[libcxx] r275114 - Don't compute modulus of hash if it is smaller than the bucket count.
Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits
cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
Mon Jul 18 11:02:02 PDT 2016
It looks like Shootout-C++ improved after that commit, if I'm reading these results correctly:
http://llvm.org/perf/db_default/v4/nts/87812
> On 2016-Jul-17, at 15:16, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
>
> FYI,
>
> I recommitted the previously removed optimization in r275734. I believe it should fix the LNT performance regression. The benchmarks I used to test this change can be found in D22240 (https://reviews.llvm.org/D22240#3266819f)
>
> /Eric
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 3:09 PM, Eric Fiselier <eric at efcs.ca> wrote:
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 2:54 PM, Arthur O'Dwyer <arthur.j.odwyer at gmail.com> wrote:
> Given that this patch is basically Chandler's talk from CppCon 2015 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nXaxk27zwlk), I'm surprised that the commit message isn't explicitly mentioning that; and surprised that Chandler himself isn't weighing in on either the "this is a good idea" or "this is a bad idea" side.
>
>
> The commit message should have been clearer. Hopefully Chandler will weigh in one way or another.
>
>
> IMHO, if replacing "%" with "fastmod" in general-purpose code like this were a good idea,
> (A) libc++ should introduce a helper function __fastmod(m,n) for the purpose, not repeat the same patch everywhere there's currently a "%" operator; and/or
> (B) someone with authority over the Clang x86 backend (*cough*Chandler*cough*) should look into improving the codegen for "%" by auto-detecting when it might make sense to use this heuristic.
>
> The alleged existence of performance regressions on this patch as it stands seems like evidence for doing (B), IMHO, even if it takes longer.
>
> The performance regressions are almost certainly related to the optimization I removed/replaced in this patch. Previously when __hash_table::find was walking the bucket elements it would only re-computer the constrained hash
> if the unconstrained hash didn't match that of the element being searched for. I removed this optimization in this patch with the intent of re-implementing it in the very near future (it was only in-tree for about a week).
>
> What I'm curious about if this performance regression was cause by (1) the removal of this 2 week old optimization or (2) the implementation of "fast mod". I suspect it's because of (1).
>
> I'm writing more benchmarks as we speak to figure this out.
>
>
>
> It's also counterintuitive to me that (__h < __bc) would be true any significant fraction of the time, on a 64-bit platform. Does this happen because __bc is often astronomically high, or because __h is often astronomically low (presumably due to bad hash functions, such as "always hash to constant 0")?
>
> It happens due to bad hash functions. Primarily because integral types use the identify hash function.
>
>
> my $.02,
> Arthur
>
>
> On Sun, Jul 17, 2016 at 1:11 PM, Eric Fiselier via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi Duncan,
>
> It's possibly expected. It depends on what operation it's performing. I expected a bit of a performance drop in some cases but I have a plan to fix those.
> Do you have a link to LNT?
>
> On Wed, Jul 13, 2016 at 6:41 PM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexonsmith at apple.com> wrote:
> Hmm. I implied there were other regressions, but I just finished scanning them. Shootout-C++/hash2 is the only major one. The others were small, and only at -O0.
>
> > On 2016-Jul-13, at 17:38, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > We saw mixed results from this on LNT, including some major regressions. For example, on x86_64, SingleSource/Benchmarks/Shootout-C++/hash2 regressed 18.5% at -O3 and over 20% at -Os.
> >
> > Is this expected?
>
> ^ Still interested in an answer, though ;).
>
> >
> >> On 2016-Jul-11, at 15:02, Eric Fiselier via cfe-commits <cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >>
> >> Author: ericwf
> >> Date: Mon Jul 11 17:02:02 2016
> >> New Revision: 275114
> >>
> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=275114&view=rev
> >> Log:
> >> Don't compute modulus of hash if it is smaller than the bucket count.
> >>
> >> This cleans up a previous optimization attempt in hash, and results in
> >> additional performance improvements over that previous attempt. Additionally
> >> this new optimization does not hinder the power of 2 bucket count optimization.
> >>
> >> Modified:
> >> libcxx/trunk/include/__hash_table
> >>
> >> Modified: libcxx/trunk/include/__hash_table
> >> URL: http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/libcxx/trunk/include/__hash_table?rev=275114&r1=275113&r2=275114&view=diff
> >> ==============================================================================
> >> --- libcxx/trunk/include/__hash_table (original)
> >> +++ libcxx/trunk/include/__hash_table Mon Jul 11 17:02:02 2016
> >> @@ -90,7 +90,8 @@ inline _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
> >> size_t
> >> __constrain_hash(size_t __h, size_t __bc)
> >> {
> >> - return !(__bc & (__bc - 1)) ? __h & (__bc - 1) : __h % __bc;
> >> + return !(__bc & (__bc - 1)) ? __h & (__bc - 1) :
> >> + (__h < __bc ? __h : __h % __bc);
> >> }
> >>
> >> inline _LIBCPP_INLINE_VISIBILITY
> >> @@ -2201,8 +2202,7 @@ __hash_table<_Tp, _Hash, _Equal, _Alloc>
> >> if (__nd != nullptr)
> >> {
> >> for (__nd = __nd->__next_; __nd != nullptr &&
> >> - (__hash == __nd->__hash_
> >> - || __constrain_hash(__nd->__hash_, __bc) == __chash);
> >> + __constrain_hash(__nd->__hash_, __bc) == __chash;
> >> __nd = __nd->__next_)
> >> {
> >> if ((__nd->__hash_ == __hash) && key_eq()(__nd->__value_, __k))
> >> @@ -2231,8 +2231,7 @@ __hash_table<_Tp, _Hash, _Equal, _Alloc>
> >> if (__nd != nullptr)
> >> {
> >> for (__nd = __nd->__next_; __nd != nullptr &&
> >> - (__hash == __nd->__hash_
> >> - || __constrain_hash(__nd->__hash_, __bc) == __chash);
> >> + __constrain_hash(__nd->__hash_, __bc) == __chash;
> >> __nd = __nd->__next_)
> >> {
> >> if ((__nd->__hash_ == __hash) && key_eq()(__nd->__value_, __k))
> >>
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> cfe-commits mailing list
> >> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> >> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > cfe-commits mailing list
> > cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> > http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-commits mailing list
> cfe-commits at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
>
>
>
>
More information about the cfe-commits
mailing list