Java – Multithreaded Java does not speed up

javamultithreading

I have implemented a simple parallel merge sort algorithm in Java. This cuts the array into equal sections and passes them to be sorted independently by each thread. After the array segments are sorted, they are merged by a single thread. Because there are no shared resources, so no synchronization is used when the sub lists are sorted. The last thread which merges the result array though waits for the other threads to complete.

When two threads are used there is performance gain almost 66%. When I use 4 threads, then the time taken does not differ from the 2 threads version. I am on linux 2.6.40.6-0.fc15.i686.PAE, and an Intel Core i5 .

I am benchmarking time with the unix time command (array is assigned uniform random integers). At the end of the sorting I am checking if the array ordering is correct or not (not parallel).

1 Thread

$ echo "100000000" | time -p java mergeSortTest

Enter n: 
[SUCCESS]

real 40.73
user 40.86
sys 0.22

2 Threads

$ echo "100000000" | time -p java mergeSortTest

Enter n: 
[SUCCESS]

real 26.90
user 49.65
sys 0.48

4 Threads

$ echo "100000000" | time -p java mergeSortTest

Enter n: 
[SUCCESS]

real 25.13
user 76.53
sys 0.43

The CPU usage is around 80% to 90% when using 4 threads, and around 50% when using 2 threads, and around 25% when using single thread.

I was expecting some speedup when run in 4 threads. Am I wrong anywhere.

UPDATE 1

Here is the code: http://pastebin.com/9hQPhCa8

UPDATE 2
I have a Intel Core i5 second generation processor.

Output of cat /proc/cpuinfo | less (only core 0 is shown).

processor       : 0
vendor_id       : GenuineIntel
cpu family      : 6
model           : 42
model name      : Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-2410M CPU @ 2.30GHz
stepping        : 7
cpu MHz         : 800.000
cache size      : 3072 KB
physical id     : 0
siblings        : 4
core id         : 0
cpu cores       : 2
apicid          : 0
initial apicid  : 0
fdiv_bug        : no
hlt_bug         : no
f00f_bug        : no
coma_bug        : no
fpu             : yes
fpu_exception   : yes
cpuid level     : 13
wp              : yes
flags           : fpu vme de pse tsc msr pae mce cx8 apic sep mtrr pge mca cmov pat pse36 clflush dts acpi mmx fxsr sse sse2 ss ht tm pbe nx rdtscp lm constant_tsc arch_perfmon pebs bts xtopology nonstop_tsc aperfmperf pni pclmulqdq dtes64 monitor ds_cpl vmx est tm2 ssse3 cx16 xtpr pdcm sse4_1 sse4_2 x2apic popcnt xsave avx lahf_lm ida arat epb xsaveopt pln pts dts tpr_shadow vnmi flexpriority ept vpid
bogomips        : 4589.60
clflush size    : 64
cache_alignment : 64
address sizes   : 36 bits physical, 48 bits virtual
power management:

Best Answer

The intel core i5-xxM series has 2 cores so using more than 2 threads will reduce performance due to more context switching.

Edit:

Here is an expansion on my answer where I take up Core i7 architecture-specific factors that may affect the performance of a CPU and memory intensive operations such as a sort.

Turbo boost technology

Intel Core i7 has variable processor frequency. At high loads, the frequency will be limited by heat, reducing the performance gain of utilising more cores.

Shared L3 cache

Sorting large data sets (>>8 Mb) will result in a lot of L3 page faults. Using too many threads may increase the number of page faults, decreasing efficiency. I'm not sure if that is the case for a mergesort. (BTW: how do you measure L3 cache misses in Linux?) I am not sure this is a factor, though.

I must say that I am surprised that you don't get any performance boost from using all four cores of the i7. I'll try to run some tests at home this weekend.

Related Solutions

Java – What are the differences between a HashMap and a Hashtable in Java

There are several differences between HashMap and Hashtable in Java:

Hashtable is synchronized, whereas HashMap is not. This makes HashMap better for non-threaded applications, as unsynchronized Objects typically perform better than synchronized ones.
Hashtable does not allow null keys or values. HashMap allows one null key and any number of null values.
One of HashMap's subclasses is LinkedHashMap, so in the event that you'd want predictable iteration order (which is insertion order by default), you could easily swap out the HashMap for a LinkedHashMap. This wouldn't be as easy if you were using Hashtable.

Since synchronization is not an issue for you, I'd recommend HashMap. If synchronization becomes an issue, you may also look at ConcurrentHashMap.

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

Java is always pass-by-value. Unfortunately, when we deal with objects we are really dealing with object-handles called references which are passed-by-value as well. This terminology and semantics easily confuse many beginners.

It goes like this:

public static void main(String[] args) {
    Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
    Dog oldDog = aDog;

    // we pass the object to foo
    foo(aDog);
    // aDog variable is still pointing to the "Max" dog when foo(...) returns
    aDog.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // false
    aDog == oldDog; // true
}

public static void foo(Dog d) {
    d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    // change d inside of foo() to point to a new Dog instance "Fifi"
    d = new Dog("Fifi");
    d.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
}

In the example above aDog.getName() will still return "Max". The value aDog within main is not changed in the function foo with the Dog "Fifi" as the object reference is passed by value. If it were passed by reference, then the aDog.getName() in main would return "Fifi" after the call to foo.

Likewise:

public static void main(String[] args) {
    Dog aDog = new Dog("Max");
    Dog oldDog = aDog;

    foo(aDog);
    // when foo(...) returns, the name of the dog has been changed to "Fifi"
    aDog.getName().equals("Fifi"); // true
    // but it is still the same dog:
    aDog == oldDog; // true
}

public static void foo(Dog d) {
    d.getName().equals("Max"); // true
    // this changes the name of d to be "Fifi"
    d.setName("Fifi");
}

In the above example, Fifi is the dog's name after call to foo(aDog) because the object's name was set inside of foo(...). Any operations that foo performs on d are such that, for all practical purposes, they are performed on aDog, but it is not possible to change the value of the variable aDog itself.

For more information on pass by reference and pass by value, consult the following SO answer: https://stackoverflow.com/a/430958/6005228. This explains more thoroughly the semantics and history behind the two and also explains why Java and many other modern languages appear to do both in certain cases.

Best Answer

Related Solutions

Java – What are the differences between a HashMap and a Hashtable in Java

Java – Is Java “pass-by-reference” or “pass-by-value”

Related Topic