|laziness, impatience, and hubris|
Re: Threaded Code Not Faster Than Non-Threaded -- Why?by BrowserUk (Pope)
|on Jan 05, 2014 at 03:03 UTC||Need Help??|
... take a peek and let me know if it looks like I'm making any _obvious_ mistakes?
Without having read the rest of the code, the problem is identified right here:
Imagine a post office where there is bunch of counters and a locked door with a guard.
When a counter clerk is free, they shout to the guard at the door, he unlocks the door, let's one person in, tells them which counter to go to and locks the door behind them. Of course, quite often, two or more of the counters become free simultaneously, and the respective clerks both yell at the guard for another customer; but he can only service one at a time, so the others have to wait. And the guard tends to service the person that shouts loudest, which means old Miss Primenproper at the far end with small voice and proprietary nature, often finds herself with nothing to do for long periods....
The point is, you've created both a bottleneck -- the guard/door (poolQ/workQ) -- and designed in a four-way, inter-thread, handshake (synchronisation; lock-step). That is, when a thread finishes processing one file -- which perhaps took 1/10th of its designated timeslice -- in order to proceed it has to:
And in that design, you've reduced your queues to single element at a time buffers; which defeats their purpose.
The solution is to desynchronize your threads:
Hopefully that analogy will allow you to see where/what to change in your code. If not, ask questions.
Update: Note: I'm quite uneasy by this assertion:
You'd be right to ask why I'd want to make this multi-threaded when it has to do with IO. The answer is quite simply that after you've eliminated obvious non-dupes, you have to start comparing the files with a real means of differentiation, namely calculating file digests--a cpu-intensive task that comes after you're done with the IO.
This implies that your are reading the entire file and digesting it for every file -- regardless of whether there is another file already seen that has the same date/time/first/last/middle bytes.
Again without having digested your entire program in detail, it seem likely that your architecture is letting you down here.
My initial thoughts for an architecture are:
One thread scans the filesystem -- there is nothing to be gained from multiple threads thrashing the directories unless you a) have multiple physical spindles; and can b) confine each scanner to a single spindle. (This is feasible on NTFS systems but not so easy on unified filesystems I think).
Only if two files with the same size/date/checkbytes are found, do those two files get digested by worker threads. If one of them has already been digested; only the one need be done.
Anyway, that's an ill-thought through notion, but it might trigger your synapses.
With the rise and rise of 'Social' network sites: 'Computers are making people easier to use everyday'
Examine what is said, not who speaks -- Silence betokens consent -- Love the truth but pardon error.
"Science is about questioning the status quo. Questioning authority".
In the absence of evidence, opinion is indistinguishable from prejudice.