Preemptive threads Vs Non Preemptive threads
- No, your understanding isn't entirely correct. Non-preemptive (aka cooperative) threads typically manually yield control to let other threads run before they finish (though it is up to that thread to call
yield()(or whatever) to make that happen. - Preempting threading is simpler. Cooperative threads have less overhead.
- Normally use preemptive. If you find your design has a lot of thread-switching overhead, cooperative threads would be a possible optimization. In many (most?) situations, this will be a fairly large investment with minimal payoff though.
- Yes, by default you'd get preemptive threading, though if you look around for the CThreads package, it supports cooperative threading. Few enough people (now) want cooperative threads that I'm not sure it's been updated within the last decade though...
Non-preemptive threads are also called cooperative threads. An example of these is POE (Perl). Another example is classic Mac OS (before OS X). Cooperative threads have exclusive use of the CPU until they give it up. The scheduler then picks another thread to run.
Preemptive threads can voluntarily give up the CPU just like cooperative ones, but when they don't, it will be taken from them, and the scheduler will start another thread. POSIX & SysV threads fall in this category.
Big advantages of cooperative threads are greater efficiency (on single-core machines, at least) and easier handling of concurrency: it only exists when you yield control, so locking isn't required.
Big advantages of preemptive threads are better fault tolerance: a single thread failing to yield doesn't stop all other threads from executing. Also normally works better on multi-core machines, since multiple threads execute at once. Finally, you don't have to worry about making sure you're constantly yielding. That can be really annoying inside, e.g., a heavy number crunching loop.
You can mix them, of course. A single preemptive thread can have many cooperative threads running inside it.
If you use non-preemptive it does not mean that process doesn't perform context switching when the process is waiting for I/O. The dispatcher will choose another process according to the scheduling model. We have to trust the process.
non-preemptive:
less context switching, less overhead that can be sensible in non-preemptive model
Easier to handle since it can be handled on a single-core processor
preemptive:
Advantage:
In this model, we have a priority that helps us to have more control over the running process
Better concurrency is a bounce
Handling system calls without blocking the entire system
Disadvantage:
Requires more complex algorithms for synchronization and critical section handling is inevitable.
The overhead that comes with it