, if you have 8 running threads and 8 tasks waiting in the dispatch queue, and suddenly 4 threads have to do I/O, then for optimal performance you need to replace these 4 threads with 4 new number-crunching threads from the dispatch queues' task.

In this case, we have some overhead :
1/Threads must synchronize with each other so that they don't start 4 new threads with the same pending task in a textbook example of a race
2/4 new threads must be created, which implies some context switching overhead that could have been avoided if all threads were created during a time where the kernel runs.
3/After a while, the I/O task is completed, and our 4 old threads are ready to run again. We are now dealing with 12 threads, so at this point, 4 threads must be silenced for optimal performance. How do we choose them ?

To solve problems 1/ and 2/, having lots of threads created from the start sounds like the most sensible option, if threads are sufficiently cheap. Well, I have to define "cheap", isn't it ? Let's do it : threads that are not running cost CPU time when they are created and take some room in RAM because of OS management structures (a few bytes, negligible on modern computers) but also because of their stack. The CPU time cost can't be avoided, so creating lots of threads is only interesting for tasks which run for a sufficiently long time, as you point out. But the RAM cost can totally be avoided for threads that have never run, by having the stack allocated at run time in a COW-like mechanism.

An interesting experiment to do would be a mix of my two pop-up threads models where among the threads created, only <insert number of cores here> are allowed to run from the start, and when a thread blocks the scheduler automatically picks another one from the queue.

3/ is more interesting. I think the older thread should run first, because otherwise the number of threads which have run (and, as such, have a stack) is going to grow, in a waste of RAM.

Fine, then your report should say that: the overhead of threads is outweighed by I/O bound factors.

The thing is, not all interrupts are equal from that point of view. As an example, processing keyboard or mouse interrupts is nearly pure I/O. But processing a stream of multimedia data can require significantly more number crunching, to the point where the amount of I/O is negligible, especially if DMA is being used.

It's additionally possible to run a separate async handler on each core using cpu affinity such that multiple async requests can run in parallel with no synchronization overhead at all.

Sorry, did not understand this one. Can you please elaborate ?

Firstly, most I/O operations will not need threads in the first place, async is already sufficient, why go through the overhead when it's not needed.

Indeed, for pure I/O operations, it makes more sense to use pure async. As an example, an HDD driver is totally something which should be written in an async fashion, with a message queue.

I have to do more design work on this side.

Secondly if you do have a CPU bound operation, then the cost of a syscall should be fairly negligible.

Very fair point.

Thirdly, the cost of starting a microthread should be no worse in this scenario than when you start it by default (although I realize this is not strictly true for you since you're using a microkernel which is subject to additional IPC overhead).

There is a difference in design philosophy, though : who carries the burden of creating and dispatching threads ? In one case, it's a third-party developer, in the other case it's the operating system. I'd spontaneously believe that the second solution would result in more people considering the threaded option, since it costs them less.

You may shave off cycles here and there, but have you ever asked the question "do my tasks actually need threads?"

I've a bit went the other way around : threads sounded like the cleanest multicore-friendly way to implement the model of processes providing services to each other which I aim at, and then I've tried to apply this model to interrupt processing and drivers.

Ok, but will you get the full async performance benefits if your trying to emulate it inside a threaded model?

If by performance benefits you mention the fact that async has only one task running at the time and as such doesn't have to care about synchronization and that pending tasks cost is kept minimal, then yes this model may provide that. If you wonder if the total cost of starting an interrupt processing job is better or worse than in a pure async model where you just send a message to the dispatcher's entry pipe, then I can't answer for sure, but I think that both models have advantages and drawbacks.

Having an external dispatcher in the driver process implies a slight kernel-driver communication protocol overhead which should make emulated async more powerful when the driver is initially idle. On the other hand, when the driver is initially busy, sending a message in a pipe is faster than creating an inactive pop-up thread.

And it still bothers me that you characterized the async model as worse for performance.

Indeed, that part was bad. I wrote it too late in the evening, and didn't take the time to write an in-depth comparison of both. I didn't talk about performance, but scalability though.

The thing that baffles me about your model for drivers, is that it emphasizes threads which will rarely, if ever, be used without a mutex to serialize them again. If one driver forgets a mutex and accesses a device simultaneously from multiple CPUs, it is extremely likely to be a bug rather than a deliberate action.

The assumption behind this is that in many situations, the order in which things are processed only matters in the end, when the processing results are sent to higher-level layers. Like rendering a GUI : you can render individual controls in parallel, blit them in parallel as long as they don't overlap, it's only at the time of the final copy to the framebuffer that synchronization is needed.

I don't know how much it holds true for interrupt processing, though.

Reply Parent Score: 1