Limiting concurrent threads equal to number of pro

问题:

Are there any benefits to limiting the number of concurrent threads doing a given task to equal the number of processors on the host system? Or better to simply trust libraries such as .NET's ThreadPool to do the right thing ... even if there are 25 different concurrent threads happening at any one given moment?

回答1:

Most threads are not CPU bound, they end up waiting on IO or other events. If you look at your system now, I imagine you have 100's (if not 1000's) of threads executing with no problems. By that measure, you're probably best just leaving the .NET thread pool to do the right thing!

However, if the threads were all CPU bound (e.g. something like ray tracing) then it would be a good idea to limit the number of threads to the number of cores, otherwise chances are that context switching will begin to hurt performance.

回答2:

The threadpool already does a reasonably good job at this. It tries to limit the number of running threads to the number of CPU cores in your machine. When one thread ends, it immediately schedules another eligible thread for execution.

Every 0.5 seconds, it evaluates what is going on with the running threads. When the threads have been running too long, it assumes they are stalled and allows another thread to start executing. You'll now have more threads running than you have CPU cores. This can go up to the maximum number of allowed thread, as set by ThreadPool.SetMaxThreads().

Starting around .NET 2.0 SP1, the default maximum number of threads was increased considerably to 250 times the number of cores. You should never ever get there. If you do, you would have wasted about 2 minutes of time where a possibly non-optimal number of threads were running. Those threads however would all have to be blocking for that long, not exactly a typical execution pattern for a thread. On the other hand, if these threads are all waiting on the same kind of resource they are likely to just take turns, adding more threads cannot improve throughput.

Long story short, the thread pool will work well if you run threads that execute quickly (seconds at most) and don't block for a long time. You probably ought to consider creating your own Thread objects when your code doesn't match that pattern.

回答3:

Well, if your bottleneck is ONLY processors, then it might make sense, but that would ignore all memory and other i/o bottlenecks, and chances are at least your cache memory is throwing page faults and other events that would slow the threads.

I'd trust the library myself. Threads wait for all kinds of things, and you don't want your application to slow down because it can't spawn a new thread, even though most of the rest are just sleeping, waiting for some event or resource.

回答4:

Measure your application under a variety of thread:processor ratios. Come to conclusions based on hard data about your application. Accept no arguments from first principles about what performance you should get, only what you do get matters.