I'm writing conjugate-gradient method realization.
I use Java multi threading for matrix back-substitution. Synchronization is made using CyclicBarrier, CountDownLatch.
Why it takes so much time to synchronize threads? Are there other ways to do it?
code snippet
private void syncThreads() {
// barrier.await();
try {
barrier.await();
} catch (InterruptedException e) {
} catch (BrokenBarrierException e) {
}
}
You need to ensure that each thread spends more time doing useful work than it costs in overhead to pass a task to another thread.
Here is an example of where the overhead of passing a task to another thread far outweighs the benefits of using multiple threads.
final double[] results = new double[10*1000*1000];
{
long start = System.nanoTime();
// using a plain loop.
for(int i=0;i<results.length;i++) {
results[i] = (double) i * i;
}
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("With one thread it took %.1f ns per square%n", (double) time / results.length);
}
{
ExecutorService ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(4);
long start = System.nanoTime();
// using a plain loop.
for(int i=0;i<results.length;i++) {
final int i2 = i;
ex.execute(new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
results[i2] = i2 * i2;
}
});
}
ex.shutdown();
ex.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("With four threads it took %.1f ns per square%n", (double) time / results.length);
}
prints
With one thread it took 1.4 ns per square
With four threads it took 715.6 ns per square
Using multiple threads is much worse.
However, increase the amount of work each thread does and
final double[] results = new double[10 * 1000 * 1000];
{
long start = System.nanoTime();
// using a plain loop.
for (int i = 0; i < results.length; i++) {
results[i] = Math.pow(i, 1.5);
}
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("With one thread it took %.1f ns per pow 1.5%n", (double) time / results.length);
}
{
int threads = 4;
ExecutorService ex = Executors.newFixedThreadPool(threads);
long start = System.nanoTime();
int blockSize = results.length / threads;
// using a plain loop.
for (int i = 0; i < threads; i++) {
final int istart = i * blockSize;
final int iend = (i + 1) * blockSize;
ex.execute(new Runnable() {
@Override
public void run() {
for (int i = istart; i < iend; i++)
results[i] = Math.pow(i, 1.5);
}
});
}
ex.shutdown();
ex.awaitTermination(1, TimeUnit.MINUTES);
long time = System.nanoTime() - start;
System.out.printf("With four threads it took %.1f ns per pow 1.5%n", (double) time / results.length);
}
prints
With one thread it took 287.6 ns per pow 1.5
With four threads it took 77.3 ns per pow 1.5
That's an almost 4x improvement.
How many threads are being used in total? That is likely the source of your problem. Using multiple threads will only really give a performance boost if:
It sounds like you are not blocking in the threads so my guess is you are using too many threads. If you are for example using 10 different threads to do the work at the same time but only have 2 cores, that would likely be much slower than running all of the tasks in sequence. Generally start the number of threads equal to your number of cores/CPUs. Increase the threads used slowly gaging the performance each time. This will give you the optimal thread count to use.
Perhaps you could try to implement to re-implement your code using fork/join from JDK 7 and see what it does?
The default creates a thread-pool with exactly the same amount of threads as you have cores in your system. If you choose the threshold for dividing your work into smaller chunks reasonably this will probably execute much more efficient.
You are most likely aware of this, but in case you aren't, please read up on Amdahl's Law. It gives the relationship between expected speedup of a program by using parallelism and the sequential segments of the program.
synchronizing across cores is much slower than on a single cored environment see if you can limit the jvm to 1 core (see this blog post)
or you can use a ExecuterorService and use invokeAll to run the parallel tasks
