Parallel.ForEach can cause a "Out Of Memory" exception if working with a enumerable with a large object

Question

I am trying to migrate a database where images were stored in the database to a record in the database pointing at a file on the hard drive. I was trying to use Parallel.ForEach to speed up the process using this method to query out the data.

However, I noticed that I was getting an OutOfMemory Exception. I know Parallel.ForEach will query a batch of enumerables to mitigate the cost of overhead if there is one for spacing the queries out (so your source will more likely have the next record cached in memory if you do a bunch of queries at once instead of spacing them out). The issue is due to one of the records that I am returning is a 1-4Mb byte array that caching is causing the entire address space to be used up (The program must run in x86 mode as the target platform will be a 32-bit machine)

Is there any way to disable the caching or make is smaller for the TPL?

---

Here is an example program to show the issue. This must be compiled in the x86 mode to show the issue if it is taking to long or is not happening on your machine bump up the size of the array (I found 1 << 20 takes about 30 secs on my machine and 4 << 20 was almost instantaneous)

class Program {      static void Main(string[] args)     {         Parallel.ForEach(CreateData(), (data) =>             {                 data[0] = 1;             });     }      static IEnumerable<byte[]> CreateData()     {         while (true)         {             yield return new byte[1 << 20]; //1Mb array         }     } } 

Answer 1

The default options for Parallel.ForEach only work well when the task is CPU-bound and scales linearly. When the task is CPU-bound, everything works perfectly. If you have a quad-core and no other processes running, then Parallel.ForEach uses all four processors. If you have a quad-core and some other process on your computer is using one full CPU, then Parallel.ForEach uses roughly three processors.

But if the task is not CPU-bound, then Parallel.ForEach keeps starting tasks, trying hard to keep all CPUs busy. Yet no matter how many tasks are running in parallel, there is always more unused CPU horsepower and so it keeps creating tasks.

How can you tell if your task is CPU-bound? Hopefully just by inspecting it. If you are factoring prime numbers, it is obvious. But other cases are not so obvious. The empirical way to tell if your task is CPU-bound is to limit the maximum degree of parallelism with ParallelOptions.MaximumDegreeOfParallelism and observe how your program behaves. If your task is CPU-bound then you should see a pattern like this on a quad-core system:

• ParallelOptions.MaximumDegreeOfParallelism = 1: use one full CPU or 25% CPU utilization
• ParallelOptions.MaximumDegreeOfParallelism = 2: use two CPUs or 50% CPU utilization
• ParallelOptions.MaximumDegreeOfParallelism = 4: use all CPUs or 100% CPU utilization

If it behaves like this then you can use the default Parallel.ForEach options and get good results. Linear CPU utilization means good task scheduling.

But if I run your sample application on my Intel i7, I get about 20% CPU utilization no matter what maximum degree of parallelism I set. Why is this? So much memory is being allocated that the garbage collector is blocking threads. The application is resource-bound and the resource is memory.

Likewise an I/O-bound task that performs long running queries against a database server will also never be able to effectively utilize all the CPU resources available on the local computer. And in cases like that the task scheduler is unable to "know when to stop" starting new tasks.

If your task is not CPU-bound or the CPU utilization doesn't scale linearly with the maximum degree of parallelism, then you should advise Parallel.ForEach not to start too many tasks at once. The simplest way is to specify a number that permits some parallelism for overlapping I/O-bound tasks, but not so much that you overwhelm the local computer's demand for resources or overtax any remote servers. Trial and error is involved to get the best results:

static void Main(string[] args) {     Parallel.ForEach(CreateData(),         new ParallelOptions { MaxDegreeOfParallelism = 4 },         (data) =>             {                 data[0] = 1;             }); }