In this assignment you will explore parallel programming with threads and locks using a hash table. You should do this homework on a real computer (not xv6, not qemu) that has multiple cores. Most recent laptops have multicore processors. Submit your solutions before the beginning of the next lecture to the submission web site.
Download ph.c and compile it on your laptop or Athena machine (you can use your OS' gcc; you don't need the 6.828 tools):
$ gcc -g -O2 ph.c -pthread $ ./a.out 2The 2 specifies the number of threads that execute put and get operations on the the hash table.
After running for a little while, the program will produce output similar to this:
0: put time = 2.871728 1: put time = 2.957073 1: get time = 12.731078 1: 1 keys missing 0: get time = 12.731874 0: 1 keys missing completion time = 15.689165
Each thread runs in two phases. In the first phase each thread puts NKEYS/nthread keys into the hash table. In the second phase, each thread gets NKEYS from the hash table. The print statements tell you how long each phase took for each thread. The completion time at the bottom tells you the total runtime for the application. In the output above, the completion time for the application is about 16 seconds. Each thread computed for about 16 seconds (~3 for put + ~13 for get).
To see if using two threads improved performance, let's compare against a single thread:
$ ./a.out 1 0: put time = 5.350298 0: get time = 11.690395 0: 0 keys missing completion time = 17.040894The completion time for the 1 thread case (~17s) is slightly larger than for the 2 thread case (~15.6s), but the two-thread case did twice as much total work during the get phase. Thus the two-thread case achieved nearly 2x parallel speedup for the get phase on two cores, which is very good. The put phase achieved some speedup too but not perfect; two threads concurrently inserted the same number of keys in a bit more than half time (~2.9s) of the 1-thread case (~5.3s).
When you run this application, you may see no parallelism if you are running on a machine with only one core or if the machine is busy running other applications.
Independent of whether you see speedup, you will likely observe that the code is incorrect. In the two-thread run, the application inserted 1 key in phase 1 that phase 2 couldn't find. When we run the application on our four-core machine with 4 threads:
2: put time = 1.516581 1: put time = 1.529754 0: put time = 1.816878 3: put time = 2.113230 2: get time = 15.635937 2: 21 keys missing 3: get time = 15.694796 3: 21 keys missing 1: get time = 15.714341 1: 21 keys missing 0: get time = 15.746386 0: 21 keys missing completion time = 17.866878
Two points: 1) The completion time is about the same as for 2 threads, but this run did twice as many gets as with 2 threads; we are achieving good parallelism. 2) More keys are missing. In your runs, there may be more or fewer keys missing. There may be even 0 keys missing in some runs. If you run with 1 thread, there will never be any keys missing. Why are there missing keys with 2 or more threads, but not with 1 thread? Identify a sequence of events that can lead to keys missing for 2 threads.
To avoid this sequence of events, insert lock and unlock statements in put and get so that the number of keys missing is always 0. The relevant pthread calls are (for more see the manual pages, man pthread):
pthread_mutex_t lock; // declare a lock pthread_mutex_init(&lock, NULL); // initialize the lock pthread_mutex_lock(&lock); // acquire lock pthread_mutex_unlock(&lock); // release lock
Test your code first with 1 thread, then test it with 2 threads. Is it correct (i.e. have you eliminated missing keys?)? Is the two-threaded version faster than the single-threaded version?
Modify your code so that get operations run in parallel while maintaining correctness. (Hint: are the locks in get necessary for correctness in this application?)
Modify your code so that some put operations run in parallel while maintaining correctness. (Hint: would a lock per bucket work?)
Submit: your modified ph.c