Slashdot Mirror
Pthreads vs Win32 threads
An anonymous reader writes "It's interesting when different people have different opinions. While I was searching for something on Intel's website, I came across an article on why Windows threads are better than Posix threads. Curiously, I also came across this article on why Posix Pthreads are better that Win32 threads. The thing is, both of these articles are written by the same author!
So who is right (metaphorically speaking?), or what has changed since the first article was written?"
So who is right (metaphorically speaking?), or what has changed since the first article was written?"
"or what has changed since the first article was written?"
Vista's release and a massive advertising campaign/increase in revinue for microsoft partners?
Is it sad that I am more likely to recognize you and your posts by your sig than your name or UID?
So who is right (metaphorically speaking?), or what has changed since the first article was written?"
Who was paying for it.
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
( Pthreads >= Win32 threads ) and ( Win32 threads >= Pthreads ) => Pthreads = Win32 threads
The blog entry that points out the superiority of Win32 threads is dates to October 2006. The PThread example is a reply to a posting from 2003. I have a feeling that as the author worked more and more with the different threading models, he seems to have a more matured opinion. However, this being Slashdot, the Win32 Threading model is by definition inferior, since Microsoft has no intelligent engineers whatsoever and the author of the article was originally correct and should have never have looked further.
If you are programming on Widows I would recommend Windows threads, while on *nix Pthreads are a better choice.
Both are on the Intel Website, so it would appear, if any $$$ was paid at all, it would have been Intel both times. Since Intel doesn't write operating systems, they really don't care which threading model succeeds.
Here's the one thing Windows needs: fork()
Threads have all sorts of nasty issues and pitfalls on any platform. Meanwhile, fork() is beautifully simple, and fork + socketpair lacks pretty much all of them. The speed may be a bit lower, but there's the great benefit of simpler and much safer code.
i have had to do a lot of porting from win32 to linux/bsd/mac lately and maybe i just cant find it in the documentation anywhere but 1 function i would really appreciate the pthread team adding is
pthread_join_with_timeout() the equivilent of the win32 WaitForSingleObject
often i set a flag for a thread to end and it might have already been completed. i want to be able to join immediately if it's already completed and if it isn't process some other event and try to join again.
i can program around this however it would be extremely nice addition to pthreads.
The articles read like one of those English assignments where you have to pick an issue and then write two essays, one supporting each side. Probably the author wrote them to generate traffic to his websites, or maybe for freelance fees.
Anyway, PThreads is better. The reason is that Win32 gives you a fixed set of synchronization primitives. If you can solve your problem with those primitives. they work great. If you can't, you are completely stuck.
For example, it used to be that a socket handle was not a synchronization object, so you couldn't integrate select() calls with other synchronization primitives. Maybe that's been fixed, but if it isn't sockets, it will be something else.
PThreads gives you condition variables. They are harder to program, but once you understand them, you can use them to synchronize on absolutely anything. You aren't dependent on the OS to have foreseen your special needs and provided special synchronization primitives to meet them.
If you really want the Win32 model, it is easy enough to build it on top of PThreads, but there is no way to build PThreads on top of Win32.
The complaint about lost signals in PThreads means that the author is using them incorrectly.
After reading both entries, I went to close the tab and was given a chance to provide feedback on intel's site. After clicking on all the survey questions, I left this comment:
[tt]
One uses lowercase and underscores. The other uses studlycaps and Hungarian notation. It is an aesthetic choice.
From the first one: I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Win32 threads APIs and I believe that Pthreads has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of Pthreads. Let me illustrate with a few examples. And, from the second one: I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples.
www.timcoleman.com is a total waste of your time. Never go there.
The thing is, they are just APIs. They both do just about the same thing. Asking which one is better is a pretty pointless question. I have always thought that the WaitFor* functions in Windows are quite nice, but frankly not that much of an advantage. It's quite rare that you actually need to wait for multiple objects of different types at the same time. Combine that with the fact that its semantics are slightly different for different objects (it destroys a thread, but only unlocks a mutex), and your program is that much more difficult to read. Of course, this is just comparing two APIs, a mostly pointless exercise, and says _nothing_ about implementation, which is quite a bit more important in terms of comparison. For example, Linux has completely changed its pthreads implementation since the switch from 2.4 to 2.6 (from LinuxThreads to NPTL), and programmers get the advantages without needing to change anything. In Windows, of course, we have no (or very little) idea of the implementation, except for what we can infer from the API, and performance tests. A third argument in this little debate could be to argue that one should just stay away from threads, period. I haven't successfully done it myself, since I find the threading paradigm useful, but using processes and non-blocking IO properly, one can avoid threads completely. Of course that's a bit easier to do with some of the Posix functions (eg. socketpair). But doing so will probably result in a more robust piece of software, and which scales better to multiple cores/processors. (Because processes do not share memory, so inter-thread cache misses will be minimized.)
That said, I find it quite creepy that this guy wrote these two articles with extremely similar wording for his introductions, making the exact opposite points. It is very strange. I wonder what his motivation was.
Is this some kind of weird joke ?
First of all on it's own terms the story makes no sense, the anonymous coward starts off by saying it's interesting when people disagree. He then links to two articles which, as he points out, are written by the same person and then asks who is right. He has just pointed out the opinions are both from the same person and he wants to know who is right, this is just moronic.
Secondly although I know nothing about PThreads or Win threads I can see that both those articles are largely the same with just the terms PThreads and Win threads switched so in one article he is claiming an advantage for one based on what he has stated as the advantages of the other in his other article.
Why is this on the front page, why was the submission accepted in the first place when it's complete nonsense and the most recent post by the author of both articles was in 2006.
Like the author, I have programmed with both pthreads and the Win32 threading API. I like the design of the pthreads API better, but (as the author also points out), pthreads has no equivalent to WaitForMultipleObjects. Sometimes it is very convenient to be able to wait on many objects and be able to be signaled by any one of them. With pthreads there is no way to do this.
Or am I missing something? Please someone, tell me how to wait on multiple objects (and be triggered by just one) with pthreads!
If the geiger counter does not click, the coffee, she is not thick.
So one might say that intel goes both ways?
It sounds like the developer from Intel needs to ask IBM:
r y/l-ipc2lin1.html
http://www-128.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/libra
Enjoy,
It's just the normal noises in here.
I seem to recall looking for--and not finding-- a win32 equivalent of pthread's condition variables. E.g., atomically release a mutex and then wait for an event. As the (excellent) pthread man page describes, this is a useful operation, often necessary to avoid a race condition.
What is the right way to do a pthread_cond_wait under win32?
What has likely changed is were the paycheck came from this week.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
If you think the pthread API is "bloated", or unintuitive for simple tasks, I'm going to have to go ahead and say you're a troll.
Bloated? On a Linux box I happen to have handy, libpthread.a is 208Kb.
Hard to use for simple tasks? Perhaps all of the *_init() functions are a bit daunting to the eyes. But does the Wikipedia article's example really look that bad?
I first used the pthread interface when I was only 15 years old. Even though I didn't fully understand the consequences of parallelization back then, I didn't feel like the library itself was enourmously comlex. I was able to whip out multi-threaded socket programs pretty quickly. Later I used Win32 threads. I found it to be basically the same.
I'm surprised more of the people complaining about the lack of WaitForMultipleObjectsEx() haven't mentioned POSIX semaphores. I saw one post about them, that's it.
> Who gives a shit. They're just threads, man. Both work.
You know, I said this very same thing back in the 70s. However, my buddy with the bell bottoms and KISS shirt got more play than I ever did with my adidas shorts and Vader cape.
I hope, when they die, cartoon characters have to answer for their sins.
"It's interesting when different people have different opinions."
No it is not.
Except that Win32 threading model only works on X86 (since it needs Win32, which only runs on X86), while Pthreads work everywhere. Pthreads therefore mean more competition for Intel, since the program using them can be made portable.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Windows has fork(), as well as all the other POSIX calls.
Originally, Windows NT had 4 separate APIs: the NT API, Win32, POSIX, and OS/2. The NT API was (and still is) the one used by the kernel. It has all the capabilities necessary to support the other three, and is never (well, rarely at least) used directly by applications. Win32 was, at the time, very new and hadn't seen wide use--it was designed as the primary API for Windows 95, and Microsoft wasn't yet sure whether it would catch on in the NT world.
The other two APIs have the same level of explicit support in the kernel as Win32, but there's a catch: you have to pick which subsystem you want to use for a given application. Win32 programs can't make calls to the POSIX subsystem, nor vice-versa. Over time, it became clear that only Win32 was being used for NT programming, and the other two APIs disappeared. The OS/2 API is, as far as I know, completely unavailable for modern versions of NT (i.e. 2000, XP, and Vista), while the POSIX API is still supported, but isn't available by default.
Check out Windows Services for Unix. This packages installs (and uses) the NT POSIX API.
For more information, read Microsoft Windows Internals
"With sufficient thrust, pigs fly just fine. However, this is not necessarily a good idea...."
RFC 1925
I ran both articles through diff and here's what it looks like: 1c1 I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and Windows threads APIs, and I believe that Windows has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers. Let me illustrate with a few examples. 3c3 Simplicity of data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type (pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while, in Windows threads, there is pretty much just the one type: HANDLE. For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order, and type of parameters for all the different functions. On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, there is a Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most. 5c5 Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to be known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is readily apparent whether the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released. 7c7 WaitForMultipleObjects functionality. Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can actually wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed. 9c9,15 Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows code that used an array to hold both thread and event handles to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found and when the searching thread terminated; if the object was not found, the searching thread terminated without setting the event. By waiting for either handle to cause WaitForMultipleObjects to return, a simple switch statement could determine if the item had been found (and process the data) plus perform some post-processing computation upon the termination of the searching thread (regardless of whether the search was successful). > > Persistence of signals. To paraphrase a classic conundrum in terms of Pthreads: If a thread signals a conditio
Why [-Pthreads-] {+Windows Threads+} are better than [-Win32 threads-] {+POSIX Threads+}
Clay Breshears
[-2006-10-19-]
{+2003-05-13+}
I've used both POSIX threads (Pthreads) and [-Win32-] {+Windows+} threads [-APIs-] {+APIs,+} and I believe that [-Pthreads-] {+Windows+} has the better programming model of the two. While each threading method can create threads, destroy threads, and coordinate interactions between threads, the reason I make this claim is the simplicity of use and elegance of design of [-Pthreads.-] {+the Windows threads API. This is all from the perspective of multithreaded code developers or maintainers.+} Let me illustrate with a few examples.
[-Separate-] {+Simplicity of+} data types. In Pthreads, each object has its own data type [-while-] {+(pthread_t, pthread_mutex_t, pthread_cond_t, etc.) while,+} in [-Win32 threads-] {+Windows threads,+} there is [-a mix of handles and separate types.-] {+pretty much just the one type: HANDLE.+} For Pthreads this means different functions are used for working with each object type. Reading and understanding Pthreads code written by someone else [-is straightforward-] {+can be straightforward. However, this does mean that the programmer must know the number, order,+} and [-less apt to lead to confusion.-] {+type of parameters for all the different functions.+} On the other hand, because of the use of the same type for different objects, [-when-] {+there is+} a [-Win32 program uses WaitForSingleObject, it may not-] {+Create* function for each different object and a corresponding Release* function for most.
Perhaps the biggest advantage of a single object data type is that there is only the one function needed to make a thread block while waiting for an object: WaitForSingleObject. Thus, only one set of parameters needs to+} be {+known regardless of whether the code is waiting on a thread, a mutex, a semaphore, or an event. The related function, WaitForMultipleObjects, is just as simple to use and easily overcomes the problem of needing to wait for multiple thread terminations one function call at a time (pthread_join) that Pthreads requires. While some may say that using a single data type for many different objects can lead to confusion when used in WaitFor* calls, programmers should set the name of the handle such that it is+} readily apparent [-if-] {+whether+} the code is expecting a thread termination, an event to be signaled, or a mutex to be released. [-This also illustrates my next point.
Unambiguous-] {+WaitForMultipleObjects+} functionality. [-I've-] {+Besides being able to block a thread waiting for multiple thread terminations in a single call, the programmer can+} actually [-seen Win32-] {+wait for any out of a set of threads to terminate. That is, even when only one thread has completed, the WaitForMultipleObjects function can be set to return and indicate which thread triggered the return. If there is specific "clean up" processing that depends on the identity of the thread that finished, this can be done before returning to wait on the remaining threads. This clean up processing will be done in the most efficient order possible, soon after each thread terminates, no matter in what order this happens. Pthreads can perform similar post-processing, but will need to wait for the threads to terminate is some fixed order. So, even if the last thread finishes first, it must wait for all the post-processing of the previous threads to be completed.
Because different objects all use the HANDLE type, a call to WaitForMultipleObjects can be set to wait for any combination of threads, mutexes, semaphores, and/or events. This feature can give the programmer a flexibility that cannot be easily (if at all) duplicated in Pthreads. As an example, I've written Windows+} code that used an array to hold both thread and [-mutex handles, then wait on those-] {+event+} handles {+to support a threaded search through data. The ideas was to signal the blocking thread if the item being looked for was found+} and [-execute differen
We have always been at war with Pthreads. We have never been at war with Windows threads.
The submitter is clearly nuts. Everyone knows that we have always been at war with Windows threads. Anyone who suggests we're at war with Pthreads is insane.
--<Mike>--
If you don't touch the heap, then not much is gained from pthreads over fork() in terms of memory usage. Code segments are shared, data is copy on write, and the stack is not shared in either case.
THIS THING CAN TURN ON A DIME, MACROSSZERO STYLE ALSO FUCK BETA, ~NYORON
http://softwareblogs.intel.com/2006/10/19/why-wind ows-threads-are-better-than-posix-threads/#comment -1322
--- These are not words: wierd, genious, rediculous
Read the two articles closely, and side by side. What you will see is that both articles have an identical structure and make simply the opposite cases. The opening is almost verbatim between the two articles, for example.
Although there are three year between the articles and people change, this looks to me like someone trying to write different articles from different viewpoints rather than proving that one is best. If he really had changed his mind, maybe he would have said so and referenced his previous article rather than copying it?
LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
I was also fascinated by that ... but the articles actually diverge a bit later. The difference seems to be WaitForSingleObject in Win32 (in the older article, apparently it's not a good thing) which has been replaced by WaitForMultipleObject in the newer one (according to the author, a good thing).
Uh. No. Dave Cutler's rearchitected Windows NT kernel (from which all NT variants from 3.1 up to and including XP and probably also Vista are derived) has almost nothing in common with the 32-bit kernel that IBM completely rewrote for its OS/2 2.0 and later releases after the MS/IBM break-up.
In fact, it's probably closer to VAX/VMS than it is to OS/2.
Those two platforms' only common ancestry was the 16-bit OS/2 kernel, something both products shed 15+ years ago, and the only thing they had in common through NT 4 was the 16-bit VIO API that both of them supported (an old, outdated text-mode application interface even in the OS/2 world 15 years ago).
If you've ever done performance comparisons of OS/2 2.x versus any NT flavor of similar vintage, you'd be quite aware that OS/2 has historically washed the floor with its distant Windows cousin on similar hardware on both single- and multi-CPU configurations. Remember the NT Server versus Warp Server review where a single Warp 3 server outperformed NT Server on a quad-CPU machine in both file- and print-serving benchmarks? There's a reason for that. NT possesses a slow architecture by design, and that is true from the kernel outwards.
Mainframe/UNIX Bit Twiddler and long time Windows/Linux Hobbyist.
The Theorem Theorem: If If, Then Then.