|
Look at how many services you have running. Each of those has two threads minimum, most will be in the range of 5 to 10 threads with some having more some having less. My virus scanning services have 300+ threads.
|
|
|
|
|
How many of them are active, and how many are blocked and simply waiting for something?
I tend to spawn a lot of threads; anything the user does, anything that needs loading, anything that does not need to be done in the mainthread.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
Marc Clifton wrote: Any links, wisdom
Its just easier to code tasks that need to wait on things single threaded, than it is to code some sort of async programming model. After all, a lot of that window code was written back in the late 90's.
Marc Clifton wrote: bad warp and woof weaving puns
Just an amusing observation. Got discussing weaving the other day with a friend, only to to have my dog join in. His comments were surprisingly relevant.
|
|
|
|
|
The original Windows programming model didn't use threads. Everything was event driven: The entire application was waiting for something to happen, implemented as a new element in the message (/event) queue. The message was processed, conceptually by event concepts, that is: instantaneously.
Telecommunication people have programmed this way, using FSMs and state diagrams, since Day 1 of communication protocols. Other programmers never caught onto the way of thinking (although I have been using a disassembler written as a FSM: Recognizing an instruction prefix, an addressing mode or whatever were modelled as events).
Event/FSM modelling and programming is a completely different programming discipline. I haven't seen it taught in universities for at least twenty years. Nowadays, I don't think the lecturers are aware of it at all - not even in telecommunication courses. It really is a pity; event driven programming does have a lot of advantages.
Threads came in as an alternative, with all its problems. But people (especially those wiht *nix background) embraced it anyway. Every now and then I am itching to implement a complex protocol in a pure FSM manner, just to demonstrate how clean it could be. Even though other programmers might say: Yes, that looks great! I have no hope of making them do things that way themselves, though, so I never spent significant resources on it.
|
|
|
|
|
In the original windows programming model, everything had to be event driven because there were no threads. It was also all based off the windows messaging model, which was closely linked to having a window.
When threads were added, they were predominantly for background tasks, and as such it was a major pain to give them a windows message pump so you could write them event driven (you had to give them a hidden window). So, for that kind of background processing, there was a shift toward just writing the code single-threaded and using multiple threads.. unless you needed gobs of threads, in which case you used some sort of thread pooling (which, IIRC, there was no library support for at first).
I seem to recall this being the recommended practice from the teacher back when I took my Win32 programming class at MS.. but this is a lot of years ago, so maybe I misremember it all... 
My point was, that was the prevailing best-practice when a lot of that system code was written, and I doubt it's been rewritten since.
|
|
|
|
|
The classic Mac OS was the same way - purely event driven. (I learned the philosophy of event driven programming by reading about Mac OS several years before I encountered Windows in pratice!)
In the classic Win32 model, events were routed to an entity called a 'Window', because it almost always had one. But it didn't have to! Today, a 'process' serves the same role: Like a window entity handled a number of events, and the processing of them, the 'process' handles a number of threads. The main difference is that while processing an event (i.e. a message) always completed within a short time, a thread may stop midway, waiting for 'something' - the 'something' is not modeled as an event/message, but as something else.
Note that in *nix (as well as many other OSes), the 'process' is an actively executing entity. Threads are just subdivisions of the activity within a process. A Windows process is not by itself executing; it is a container for one or more threads - just like a win32 window didn't by itself do any processing: Each message handling procedure did.
It could have been modeled as an event/message - the main difference is that the thread model allows the thread to have its local data across those waits. In an event model, a 'windows'/process maintains a data structure which is modified by micro-operations (i.e. individual event procedures) completing in finite time (conceptually: zero time). There is never any deadlock, never any wait for someone else to complete so the data structure is 'released'; no data is ever 'reserved'. The FSM may indicate that in a given state, a given event is illegal and should be treated as an error, but that never causes a deadlock.
You could think of the classical processing of an event as a one-shot thread: It is fired up, does its job (in an atomic manner) and terminates. Introducing the pausing of a thread midway, doing more than an atomic micro-operation, caused threads to grow fat. When lots of data were hidden inside threads, many threads were packed into one process, so that they grew fat, frequently encompassing the entire application. In win32, you would leave one data structure to one 'window', as an FSM of one data structure (say, the state info for protocol), making more 'windows' for other data structures. Your application would be organized as a number of cooperating FSMs, or 'windows', the way networking people have been doing for ages.
I never saw an introductory college textbook promoting this design philosophy (not even in the days of classic Mac OS and win32) - you would learn it only in advanced, telecom oriented courses, long after your basic approach to programming has been molded into the multiple-thread and locked-up data structures way of thinking.
So the FSM / event concepts were lost. And few people are aware of what was lost; they never knew that it existed.
|
|
|
|
|
How long ago do you define "original"? I was doing multithreaded apps (not just events or multitasking) in VB6 back in the last half of the 1990s in Windows. C++ developers were writing multithreaded apps even earlier.
|
|
|
|
|
Yes, in the second half of the 1990s it started - not as an OS supported thread concept, but with "helper functions" which, at the user level, set up a separate message loop where the "thread" (which technically was the mainloop processing code for an earlier message) could hang, waiting for the messages to be delivered to that supplementary message loop. The only message to be forwarded to this loop (aside from broadcasting type messages, of course), was the event on which the "thread" was blocked. Other messages were routed to the ordinary mainloop and processed as soon as the "thread" had lined up to wait for its "special delivery" message.
I didn't start programming win32 until the arrival of XP, and do not know if the OS-supported thread concept was present in Windows NT from Day 1 - it may have been. As far as I can remember, Win16 did not have any OS thread support. If you were an advanced Win95/98 programmer, you may have been linking in the Win32 DLL, to use the subset of NT fuctionality that could be invoked from Win16 - but then you have sidetracked into Win32.
For all practical purposes, "orignial" Windows is Win16.
|
|
|
|
|
if you had to do some heavy processing, like converting .wav into .mp3, best way to do it was multithreading. windows 95 had support for it. it wasn't something NT specific.
not every win32 application needed a window, but if you were making a GUI application then you would register a window and a callback procedure to the win32 API. your callback procedure would receive win32 events from the OS in your event loop that was running in the primary (usually the only) thread of your application. those events that you would receive would mostly be mouse clicks on the buttons of the GUI of your app or key presses on the text areas and similar.
if you had a button that makes some time consuming task, like encrypting, and you primary (and only) thread would not only handle the button press message (event) but take care of the whole process of encrypting then your whole app window would hang. there will be nothing to process future events while your primary thread is processing the encryption.
this is where you would fire up another thread to do the time consuming processing so that you primary thread could handle GUI events, for instance minimizing your app window.
the other way to do this is somewhat similar to what they do in game programing and cooperative multitasking. you process a small chunk of the data in your primary thread and then stop. peek for events, process them and then either proceed with data processing (win32) or exit to the OS (win16) and repeat on the next turn when your primary thread gets active via your window callback procedure. sort of...
|
|
|
|
|
Having written FSMs using event driven programming I 100% agree. In communications domains FSMs are far easier to debug and prove correct once debugged. I find it interesting that every single blog I've read that talks about high speed IO in Windows and dotNet ends up implementing some form of a FSM and/or pure event driven architecture.
For OP's question, every service has at least two threads - one that monitors for service control commands (start/stop/pause/resume) and one that does the work. Many applications, including MS-Word and Excel, implement some form of rudimentary memory and resource management and they use background threads to assist with cleanup. All Java and dotNet based applications implement several threads for resource management. However, most of these threads are in a wait state waiting for either an OS level event trigger or an application level event trigger, so the overall CPU time is low.
|
|
|
|
|
He must be a golden retweaver!
I'm pretty sure I would not like to live in a world in which I would never be offended.
I am absolutely certain I don't want to live in a world in which you would never be offended.
Freedom doesn't mean the absence of things you don't like.
Dave
|
|
|
|
|
patbob wrote: only to to have my dog join in. His comments were surprisingly relevant.
Of course... Dogs are pretty intelligent :P 
M.D.V. 
If something has a solution... Why do we have to worry about?. If it has no solution... For what reason do we have to worry about?
Help me to understand what I'm saying, and I'll explain it better to you
Rating helpful answers is nice, but saying thanks can be even nicer.
|
|
|
|
|
patbob wrote: ...only to to have my dog join in. His comments were surprisingly relevant.
The crux of the biscuit is the apostrophe.
If you think 'goto' is evil, try writing an Assembly program without JMP.
|
|
|
|
|
Hopefully the majority of them are waiting, because if they're not, you are.
Software Zen: delete this;
|
|
|
|
|
This is a very good question.
I didn't know what you meant when you said TaskManager was reporting the total thread count of 1200 and 2600.
I examined thread counts per process and I saw a few hundred:
https://i.stack.imgur.com/7vFPH.png^
Then I looked around on taskman and saw I actually have over 1,000 on one machine (Server 2016 VM):
https://i.stack.imgur.com/XcHda.png^
And over 2000 on the other one (Win10):
https://i.stack.imgur.com/EHNYm.png^
That is a huge difference in count if you think about adding up all the threads that are associated with processes (probably around 400 or so) and comparing that to these unknowns.
Yes, there are also tons of Services running which are taking up threads but wow, just wow. 
|
|
|
|
|
raddevus wrote: Yes, there are also tons of Services running which are taking up threads but wow, just wow.
Exactly, and I'm curious what they're doing, or waiting for!
|
|
|
|
|
Most likely they are doing nothing. Just waiting. All the resources they consume are a few bytes of RAM - or, if they haven't been active for a while, those bytes may even be out on a paging device, if you are short of RAM. (But who are, nowadays?)
Most likely, only a small handful of them are actively running at any one time. The great, great majority is waiting for "something". Maybe for some data structure to be unlocked by some other thread. Maybe that other thread is waiting for input data, that be from an interactive user, from another thread, from the network. A great number of threads in services are waiting for their time: They execute regularly - maybe every second, maybe every three months.
It all depends on the specific application, or service, or whatever. There are tools for obtaining the state of all threads - I never had the need for doing that in Windows, so I can't tell the details, but it looks as if the Sysinternals "PsList.exe -d" might be what you want. You'll see that almost all the threads are in 'Wait' state - but you won't know what they are waiting for without access to the source code. In many cases you also need to inspect runtime data structures to get the details. Unless you go into the threads of a specific process, it really doesn't give you much extra information: You know they are waiting, and it really doesn't matter what they are waiting for, other than the one specific process you are debugging at the moment.
Say, you get to know that a fair share of them is waiting for I/O (the ThreadWaitReason enum provides a certain breakdown - but I am not sure that dotNet thread states and Windows states are 100% identical; I believe dotNet threads are dynamically mapped to a pool of Windows threads). So what? You have to go further: What kind of I/O? Maybe mouse movements. Maybe for some output operation to complete. Maybe a TCP channel. Maybe for disk data. Maybe for a keyboard. You need to know which keyboard (or whatever physical or logical device) to be able to go further with it. If you identify a keyboard, what kind of input is it waiting for - a password entry, plain text, an amount, ...? To know that, you'd have to investigate the higher levels of the application; the thread state alone can't tell you what the input will be used for. Then you can go to the person at that keyboard and tell him/her: Go on, now, type in those values - lots of other threads are waiting for them!
... or something like that. In which other ways would you be utilizing information about what each of the two thousand threads are waiting for? You can make use of that info only for a single process, or maybe a small handful of them.
So, even if you could get the information you are asking for, there is very little you can do with that information, without spending a lot of effort. More than you would want to just for satisfying your curiosity.
|
|
|
|
|
Thread pools, possibly... It's the easiest way to offload asynchronous tasks (such as IO, or getting concurrency with a work queue), without having to manage the nitty gritty details of creating threads. And also eliminates the latency of thread creation, by having numbers of threads sitting waiting to be called upon.
And the load on the system won't be too bad... A thread that's always dormant has probably only committed a few pages of RAM (each page is only 4kB), and also a slot in the kernel scheduler (but if it spends all its time in a wait state, it'll never get promoted to the run queue, so the scheduler won't actually have to bother with it). Each thread will consume 1MB for its stack, but that's just an allocation out of a process's virtual address space (2GB for 32-bit processes, 8TB for 64-bit processes), which shouldn't be too much of a problem.
Java, Basic, who cares - it's all a bunch of tree-hugging hippy cr*p
|
|
|
|
|
I get to see a lot of videos of various mishaps through social media. All the freak accidents and all the gory elephanting elephants that one should have never even seen in his/her life time.
If something looks like a CCTV footage clip, I would just not open it, believing it's some freaky crap packed in.
But in many cases, it does create awareness. There has been lots of instances where I would have done similar mistakes leading to accidents. One example was, there was a video of a truck-cabin, the driver just for couple of seconds looked at the dashboard to change the music. In that moment, he overrun a bunch of cars killing so many people. The video was not looking terrible.
I truly picked up the awareness that I should never lose my focus to anything else, while driving.
But there are some other videos, just terrible 
The kind of feeling I get looking at these, accidentally, is making me feel disturbed for days.
So I've decided to just shut my eyes on any of these potential awareness/terrible videos.
Whatever be it, let me just handle it with my existing awareness. Instead of watching this unpredictable freaking content. damnit.
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Learn about the dopamine response of your brain and it'll go a long way to understanding how this works.
First The Brain
Brains like immediate response and tend to decide that whatever creates enjoyment is good. When you think something is good you get a dopamine flush to the brain. Then you begin associate good with that activity.
This has been extensively studied in primates.
Similar to Pavlov's dogs.
They found that each time they gave a monkey a squirt of juice that dopamine would release in the monkey's brain. Dopamine is the thing that makes the primate (or person) consider a thing to be good (feelings of happiness).
So, then it is only a short step to making the monkey think he will get a squirt of juice by ringing a bell or whatever. Then, the monkey's brain released dopamine and attaches happiness to the sound of the bell.
After extensive studies they have found that a very similar thing happens in humans with immediate response situations like you have with video games that reward you for behaviors and texting and having an immediate positive response to your text. Or posting an item and having a response that way.
Then The Activity
Then, suddenly, you are no longer actually stimulated and made happy by seeing the post itself but get a rush of dopamine by the behavior surrounding the activity. Typing on your keyboard or whatever.
So, the same thing with your desire to watch the video. Of course, at times, it is a terrible video that makes you feel bad, but you have associated other things with watching the video that made you happy.
Confusion Also Gets Created
So it creates confusion because you want to watch a nice video and get a nice dopamine flush that makes you feel happy, but then someone posts garbage that makes you feel terrible and then you question yourself about why you would do something that makes you feel terrible.
But, of course you are not wanting the terrible stuff but are actually tricked by the remembrance of good dopamine feelings. Very difficult to tear it all apart.
That is all to say, you are a normal person with a normal dopamine response which is the case of 99.9% of the people on the Internet who are also stuck in this loop.
A Book For Far More Detail
I can offer an absolutely fantastic book that explains this in depth which I read years ago. YOu may think it is an odd book because it is about marketing. But the marketers are the ones who have learned how to get us to think what they want and it is amazing what they know.
This book really opened my eyes to the whole Internet experience and trolls, etc.
Why We Buy: The Science Of Shopping by Paco Underhill - amazon[^]
|
|
|
|
|
thanks for your time. Usually I would just drop the matter and keep moving, if at all I happened to watch a nasty clip accidentally. But today I watched a video and unfortunately it was about a kid getting into an accident. I'm extremely disturbed. It wasn't gory at all. Just a simple hit and run type. But this has caused almost an injury in my own head. I will have to forget this.
Whenever I go through bad times and feel stressed, I do think deeper and reprogram my brain and keep going. This little clip has made me to do that reprogramming effort now. My quicket reprogram remedy : " After all we are living in a 3D projected world" where nothing really matters. We call this a "Maya" . It's not the ultimate reality. It's just our own perception of the existence. This tends to get a bit Spiritual than scientific. But even the science fits into this "just human perception" thing. Whatever! It just helps me get over the problem
Starting to think people post kid pics in their profiles because that was the last time they were cute - Jeremy Falcon.
|
|
|
|
|
Vunic wrote: You know I'm just trying to find out, how I can control my brain precisely and just purge the specific bits that accidentally picked up the freaky content.
There's actually some interesting therapies one can try (other than alcohol!):
Tapping
Neuro-Emotional Therapy
Hypnosis
Marc
|
|
|
|
|
Instilling fear is not the same as creating awareness.
Bastard Programmer from Hell 
If you can't read my code, try converting it here[^]
"If you just follow the bacon Eddy, wherever it leads you, then you won't have to think about politics." -- Some Bell.
|
|
|
|
|
General 
News 
Suggestion 
Question 
Bug 
Answer 
Joke 
Praise 
Rant 
Admin 
Submit an article or tip
![Beer | [beer]](https://codeproject.global.ssl.fastly.net/script/Forums/Images/beer.gif)