Last week we posted an article on how Multitasking and Multithreading can better utilize a computer's processing potential. We asked several questions about multithreading, such as does it require dual processors or can multithreading occur if just one processor is present. Below we post some of the informative and thoughtful responses we received. We would like to also pose another question, about making a program multithreaded under Mac OS X; How much work is it as a percentage of over-all application development? If you have information in regards to this or any feedback on the issue of OS X performance please either e-mail us, or use this link to post your thoughts on our bulletin board.

Additional resources:

Power Mac Buyer's Guide First look at Quicksilver 733 performance Quicksilver 733 from the inside out Quicksilver G4/733 vs G4/867 QuickSilver G4/867 vs Dual G4/800 QuickSilver G4/867 vs Dual G4/800 vs G4/733

Dual Processor meet OS X OS X And The Multitasking/Multithreaded Factor X-Files - OS X Central Power Mac G4 Specifications and Reviews Page G4 Power Mac "Summer 2001" Information Page MacReviewZone - Power Macs The Performance Edge Index

Hi there,

I just thought I'd give you some clarifications regarding your article 
on multithreading and multitasking in OS X.

First of all, Mac OS 9 does multitasking as well; it's a variant called 
cooperative multitasking. The difference is that with preemptive 
multitasking (which Unix, BeOS, newer Windows versions...) the kernel 
(or more properly, the scheduler, which is part of the kernel) gives CPU 
time to a process, and then takes it away a certain amount of time 
later. This means that all processes will get some time (it doesn't 
guarantee that all processes will get ENOUGH time, because you're still 
dividing up a finite pie; too many processes can still bog down any 
system).

With cooperative multitasking, there is no scheduler; each process runs 
until it hands control over to the next process in the queue. This means 
that a poorly behaved program may never hand control over, and can 
monopolize the machine.

However, this has some interesting side-effects: for a single purpose 
(i.e. crunching SETI data, perhaps?) that doesn't rely on multiple 
processes interacting, a cooperatively multitasking system can be faster 
than a preemptively multitasking system. This is because there isn't the 
overhead of a scheduler. For most uses, though, a preemptively 
multitasking system is superior.

If processes are different paths of execution in an operating system, 
then threads are different paths of execution in an application. In 
other words, threads are to a process what processes are to an entire 
system. Just as two different processes (even if non-threaded) can be 
run on each of two different processors on a multiprocessor system (thus 
gaining some advantage on an MP system even with non-MP-aware apps), two 
different threads within a process can each run on a different 
processor. This is what it means for an application to be MP-aware.

Note that programming threads is quite tricky, and requires some 
sophisticated techniques for making sure the two threads don't step on 
each others' memory. Why is this? Because in OS X (like any Unix) while 
two processes are separated in memory, and can't access each other's 
memory, two threads are NOT separated in memory, and can easily step on 
each other and cause hard-to-fix bugs.

Another note - Mac OS 9 also has multithreading; that is, any 
application can have several threads. Thus, a multithreaded application 
(like Photoshop) can be MP-aware in OS 9 as well. However, thread 
programming is not as easy in 9 as in X.

So, is there any advantage to multithreading on a single-processor 
system? Yes! Even if there's only one processor, a well-written 
multithreaded application can have major advantages. To take a simple 
example, look at the Finder in Mac OS 8 and later. You can do multiple 
copies at once - that's an example of threading; the 'copy' facility (or 
subroutine) is reentrant (can be called several times in parallel) and 
is a separate thread (making it possible to do other things in the 
Finder while a copy is going on). Compare this to the System 6 Finder, 
which was not multithreaded.

Basically, good application design includes taking parts of your program 
that may take a lot of CPU time (or may simply need to run for a while 
even if they're not CPU-bound, because they're waiting for network 
transactions or something), and making them separate threads so they can 
go off and work by themselves, without making the entire application 
unresponsive. It's just like how a multitasking OS (cooperative or 
preemptive) is useful even on a single-processor system :-)


--
Noah Daniels                   
Systems Engineer 

I just wanted to give you a quick, and simple, answer to your question 
about multithreading. I'm sure plenty of people have already answered you, 
but just in case, I wanted to throw in my 2 cents... :)

Basically, multithreading is breaking a large, complex, program into many 
different pieces that can run concurrently, or even independently. An 
example would be a web browser that is able to load pages in two windows at 
once, or even able to load and display all the graphics on a single page, 
simultaneously.

System 7 introduced multithreading, but it was poorly implemented and was 
hamstrung by the parent applications' reliance on cooperative scheduling. 
Threads could only execute within the parent application, so IE could load 
2 pages at once, but if another application took the processor, all the IE 
threads would stall until it got the processor back.

Mac OS X introduces finer granularity to multithreading. Now the kernel 
itself is multithreaded, and all programs execute as at least one 
thread.  Even if there is only ONE processor, the multiple threads allow 
the system to do many things, in many different programs, at once. 
Multithreaded applications (including the kernel) can be divided for 
execution among available processors, but the kernel can also move single 
threaded applications between processors. So if you have 2 single threaded 
programs running, one can run on the first processor while the second 
executes on the second processor.

I hope I put that in straight forward enough terms. Thanks for the article. 
With so many people spouting buzzwords these days, it's nice to have 
someone explain them to the unwashed masses. :)

Chris McCusker
UC Riverside
Computing & Communications 

Can multithreading occur if only one processor is present?

Yes.  Multithreaded code runs independently of how many processors 
are present.  (It will run faster on multi-CPU machines though).

Here is the basic model:  At any given time there is a collection of 
threads and processes "running" on the computer.   Threads and 
processes are almost the same (the main difference is that a group of 
threads can easily share data whereas processes each have their own 
separate data space).

Within the OS there is a component called the scheduler.   The 
scheduler decides how much time each process and each thread will get 
to run before switching to the next process or thread.  On a machine 
with multiple CPUs, the scheduler also decides which CPUs run which 
threads or processes.  Usually the scheduling is done to balance the 
threads and processes across CPUs so that you don't have one CPU 
handling tons of work while the other CPUs sit idle.  (If there is 
only one thread or process that is doing lots of work, though, then 
you will have one CPU doing lots of work while the others sit there 
doing not much.)

On a single-CPU machine, all the threads and processes have to (of 
course) run only on one CPU.  The scheduler schedules all of them for 
that one CPU, but it still switches among different threads and 
processes giving each one its own time slice in which to run.

-Nick

Nicholas Coult, Ph.D.
Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics, Augsburg College

...the reason dual processors make no difference 90% of the time is simple, 
the application in question is not written to be multithreaded. OSX 
does allow "load balancing" - ie it can run 2 separate applications at 
100% load each on 2 chips, but it cannot make an unthreaded application 
multithreaded by magic. The same situation pertains under Windows 2000. 
If Apple cannot persuade developers to write multithreaded applications 
for OSX, then MP Macs won't have much of a future. Power applications 
that benefit from dual chips now include Cinema 4D (raytracing only) 
Adobe Premiere (excellent load balancing) Adobe Photoshop (full-on 
multithreading) Discreet Combustion (multithreading) Discreet Cleaner 5 
(marginal multi-threading) etc.

An application that shows excellent scalability for benchmarking puposes 
is the Distributed.net client, dnetc. Visit their website for some very 
impressive MP G4 achievements.
--
Adrian CC Thomas
London