如果你的程序使用线程(并发编程)，它不一定会这样执行(并行执行)，因为这取决于机器是否可以处理几个线程。

这是一个直观的例子。非线程机器上的线程:

        --  --  --
     /              \
>---- --  --  --  -- ---->>

螺纹机上的螺纹:

     ------
    /      \
>-------------->>

虚线表示执行的代码。正如您所看到的，它们都分开并分别执行，但是线程机器可以同时执行几个单独的部分。

传统的任务调度可以是串行、并行或并发的。

Serial: tasks must be executed one after the other in a known tricked order or it will not work. Easy enough. Parallel: tasks must be executed at the same time or it will not work. Any failure of any of the tasks - functionally or in time - will result in total system failure. All tasks must have a common reliable sense of time. Try to avoid this or we will have tears by tea time. Concurrent: we do not care. We are not careless, though: we have analysed it and it doesn't matter; we can therefore execute any task using any available facility at any time. Happy days.

通常，在已知事件发生时，可用的调度会发生变化，我们称之为状态变化。

人们通常认为这是关于软件的，但实际上这是一种早于计算机的系统设计概念;软件系统的吸收速度有点慢，甚至很少有软件语言试图解决这个问题。如果你感兴趣，你可以试着查一下transputer language occam。

简而言之，系统设计解决以下问题:

动词——你在做什么(操作或算法) 名词——对(数据或接口)进行操作的对象 启动时，进度、状态改变 是串行、并行还是并发 地点——一旦你知道事情发生的时间，你就能说出事情可能发生的地点，而不是之前。 为什么，这是正确的方法吗?还有别的办法吗，更重要的是，更好的办法?如果你不做会怎么样?

祝你好运。

它们是从(非常轻微的)不同的角度描述同一件事情的两个短语。并行编程是从硬件的角度描述情况——至少有两个处理器(可能在一个物理包中)并行处理一个问题。并发编程更多地是从软件的角度描述事情——两个或多个操作可能同时(并发)发生。

这里的问题是，人们试图用这两个短语来做出明确的区分，但实际上这两个短语并不存在。现实情况是，几十年来，他们试图划定的分界线一直是模糊的，而且随着时间的推移越来越模糊。

What they're trying to discuss is the fact that once upon a time, most computers had only a single CPU. When you executed multiple processes (or threads) on that single CPU, the CPU was only really executing one instruction from one of those threads at a time. The appearance of concurrency was an illusion--the CPU switching between executing instructions from different threads quickly enough that to human perception (to which anything less than 100 ms or so looks instantaneous) it looked like it was doing many things at once.

与此形成鲜明对比的是具有多个CPU或多核CPU的计算机，因此机器正在同时执行来自多个线程和/或进程的指令;执行其中一个的代码不能/不会对执行另一个的代码产生任何影响。

Now the problem: such a clean distinction has almost never existed. Computer designers are actually fairly intelligent, so they noticed a long time ago that (for example) when you needed to read some data from an I/O device such as a disk, it took a long time (in terms of CPU cycles) to finish. Instead of leaving the CPU idle while that happened, they figured out various ways of letting one process/thread make an I/O request, and let code from some other process/thread execute on the CPU while the I/O request completed.

因此，早在多核cpu成为标准之前，我们就有多个线程并行进行操作。

That's only the tip of the iceberg though. Decades ago, computers started providing another level of parallelism as well. Again, being fairly intelligent people, computer designers noticed that in a lot of cases, they had instructions that didn't affect each other, so it was possible to execute more than one instruction from the same stream at the same time. One early example that became pretty well known was the Control Data 6600. This was (by a fairly wide margin) the fastest computer on earth when it was introduced in 1964--and much of the same basic architecture remains in use today. It tracked the resources used by each instruction, and had a set of execution units that executed instructions as soon as the resources on which they depended became available, very similar to the design of most recent Intel/AMD processors.

But (as the commercials used to say) wait--that's not all. There's yet another design element to add still further confusion. It's been given quite a few different names (e.g., "Hyperthreading", "SMT", "CMP"), but they all refer to the same basic idea: a CPU that can execute multiple threads simultaneously, using a combination of some resources that are independent for each thread, and some resources that are shared between the threads. In a typical case this is combined with the instruction-level parallelism outlined above. To do that, we have two (or more) sets of architectural registers. Then we have a set of execution units that can execute instructions as soon as the necessary resources become available. These often combine well because the instructions from the separate streams virtually never depend on the same resources.

然后，当然，我们会讲到具有多核的现代系统。这里的情况很明显，对吧?我们有N个(目前大约在2到256之间)独立的内核，它们都可以同时执行指令，所以我们有了真正的并行性的清晰案例——在一个进程/线程中执行指令不会影响在另一个进程/线程中执行指令。

嗯，算是吧。即使在这里，我们也有一些独立的资源(寄存器、执行单元、至少一个级别的缓存)和一些共享资源(通常至少是最低级别的缓存，当然还有内存控制器和内存带宽)。

To summarize: the simple scenarios people like to contrast between shared resources and independent resources virtually never happen in real life. With all resources shared, we end up with something like MS-DOS, where we can only run one program at a time, and we have to stop running one before we can run the other at all. With completely independent resources, we have N computers running MS-DOS (without even a network to connect them) with no ability to share anything between them at all (because if we can even share a file, well, that's a shared resource, a violation of the basic premise of nothing being shared).

每个有趣的案例都涉及到独立资源和共享资源的某种组合。每一台相当现代的计算机(以及许多根本不现代的计算机)都至少有一些能力同时执行至少几个独立的操作，而任何比MS-DOS更复杂的东西都至少在某种程度上利用了这一点。

人们喜欢在“并发”和“并行”之间画出的漂亮、清晰的分界线根本不存在，而且几乎从来都不存在。人们喜欢归类为“并发”的东西通常仍然包含至少一种或更多不同类型的并行执行。他们喜欢归类为“并行”的内容通常涉及共享资源，(例如)一个进程在使用两个进程之间共享的资源时阻塞另一个进程的执行。

试图在“并行”和“并发”之间划清界限的人，其实是生活在一个从未真正存在过的计算机幻想中。

并发性和并行性源

在单个处理器上的多线程进程中，处理器可以在线程之间切换执行资源，从而实现并发执行。

在共享内存多处理器环境中的同一个多线程进程中，进程中的每个线程可以同时在单独的处理器上运行，从而导致并行执行。

当进程的线程数量与处理器数量相同或较少时，线程支持系统结合操作环境确保每个线程运行在不同的处理器上。

例如，在具有相同数量的线程和处理器的矩阵乘法中，每个线程(和每个处理器)计算结果的一行。

将原始问题解释为并行/并发计算，而不是编程。

在并发计算中，两个计算都是彼此独立前进的。第二个计算不需要等到第一个计算完成后才能继续进行。但是，它并没有说明这是如何实现的机制。在单核设置中，线程之间需要挂起和交替(也称为抢占式多线程)。

在并行计算中，两个计算同时进行——字面上是同时进行。这对于单CPU来说是不可能的，而是需要多核设置。

图片来自文章:“Node.js中的并行vs并发”

与

并行编程发生在代码同时被执行并且每次执行都是相互独立的时候。因此，通常不会有关于共享变量之类的关注，因为那不太可能发生。

However, concurrent programming consists on code being executed by different processes/threads that share variables and such, therefore on concurrent programming we must establish some sort of rule to decide which process/thread executes first, we want this so that we can be sure there will be consistency and that we can know with certainty what will happen. If there is no control and all threads compute at the same time and store things on the same variables, how would we know what to expect in the end? Maybe a thread is faster than the other, maybe one of the threads even stopped in the middle of its execution and another continued a different computation with a corrupted (not yet fully computed) variable, the possibilities are endless. It's in these situations that we usually use concurrent programming instead of parallel.