Zsh Mailing List Archive
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author
Re: the source of slow large for loops
- X-seq: zsh-workers 29176
- From: Mikael Magnusson <mikachu@xxxxxxxxx>
- To: zsh workers <zsh-workers@xxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: the source of slow large for loops
- Date: Sat, 7 May 2011 21:21:53 +0200
- Dkim-signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:content-type; bh=ylqE48rV33FG32Swr8oTLPYhmrhoZp9Wz1wQ4iiUfW4=; b=qToJ9JY0RlCNP6VZDnTUeX55QV2WN9INxUr933v6CopDgxPgkUc+EQH7EvjlgXq8Gn cWD5wljT+dCcHxw3xmdZlCIcBy6bm9Seukw74yagW80rrUEO8KHR1ecgBT9fuoa3EJ5g kQf8Kp/0dOTp5PKteVyJB7wGqpC9xYQEOfT+Y=
- Domainkey-signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; b=Lt2HwaA/AQhTwaEkulWr3wnw88Jur4n7864p/DwveAz0ejIe5a9TLQoi0eVfrV4XcC tgK6xT8OXxadgtg1g2gYMz2ZsibRouBfb6PROU5SWv5tUerzAf76oPRwsUGLCqQYdJMg jDym5Dg+Ltf2NTssekMcA7vsAhw+8O8diyel0=
- In-reply-to: <110507121112.ZM9261@torch.brasslantern.com>
- List-help: <mailto:zsh-workers-help@zsh.org>
- List-id: Zsh Workers List <zsh-workers.zsh.org>
- List-post: <mailto:zsh-workers@zsh.org>
- Mailing-list: contact zsh-workers-help@xxxxxxx; run by ezmlm
- References: <BANLkTinRzKaUNfzA0K3SsfnvWoU1o+UVDg@mail.gmail.com> <110507121112.ZM9261@torch.brasslantern.com>
On 7 May 2011 21:11, Bart Schaefer <schaefer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On May 7, 7:00pm, Mikael Magnusson wrote:
> } Subject: the source of slow large for loops
> }
> } I don't know if anyone looked into why things like
> } for i in {1..700000}; do true; done
> } is extremely slow in zsh, so I did now. Turns out zhalloc is extremely
> } slow
>
> Hmm ... I think you've misdiagnosed. zhalloc() is reasonably fast.
> What's amazingly slow is freeheap(). If I stick a "return;" at the
> top of freeheap() the above loop runs in just over 4 seconds on my
> 3GHz P4. (AFAICT the memory is still eventually freed by popheap(),
> it just grows a lot more before releasing any.)
Ah, and when I made zhalloc a nop, freeheap() is fast again because
there are no heaps.
> } and for the above loop, one particular line runs 12049901132
> } times according to gcov.
>
> It would have been nice if you'd told us which line. :-) However, I
> don't think that's actually the problem. There are a couple of places
> where zhalloc() and friends search the heap for free space by doing a
> linear scan over a linked list, which will cause a huge number of loop
> iterations, but each of those iterations is at most a couple of machine
> instructions. You need to look at how much time something takes, not
> just how often it's done.
Yeah, I actually tried gprof first, but I was unable to start zsh
then, it just exited with "profile signal" or something like that.
> The real time sink is this bit of freeheap():
>
> for (h = heaps; h; h = hn) {
> hn = h->next;
> if (h->sp) {
> #ifdef ZSH_MEM_DEBUG
> memset(arena(h) + h->sp->used, 0xff, h->used - h->sp->used);
> #endif
> h->used = h->sp->used;
> if (!fheap && h->used < ARENA_SIZEOF(h))
> fheap = h;
> hl = h;
> } else {
> #ifdef USE_MMAP
> munmap((void *) h, h->size);
> #else
> zfree(h, HEAPSIZE);
> #endif
> }
> }
>
> Of course if you've used --enable-zsh-mem-debug for configure then this
> is also zeroing all the memory on each free and the performance is even
> worse, but that isn't really the issue.
>
> Most specifically, take out the stuff inside "if (h->sp)" and the above
> 700k-iterations loop runs in 11 seconds.
>
> If I understand what's going on here ...
>
> Index: Src/mem.c
> ===================================================================
> RCS file: /extra/cvsroot/zsh/zsh-4.0/Src/mem.c,v
> retrieving revision 1.10
> diff -c -r1.10 mem.c
> --- Src/mem.c 4 Nov 2008 04:47:53 -0000 1.10
> +++ Src/mem.c 7 May 2011 19:06:23 -0000
> @@ -220,8 +220,28 @@
> h_free++;
> #endif
>
> + /* At this point we used to do:
> fheap = NULL;
> - for (h = heaps; h; h = hn) {
> + *
> + * When pushheap() is called, it sweeps over the entire heaps list of
> + * arenas and marks every one of them with the amount of free space in
> + * that arena at that moment. zhalloc() is then allowed to grab bits
> + * out of any of those arenas that have free space.
> + *
> + * With the above reset of fheap, the loop below sweeps back over the
> + * entire heap list again, resetting the free space in every arena to
> + * the amount stashed by pushheap() and finding the first arena with
> + * free space to optimize zhalloc()'s next search. When there's a lot
> + * of stuff already on the heap, this is an enormous amount of work,
> + * and peformance goes to hell.
> + *
> + * However, there doesn't seem to be any reason to reset fheap before
> + * beginning this loop. Either it's already correct, or it has never
> + * been set and this loop will do it, or it'll be reset from scratch
> + * on the next popheap(). So all that's needed here is to pick up
> + * the scan wherever the last pass [or the last popheap()] left off.
> + */
> + for (h = (fheap ? fheap : heaps); h; h = hn) {
> hn = h->next;
> if (h->sp) {
> #ifdef ZSH_MEM_DEBUG
> @@ -242,7 +262,7 @@
> if (hl)
> hl->next = NULL;
> else
> - heaps = NULL;
> + heaps = fheap = NULL;
>
> unqueue_signals();
> }
--
Mikael Magnusson
Messages sorted by:
Reverse Date,
Date,
Thread,
Author