Intro: I write high-performance code in C#. Yes, I know C++ would give me better optimization, but I still choose to use C#. I do not wish to debate that choice. Rather, I'd like to hear from those who, like me, are trying to write high-performance code on the .NET Framework.
Questions:
- Why is the operator in the code below slower than the equivalent method call??
- Why is the method passing two doubles in the code below faster than the equivalent method passing a struct that has two doubles inside? (A: older JITs optimize structs poorly)
- Is there a way to get the .NET JIT Compiler to treat simple structs as efficiently as the members of the struct? (A: get newer JIT)
What I think I know: The original .NET JIT Compiler would not inline anything that involved a struct. Bizarre given structs should only be used where you need small value types that should be optimized like built-ins, but true. Fortunately, in .NET 3.5SP1 and .NET 2.0SP2, they made some improvements to the JIT Optimizer, including improvements to inlining, particularly for structs. (I am guessing they did that because otherwise the new Complex struct that they were introducing would have performed horribly... so the Complex team was probably pounding on the JIT Optimizer team.) So, any documentation prior to .NET 3.5 SP1 is probably not too relevant to this issue.
What my testing shows: I have verified that I do have the newer JIT Optimizer by checking that C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\mscorwks.dll file does have version >= 3053 and so should have those improvements to the JIT optimizer. However, even with that, what my timings and looks at the disassembly both show are:
The JIT-produced code for passing a struct with two doubles is far less efficient than code that directly passes the two doubles.
The JIT-produced code for a struct method passes in 'this' far more efficiently than if you passed a struct as an argument.
The JIT still inlines better if you pass two doubles rather than passing a struct with two doubles, even with the multiplier due to being clearly in a loop.
The Timings: Actually, looking at the disassembly I realize that most of the time in the loops is just accessing the test data out of the List. The difference between the four ways of making the same calls is dramatically different if you factor out the overhead code of the loop and the accessing of the data. I get anywhere from 5x to 20x speedups for doing PlusEqual(double, double) instead of PlusEqual(Element). And 10x to 40x for doing PlusEqual(double, double) instead of operator +=. Wow. Sad.
Here's one set of timings:
Populating List<Element> took 320ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 105ms.
The 'same' += operator took 131ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 139ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 68ms.
The do nothing loop took 66ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 124%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 132%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 64%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 166%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 187%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 5%.
The Code:
namespace OperatorVsMethod
{
public struct Element
{
public double Left;
public double Right;
public Element(double left, double right)
{
this.Left = left;
this.Right = right;
}
public static Element operator +(Element x, Element y)
{
return new Element(x.Left + y.Left, x.Right + y.Right);
}
public static Element operator -(Element x, Element y)
{
x.Left += y.Left;
x.Right += y.Right;
return x;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(Element that)
{
this.Left += that.Left;
this.Right += that.Right;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(double thatLeft, double thatRight)
{
this.Left += thatLeft;
this.Right += thatRight;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
// Populate a List of Elements to multiply together
int seedSize = 4;
List<double> doubles = new List<double>(seedSize);
doubles.Add(2.5d);
doubles.Add(100000d);
doubles.Add(-0.5d);
doubles.Add(-100002d);
int size = 2500000 * seedSize;
List<Element> elts = new List<Element>(size);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
int di = ii % seedSize;
double d = doubles[di];
elts.Add(new Element(d, d));
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long populateMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of += operator (calls ctor)
Element operatorCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorCtorResult += elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of -= operator (+= without ctor)
Element operatorNoCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorNoCtorResult -= elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorNoCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(Element) method
Element plusEqualResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
plusEqualResult.PlusEqual(elts[ii]);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(double, double) method
Element plusEqualDDResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
plusEqualDDResult.PlusEqual(elt.Left, elt.Right);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualDDMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of doing nothing but accessing the Element
Element doNothingResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
double left = elt.Left;
double right = elt.Right;
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long doNothingMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Report results
Assert.AreEqual(1d, operatorCtorResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, operatorNoCtorResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, plusEqualResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, plusEqualDDResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, doNothingResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
// Report speeds
Console.WriteLine("Populating List<Element> took {0}ms.", populateMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual() method took {0}ms.", plusEqualMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' += operator took {0}ms.", operatorCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' -= operator took {0}ms.", operatorNoCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual(double, double) method took {0}ms.", plusEqualDDMS);
Console.WriteLine("The do nothing loop took {0}ms.", doNothingMS);
// Compare speeds
long percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
operatorCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
operatorNoCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualDDMS -= doNothingMS;
Console.WriteLine("If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...");
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
}
}
}
The IL: (aka. what some of the above gets compiled into)
public void PlusEqual(Element that)
{
00000000 push ebp
00000001 mov ebp,esp
00000003 push edi
00000004 push esi
00000005 push ebx
00000006 sub esp,30h
00000009 xor eax,eax
0000000b mov dword ptr [ebp-10h],eax
0000000e xor eax,eax
00000010 mov dword ptr [ebp-1Ch],eax
00000013 mov dword ptr [ebp-3Ch],ecx
00000016 cmp dword ptr ds:[04C87B7Ch],0
0000001d je 00000024
0000001f call 753081B1
00000024 nop
this.Left += that.Left;
00000025 mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000028 fld qword ptr [ebp+8]
0000002b fadd 开发者_开发百科 qword ptr [eax]
0000002d fstp qword ptr [eax]
this.Right += that.Right;
0000002f mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000032 fld qword ptr [ebp+10h]
00000035 fadd qword ptr [eax+8]
00000038 fstp qword ptr [eax+8]
}
0000003b nop
0000003c lea esp,[ebp-0Ch]
0000003f pop ebx
00000040 pop esi
00000041 pop edi
00000042 pop ebp
00000043 ret 10h
public void PlusEqual(double thatLeft, double thatRight)
{
00000000 push ebp
00000001 mov ebp,esp
00000003 push edi
00000004 push esi
00000005 push ebx
00000006 sub esp,30h
00000009 xor eax,eax
0000000b mov dword ptr [ebp-10h],eax
0000000e xor eax,eax
00000010 mov dword ptr [ebp-1Ch],eax
00000013 mov dword ptr [ebp-3Ch],ecx
00000016 cmp dword ptr ds:[04C87B7Ch],0
0000001d je 00000024
0000001f call 75308159
00000024 nop
this.Left += thatLeft;
00000025 mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000028 fld qword ptr [ebp+10h]
0000002b fadd qword ptr [eax]
0000002d fstp qword ptr [eax]
this.Right += thatRight;
0000002f mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000032 fld qword ptr [ebp+8]
00000035 fadd qword ptr [eax+8]
00000038 fstp qword ptr [eax+8]
}
0000003b nop
0000003c lea esp,[ebp-0Ch]
0000003f pop ebx
00000040 pop esi
00000041 pop edi
00000042 pop ebp
00000043 ret 10h
I'm getting very different results, much less dramatic. But didn't use the test runner, I pasted the code into a console mode app. The 5% result is ~87% in 32-bit mode, ~100% in 64-bit mode when I try it.
Alignment is critical on doubles, the .NET runtime can only promise an alignment of 4 on a 32-bit machine. Looks to me the test runner is starting the test methods with a stack address that's aligned to 4 instead of 8. The misalignment penalty gets very large when the double crosses a cache line boundary.
I'm having some difficulty replicating your results.
I took your code:
- made it a standalone console application
- built an optimized (release) build
- increased the "size" factor from 2.5M to 10M
- ran it from the command line (outside the IDE)
When I did so, I got the following timings which are far different from yours. For the avoidance of doubt, I'll post exactly the code I used.
Here are my timings
Populating List<Element> took 527ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 450ms.
The 'same' += operator took 386ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 446ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 413ms.
The do nothing loop took 229ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 85%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 99%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 91%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 71%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 98%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 83%.
And these are my edits to your code:
namespace OperatorVsMethod
{
public struct Element
{
public double Left;
public double Right;
public Element(double left, double right)
{
this.Left = left;
this.Right = right;
}
public static Element operator +(Element x, Element y)
{
return new Element(x.Left + y.Left, x.Right + y.Right);
}
public static Element operator -(Element x, Element y)
{
x.Left += y.Left;
x.Right += y.Right;
return x;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(Element that)
{
this.Left += that.Left;
this.Right += that.Right;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(double thatLeft, double thatRight)
{
this.Left += thatLeft;
this.Right += thatRight;
}
}
public class UnitTest1
{
public static void Main()
{
Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
// Populate a List of Elements to multiply together
int seedSize = 4;
List<double> doubles = new List<double>(seedSize);
doubles.Add(2.5d);
doubles.Add(100000d);
doubles.Add(-0.5d);
doubles.Add(-100002d);
int size = 10000000 * seedSize;
List<Element> elts = new List<Element>(size);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
int di = ii % seedSize;
double d = doubles[di];
elts.Add(new Element(d, d));
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long populateMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of += operator (calls ctor)
Element operatorCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorCtorResult += elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of -= operator (+= without ctor)
Element operatorNoCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorNoCtorResult -= elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorNoCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(Element) method
Element plusEqualResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
plusEqualResult.PlusEqual(elts[ii]);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(double, double) method
Element plusEqualDDResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
plusEqualDDResult.PlusEqual(elt.Left, elt.Right);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualDDMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of doing nothing but accessing the Element
Element doNothingResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
double left = elt.Left;
double right = elt.Right;
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long doNothingMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Report speeds
Console.WriteLine("Populating List<Element> took {0}ms.", populateMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual() method took {0}ms.", plusEqualMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' += operator took {0}ms.", operatorCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' -= operator took {0}ms.", operatorNoCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual(double, double) method took {0}ms.", plusEqualDDMS);
Console.WriteLine("The do nothing loop took {0}ms.", doNothingMS);
// Compare speeds
long percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
operatorCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
operatorNoCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualDDMS -= doNothingMS;
Console.WriteLine("If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...");
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
}
}
}
Running .NET 4.0 here. I compiled with "Any CPU", targeting .NET 4.0 in release mode. Execution was from the command line. It ran in 64-bit mode. My timings are a bit different.
Populating List<Element> took 442ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 115ms.
The 'same' += operator took 201ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 200ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 129ms.
The do nothing loop took 93ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 174%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 173%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 112%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List
...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 490%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 486%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 163%.
In particular, PlusEqual(Element) is slightly faster than PlusEqual(double, double).
Whatever the problem is in .NET 3.5, it doesn't appear to exist in .NET 4.0.
Like @Corey Kosak, I just ran this code in VS 2010 Express as a simple Console App in Release mode. I get very different numbers. But I also have Fx4.5 so these might not be the results for a clean Fx4.0 .
Populating List<Element> took 435ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 109ms.
The 'same' += operator took 217ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 157ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 118ms.
The do nothing loop took 79ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 199%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 144%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 108%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List
...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 460%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 260%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 130%.
Edit: and now run from the cmd line. That does make a difference, and less variation in the numbers.
In addition to JIT compiler differences mentioned in other answers, another difference between a struct method call and a struct operator is that a struct method call will pass this as a ref parameter (and may be written to accept other parameters as ref parameters as well), while a struct operator will pass all operands by value. The cost to pass a structure of any size as a ref parameter is fixed, no matter how large the structure is, while the cost to pass larger structures is proportional to structure size. There is nothing wrong with using large structures (even hundreds of bytes) if one can avoid copying them unnecessarily; while unnecessary copies can often be prevented when using methods, they cannot be prevented when using operators.
Not sure if this is relevant, but here's the numbers for .NET 4.0 64-bit on Windows 7 64-bit. My mscorwks.dll version is 2.0.50727.5446. I just pasted the code into LINQPad and ran it from there. Here's the result:
Populating List<Element> took 496ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 189ms.
The 'same' += operator took 295ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 358ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 148ms.
The do nothing loop took 103ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 156%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 189%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 78%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List
...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 223%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 296%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 52%.
I would imagine as when you are accessing members of the struct, that it is infact doing an extra operation to access the member, the THIS pointer + offset.
May be instead of List you should use double[] with "well known" offsets and index increments?
![Interactive visualization of a graph in python [closed]](https://www.devze.com/res/2023/04-10/09/92d32fe8c0d22fb96bd6f6e8b7d1f457.gif)
加载中,请稍侯......
精彩评论