In two previous articles I pointed out the performance issue of false sharing (aka cache line ping-ponging), where threads use different objects but those objects happen to be close enough in memory that they fall on the same cache line, and the cache system treats them as a single lump that is effectively protected by a hardware write lock that only one core can hold at a time. [1,2] This causes real but invisible performance contention; whichever thread currently has exclusive ownership so that it can physically perform an update to the cache line will silently throttle other threads that are trying to use different (but, alas, nearby) data that sits on the same line. It's easy to see why the problem arises when multiple cores are writing to different parts of the same cache line, because only one can hold the exclusive hardware lock at a time. In practice, however, it can be even more common to encounter a reader thread using what it thinks is read-only data still getting throttled by a writer thread updating a different but nearby memory location, because the reading thread has to invalidate its copy of the cache line and wait until after the writer has finished to reload it.

A number of readers have asked for more information and examples on where false sharing arises and how to deal with it. I mentioned one concrete example in passing in [3] where Example 4 showed eliminating false sharing as one of the stages of optimizing a queue.

This month, let's consider a concrete example that shows an algorithm in extremis due to false sharing distress, how to use tools to analyze the problem, and the two coding techniques we can use to eliminate false sharing trouble.

The Little Parallel Counter That Couldn't

Consider this sequential code to count the number of odd numbers in a matrix:

int odds = 0; for( int i = 0; i < DIM; ++i ) for( int j = 0; j < DIM; ++j ) if( matrix[i*DIM + j] % 2 != 0 ) ++odds;

If our job is to parallelize existing code, this is just what the doctor ordered: An embarrassingly parallel problem where it should be trivial to achieve linear speedups simply by assigning 1/P-th of the independent workload to each of P parallel workers. Here's a simple way to do it:

// Example 1: Simple parallel version (flawed) // int result[P]; // Each of P parallel workers processes 1/P-th // of the data; the p-th worker records its // partial count in result[p] for( int p = 0; p < P; ++p ) pool.run( [&,p] { result[p] = 0; int chunkSize = DIM/P + 1; int myStart = p * chunkSize; int myEnd = min( myStart+chunkSize, DIM ); for( int i = myStart; i < myEnd; ++i ) for( int j = 0; j < DIM; ++j ) if( matrix[i*DIM + j] % 2 != 0 ) ++result[p]; } ); // Wait for the parallel work to complete… pool.join(); // Finally, do the sequential "reduction" step // to combine the results odds = 0; for( int p = 0; p < P; ++p ) odds += result[p];

Quick: How well would you expect Example 1 to scale as P increases from 1 to the available hardware parallelism on the machine? You already have a hint from the topic of this column -- is there any part of the code that might worry you?

Let's find out. When I ran the code in Example 1 with values of P from 1 to 24 on a 24-core machine, I got the results shown in Figure 1.

These results aren't just underwhelming; they're staggeringly bad. In most cases, the parallel code ran actually ran slower than the sequential code, and in no case did we get any better than a 42% speedup no matter how many cores we threw at the problem. Yet this is supposed to be an embarrassingly parallel (i.e., embarrassingly easy to scalably parallelize) algorithm suitable for an introductory concurrency class. What's going on?