Beefy Boxes and Bandwidth Generously Provided by pair Networks
Clear questions and runnable code
get the best and fastest answer
 
PerlMonks  

comment on

( #3333=superdoc: print w/replies, xml ) Need Help??

Rob:

I'm not experienced in using Inline::C, but I thought I'd take a look at it. My first guess is that the overhead in SvUV(ST(i)) is causing twiddle to be slower, so I tweaked the routine to explicitly pull arg into a UV as you did in double3:

$ diff pm_11113750_orig.pl pm_11113750_a.pl 26a27 > UV arg; 30,31c31,33 < IV neg_t = -(SvIV(ST(i))); < IV last_set = SvUV(ST(i)) & neg_t; --- > arg = SvUV(ST(i)); > IV neg_t = -arg; > IV last_set = arg & neg_t; 42c44 < if(!(SvUV(ST(i)) & invalid_bits)) count++; --- > if(!(arg & invalid_bits)) count++;

Doing that change alone made the routines roughly the same speed:

$ PERL5OPT= perl pm_11113750_orig.pl Benchmark: timing 5 iterations of uv_fits_double3, uv_fits_double_bitf +iddle... uv_fits_double3: 7 wallclock secs ( 6.70 usr + 0.00 sys = 6.70 CPU) + @ 0.75/s (n=5) uv_fits_double_bitfiddle: 17 wallclock secs (17.36 usr + 0.00 sys = 1 +7.36 CPU) @ 0.29/s (n=5) 46875 46875 $ PERL5OPT= perl pm_11113750_a.pl Benchmark: timing 5 iterations of uv_fits_double3, uv_fits_double_bitf +iddle... uv_fits_double3: 7 wallclock secs ( 6.75 usr + 0.00 sys = 6.75 CPU) + @ 0.74/s (n=5) uv_fits_double_bitfiddle: 6 wallclock secs ( 6.67 usr + 0.00 sys = +6.67 CPU) @ 0.75/s (n=5) 46875 46875

Since the twiddle part doesn't have any loops, I would expect it to be significantly faster than a version *with* loops, depending on how clever the optimizer is. So another version I played with was to modify the routine to take two parameters and count the number of values that fit between those two values. That way, I could greatly reduce the impact of the SvUV() function at the cost of only being able to process sequences of numbers. That version confirmed my suspicion that the SvUV() function is slow enough that it swamps the difference in our algorithms.

int uv_fits_double3x(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); UV i; int count = 0; UV arg; for(i = i_min; i < i_max; i++) { arg = i; if(arg) { while(!(arg & 1)) arg >>= 1; if(arg < 9007199254740993) count++; } } return count; } int uv_fits_double_bitfiddle_3x(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); UV i; int count = 0; for(i = i_min; i < i_max; i++) { UV arg = i; IV neg = -arg; IV smallest_invalid = (arg & -arg)<<53; UV valid_bits = smallest_invalid-1; UV invalid_bits = ~valid_bits; if (! (arg & invalid_bits)) count++; } return count; }

Both routines are much faster if they only take two arguments and iterate over the entire range. Only then does the twiddle version show a significant speed advantage at about twice as fast. The double3x version is about 1800 times faster, while fiddle3x is about 2900 times faster:

$ PERL5OPT= perl pm_11113750_x.pl Name "main::count4" used only once: possible typo at pm_11113750_x.pl +line 147. === Test 1: roughly equivalent speed Benchmark: timing 5 iterations of uv_fits_double3, uv_fits_double_bitf +iddle... uv_fits_double3: 28 wallclock secs (27.22 usr + 0.08 sys = 27.30 CPU) + @ 0.18/s (n=5) uv_fits_double_bitfiddle: 27 wallclock secs (26.72 usr + 0.00 sys = 2 +6.72 CPU) @ 0.19/s (n=5) 33046878 33046878 (48000004) === TEST 2: twiddle has an advantage if we don't use SvUV() Benchmark: timing 10000 iterations of bitfiddle_3x, double3x, empty_fu +nc, empty_loop... bitfiddle_3x: 18 wallclock secs (18.39 usr + 0.00 sys = 18.39 CPU) @ +543.74/s (n=10000) double3x: 30 wallclock secs (29.55 usr + 0.00 sys = 29.55 CPU) @ 33 +8.44/s (n=10000) empty_func: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.00 CPU) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count) empty_loop: 0 wallclock secs ( 0.00 usr + 0.00 sys = 0.00 CPU) (warning: too few iterations for a reliable count) 33046875 33046875 48000000 1416858175

Unfortunately, I've not been successful in making a useful version that's faster in a real-world scenario. My current understanding of things (after playing with it for a few hours) is that the single argument versions get swamped out by the looping and function calling overhead. The functions are just too simple to be aHowever, I've not been successful in making a useful version that's significantly faster (with call overhead and such).

NOTES: As you can tell from the above, I've not been successful in measuring the function call (empty func) or empty loop versions of the functions, so my benchmarking could be broken, so I'm including the current code, so people can point things out.

use warnings; use Benchmark; use Inline C => Config => BUILD_NOISY => 1; use Inline C => <<'EOC'; int uv_fits_double3(SV * x, ...) { dXSARGS; int i, count = 0; UV arg; for(i = 0; i < items; i++) { arg = SvUV(ST(i)); if(arg) { while(!(arg & 1)) arg >>= 1; if(arg < 9007199254740993) count++; } } return count; } int uv_fits_double_bitfiddle(SV * t, ...) { dXSARGS; int i, count = 0; UV arg; for(i = 0; i < items; i++) { arg = SvUV(ST(i)); IV smallest_invalid = (arg & -arg) << 53; UV valid_bits = smallest_invalid - 1; UV invalid_bits = ~valid_bits; if ( !(arg & invalid_bits)) count++; } return count; } int uv_fits_double3x(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); UV i; int count = 0; UV arg; for(i = i_min; i < i_max; i++) { arg = i; if(arg) { while(!(arg & 1)) arg >>= 1; if(arg < 9007199254740993) count++; } } return count; } int uv_fits_double_bitfiddle2(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); UV i; int count = 0; for(i = i_min; i < i_max; i++) { UV arg = i; IV neg = -arg; IV smallest_invalid = (arg & -arg)<<53; UV valid_bits = smallest_invalid-1; UV invalid_bits = ~valid_bits; if (! (arg & invalid_bits)) count++; } return count; } int uv_empty_func(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); return i_max - i_min; } int uv_empty_loop(SV* the_min, SV* the_max) { dXSARGS; UV i_min = SvUV(the_min); UV i_max = SvUV(the_max); UV i; int count = 0; for(i = i_min; i < i_max; i++) { UV arg = i; // boring count++; } return count * i_max - i_min; } EOC @in2 = ( [ 1844674407366955161, 1844674407378955161 ], [ 9007199248740992, 9007199260740992 ], [ 184467436737095, 184467448737095 ], [ 184463440737, 184475440737 ], ); push @in, $_->[0] .. $_->[1] for @in2; print "=== Test 1: roughly equivalent speed\n"; our ($count1, $count2); ($count1, $count2) = (0, 0); timethese (5, { 'uv_fits_double3' => '$count1 = uv_fits_double3(@in);', 'uv_fits_double_bitfiddle' => '$count2 = uv_fits_double_bitfiddle( +@in);', }); print "$count1 $count2 (", scalar(@in), ")\n"; print "!!!! MISMATCH !!!!\n" if $count1 != $count2; print "\n=== TEST 2: twiddle has an advantage if we don't use SvUV()\n +"; ($count1, $count2, $count3) = (0, 0, 0, 0); timethese (10000, { 'double3x' => '$count1 = uv_fits_double3x(@{$in2[0]})' .' + uv_fits_double3x(@{$in2[1]})' .' + uv_fits_double3x(@{$in2[2]})' .' + uv_fits_double3x(@{$in2[3]})' , 'bitfiddle_3x'=>'$count2 = uv_fits_double_bitfiddle2(@{$in2[0]})' .' + uv_fits_double_bitfiddle2(@{$in2[1]})' .' + uv_fits_double_bitfiddle2(@{$in2[2]})' .' + uv_fits_double_bitfiddle2(@{$in2[3]})' , 'empty_func'=>'$count3 = uv_empty_func(@{$in2[0]})' .' + uv_empty_func(@{$in2[1]})' .' + uv_empty_func(@{$in2[2]})' .' + uv_empty_func(@{$in2[3]})' , 'empty_loop'=>'$count4 = uv_empty_loop(@{$in2[0]})' .' + uv_empty_loop(@{$in2[1]})' .' + uv_empty_loop(@{$in2[2]})' .' + uv_empty_loop(@{$in2[3]})' , }); print "$count1 $count2 $count3 $count4\n"; print "!!!! MISMATCH !!!!\n" if $count1 != $count2;

...roboticus

When your only tool is a hammer, all problems look like your thumb.


In reply to Re^3: Detecting whether UV fits into an NV by roboticus
in thread Detecting whether UV fits into an NV by syphilis

Title:
Use:  <p> text here (a paragraph) </p>
and:  <code> code here </code>
to format your post; it's "PerlMonks-approved HTML":



  • Posts are HTML formatted. Put <p> </p> tags around your paragraphs. Put <code> </code> tags around your code and data!
  • Titles consisting of a single word are discouraged, and in most cases are disallowed outright.
  • Read Where should I post X? if you're not absolutely sure you're posting in the right place.
  • Please read these before you post! —
  • Posts may use any of the Perl Monks Approved HTML tags:
    a, abbr, b, big, blockquote, br, caption, center, col, colgroup, dd, del, div, dl, dt, em, font, h1, h2, h3, h4, h5, h6, hr, i, ins, li, ol, p, pre, readmore, small, span, spoiler, strike, strong, sub, sup, table, tbody, td, tfoot, th, thead, tr, tt, u, ul, wbr
  • You may need to use entities for some characters, as follows. (Exception: Within code tags, you can put the characters literally.)
            For:     Use:
    & &amp;
    < &lt;
    > &gt;
    [ &#91;
    ] &#93;
  • Link using PerlMonks shortcuts! What shortcuts can I use for linking?
  • See Writeup Formatting Tips and other pages linked from there for more info.
  • Log In?
    Username:
    Password:

    What's my password?
    Create A New User
    Chatterbox?
    and the web crawler heard nothing...

    How do I use this? | Other CB clients
    Other Users?
    Others drinking their drinks and smoking their pipes about the Monastery: (8)
    As of 2021-04-16 12:18 GMT
    Sections?
    Information?
    Find Nodes?
    Leftovers?
      Voting Booth?

      No recent polls found

      Notices?