- html - 出于某种原因,IE8 对我的 Sass 文件中继承的 html5 CSS 不友好?
- JMeter 在响应断言中使用 span 标签的问题
- html - 在 :hover and :active? 上具有不同效果的 CSS 动画
- html - 相对于居中的 html 内容固定的 CSS 重复背景?
最近的一次讨论让我想知道原子增量与常规整数增量相比有多昂贵。
我写了一些代码来尝试对此进行基准测试:
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <chrono>
static const int NUM_TEST_RUNS = 100000;
static const int ARRAY_SIZE = 500;
void runBenchmark(std::atomic<int>& atomic_count, int* count_array, int array_size, bool do_atomic_increment){
for(int i = 0; i < array_size; ++i){
++count_array[i];
}
if(do_atomic_increment){
++atomic_count;
}
}
int main(int argc, char* argv[]){
int num_test_runs = NUM_TEST_RUNS;
int array_size = ARRAY_SIZE;
if(argc == 3){
num_test_runs = atoi(argv[1]);
array_size = atoi(argv[2]);
}
if(num_test_runs == 0 || array_size == 0){
std::cout << "Usage: atomic_operation_overhead <num_test_runs> <num_integers_in_array>" << std::endl;
return 1;
}
// Instantiate atomic counter
std::atomic<int> atomic_count;
// Allocate the integer buffer that will be updated every time
int* count_array = new int[array_size];
// Track the time elapsed in case of incrmeenting with mutex locking
auto start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
for(int i = 0; i < num_test_runs; ++i){
runBenchmark(atomic_count, count_array, array_size, true);
}
auto end = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
// Calculate time elapsed for incrementing without mutex locking
auto diff_with_lock = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(end - start);
std::cout << "Elapsed time with atomic increment for "
<< num_test_runs << " test runs: "
<< diff_with_lock.count() << " ns" << std::endl;
// Track the time elapsed in case of incrementing without a mutex locking
start = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
for(unsigned int i = 0; i < num_test_runs; ++i){
runBenchmark(atomic_count, count_array, array_size, false);
}
end = std::chrono::steady_clock::now();
// Calculate time elapsed for incrementing without mutex locking
auto diff_without_lock = std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(end - start);
std::cout << "Elapsed time without atomic increment for "
<< num_test_runs << " test runs: "
<< diff_without_lock.count() << " ns" << std::endl;
auto difference_running_times = diff_with_lock - diff_without_lock;
auto proportion = difference_running_times.count() / (double)diff_without_lock.count();
std::cout << "How much slower was locking: " << proportion * 100.0 << " %" << std::endl;
// We loop over all entries in the array and print their sum
// We do this mainly to prevent the compiler from optimizing out
// the loop where we increment all the values in the array
int array_sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < array_size; ++i){
array_sum += count_array[i];
}
std::cout << "Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): " << array_sum << std::endl;
delete [] count_array;
return 0;
}
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 99852 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 96396 ns
How much slower was locking: 3.58521 %
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 182769 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 138319 ns
How much slower was locking: 32.1359 %
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 98858 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 96404 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.54554 %
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 107848 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 105174 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.54245 %
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 113865 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 100559 ns
How much slower was locking: 13.232 %
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 1000 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 98956 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 1000 test runs: 106639 ns
How much slower was locking: -7.20468 %
Intel® Core™ i7-4700MQ CPU @ 2.40GHz × 8
8GB RAM
GNU/Linux:Ubuntu LTS 14.04 (64 bit)
GCC version: 4.8.4
Compilation: g++ -std=c++11 -O3 atomic_operation_overhead.cpp -o atomic_operation_overhead
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7111974931 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 6938317779 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.50287 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7424952991 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7262721866 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.23375 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7172114343 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7030985219 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.00725 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7094552104 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 6971060941 ns
How much slower was locking: 1.77148 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7099907902 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 6970289856 ns
How much slower was locking: 1.85958 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7763604675 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7229145316 ns
How much slower was locking: 7.39312 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7164534212 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 6994993609 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.42374 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
balajeerc@Balajee:~/Projects/Misc$ ./atomic_operation_overhead 99999999 500
Elapsed time with atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 7154697145 ns
Elapsed time without atomic increment for 99999999 test runs: 6997030700 ns
How much slower was locking: 2.25333 %
Array sum (just to prevent loop getting optimized out): 1215751192
最佳答案
一些想法:
关于c++11 - 测量原子增量与常规整数增量相比有多慢,我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32687523/
自己试试看: import pandas as pd s=pd.Series(xrange(5000000)) %timeit s.loc[[0]] # You need pandas 0.15.1
我最近开始使用 Delphi 中的 DataSnap 来生成 RESTful Web 服务。在遵循 Marco Cantu 本人和互联网上其他几个人的指导后,我成功地使整个“链条”正常工作。 但是有一
我一直在为操作系统类(class)编写以下代码,但结果有些奇怪。该代码创建x线程并同时运行它们,以便将两个平方矩阵相乘。每个线程将输入矩阵的Number_of_rows/Number_of_threa
我正在尝试确定何时使用 parallel包以加快运行某些分析所需的时间。我需要做的一件事是创建矩阵,比较具有不同行数的两个数据框中的变量。我在 StackOverflow 上问了一个关于有效方法的问题
我最近对我的代码进行了一些清理,并在此过程中更改了此内容(不完全是真实的代码): read = act readSTRef test1 term i var = do t v^!terms.
我正在计时查询和同一个查询的执行时间,分页。 foreach (var x in productSource.OrderBy(p => p.AdminDisplayName) .Wher
我正在开发一个项目 (WPF),我有一个 Datagrid 从数据库加载超过 5000 条记录,所以我使用 BackgroundWorker 来通知用户数据正在加载,但它太慢了,我需要等待将近 2分钟
我在查询中添加 ORDER BY 时遇到问题。没有 ORDER BY 查询大约需要 26ms,一旦我添加 ORDER BY,它大约需要 20s。 我尝试了几种不同的方法,但似乎可以减少时间。 尝试 F
我是 Android 开发新手,遇到了性能问题。当我的 GridView 有太多项目时,它会变得有点慢。有什么方法可以让它运行得更快一些吗? 这是我使用的代码: 适配器: public class C
这里的要点是: 1.设置query_cache_type = 0;重置查询缓存; 2.在 heidisql(或任何其他客户端 UI)中运行任何查询 --> 执行,例如 45 毫秒 3.使用以下代码运行
想象下表: CREATE TABLE drops( id BIGSERIAL PRIMARY KEY, loc VARCHAR(5) NOT NULL, tag INT NOT
我的表 test_table 中的示例数据: date symbol value created_time 2010-01-09 symbol1
首先,如果已经有人问过这个问题,我深表歉意,至少我找不到任何东西。 无论如何,我将每 5 分钟运行一次 cron 任务。该脚本加载 79 个外部页面,而每个页面包含大约 200 个我需要在数据库中检查
我有下面的 SQL 代码,它来自 MySQL 数据库。现在它给了我期望的结果,但是查询很慢,我想我应该在进一步之前加快这个查询的速度。 表agentstatusinformation有: PKEY(主
我需要获取一个对象在 Core Data 中数千个其他对象之间的排名。现在,这是我的代码: - (void)rankMethod { //Fetch all objects NSFet
我正在编写一个应用程序,我需要在其中读取用户的地址簿并显示他所有联系人的列表。我正在测试的 iPhone 有大约 100 个联系人,加载联系人确实需要很多时间。 ABAddressBookRef ad
我正在使用 javascript 将 160 行添加到包含 10 列的表格中。如果我这样做: var cellText = document.createTextNode(value); cell.a
我是 Swift 的新手,我已经设置了一个 tableView,它从 JSON 提要中提取数据并将其加载到表中。 表格加载正常,但是当表格中有超过 10 个单元格时,它会变得缓慢且有些滞后,特别是它到
我在 InitializeCulture 和 Page_PreInit 事件之间的 asp.net 页面中遇到性能问题。当我重写 DeterminePostBackMode() 时,我发现问题出在 b
我在 Hetzner 上有一个带有 256GB RAM 6 个 CPU(12 个线程) 的专用服务器,它位于德国。我有 CENTOS 7.5。 EA4。 我的问题是 SSL。每天大约 2 小时,我们在
我是一名优秀的程序员,十分优秀!