Re: Global data concurrent access ?

I try hard not to let reality intrude on my generalizations...

I guess the big questions for the OP is "how much work are you doing in each
thread?". It still may be trivial relevant to the time it takes to start the
thread.

.... but yea, starting and stopping threads are like exceptions. Everyone
says (even me, obviously) that it's horrible, but we all forget just how
good horrible can be. :)

--
Chris Mullins, MCSD.NET, MCPD:Enterprise, MVP C#
http://www.coversant.net/blogs/cmullins

"Jon Skeet [C# MVP]" <skeet@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:MPG.200a203b60216f1698d740@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Chris Mullins [MVP] <cmullins@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Kunal" <koolkunal@xxxxxxxxx> wrote
There are about 10 new threads created per second. Threads do some
processing and die. All threads process based on data read from the
global structure.

You want to abandon this architecture as quickly as you can. The cost of
creating and destroying threads is very high, and at 10 threads per
second,
you're application is spending 95% of it's time creating threads, and 5%
doing the work you want done.

While I agree that creating a lot of threads is reasonably expensive, I
don't think it's quite as bad as all that.

On my laptop, creating and starting 500 threads takes about 120-170ms.
(I haven't got the energy to work up a good benchmark - this is about
as crude as they come.)

Assuming linear scaling (and it should actually be better than that,
because with only 10 threads at a time there'll be less context
switching) that would suggest that 10 threads would take less than 4ms
to start - i.e. under 1% of the time. Yes, it's a very crude benchmark
- but I do think 95% is higher than reality.

Just to reiterate though, I totally agree that the OP should move away
from that architecture ASAP :)

--
Jon Skeet - <skeet@xxxxxxxxx>
http://www.pobox.com/~skeet Blog: http://www.msmvps.com/jon.skeet
If replying to the group, please do not mail me too


.

Loading