I was trying to calculate the time required to sample 7680 bit primes in FLINT library. I had a loop running for 100 iterations and finally calculated the average time required. On my mac, the below code took more than 5 hours to run (I left the code running in mac at 2:00clock without closing the lid. When I saw again at 7:00clock, the code is still running). But finally, it showed an output of "33.3442" seconds. How is this possible?
#include "fmpz.h"
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
using namespace std;
using namespace std::chrono;
int main() {
int count = 100;
int length = 7680;
fmpz_t primes[count];
flint_rand_t state;
flint_randinit(state);
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
fmpz_init(primes[i]);
auto start = high_resolution_clock::now();
for (int i = 0; i < count; i++)
{
while (true)
{
fmpz_randbits(primes[i], state, length);
if (fmpz_is_probabprime(primes[i]))
break;
}
}
auto stop = high_resolution_clock::now();
auto duration = duration_cast<microseconds>(stop - start);
cout << "Generating random primes of length " << length << " " << ((double)duration.count()/1000000)/count << endl;
}
Related
This question already has answers here:
C++: Timing in Linux (using clock()) is out of sync (due to OpenMP?)
(3 answers)
Closed 4 months ago.
I'm trying to test the speed up of OpenMP on an array sum program.
The elements are generated using random generator to avoid optimization.
The length of array is also set large enough to indicate the performance difference.
This program is built using g++ -fopenmp -g -O0 -o main main.cpp, -g -O0 are used to avoid optimization.
However OpenMP parallel for code is significant slower than sequential code.
Test result:
Your thread count is: 12
Filling arrays
filling time：66718888
Now running omp code
2thread omp time:11154095
result: 4294903886
Now running omp code
4thread omp time:10832414
result: 4294903886
Now running omp code
6thread omp time:11165054
result: 4294903886
Now running sequential code
sequential time: 3525371
result: 4294903886
#include <iostream>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <omp.h>
#include <ctime>
#include <random>
using namespace std;
long long llsum(char *vec, size_t size, int threadCount) {
long long result = 0;
size_t i;
#pragma omp parallel for num_threads(threadCount) reduction(+: result) schedule(guided)
for (i = 0; i < size; ++i) {
result += vec[i];
}
return result;
}
int main(int argc, char **argv) {
int threadCount = 12;
omp_set_num_threads(threadCount);
cout << "Your thread count is: " << threadCount << endl;
const size_t TEST_SIZE = 8000000000;
char *testArray = new char[TEST_SIZE];
std::mt19937 rng;
rng.seed(std::random_device()());
std::uniform_int_distribution<std::mt19937::result_type> dist6(0, 4);
cout << "Filling arrays\n";
auto fillingStartTime = clock();
for (int i = 0; i < TEST_SIZE; ++i) {
testArray[i] = dist6(rng);
}
auto fillingEndTime = clock();
auto fillingTime = fillingEndTime - fillingStartTime;
cout << "filling time：" << fillingTime << endl;
// test omp time
for (int i = 1; i <= 3; ++i) {
cout << "Now running omp code\n";
auto ompStartTime = clock();
auto ompResult = llsum(testArray, TEST_SIZE, i * 2);
auto ompEndTime = clock();
auto ompTime = ompEndTime - ompStartTime;
cout << i * 2 << "thread omp time:" << ompTime << endl << "result: " << ompResult << endl;
}
// test sequential addition time
cout << "Now running sequential code\n";
auto seqStartTime = clock();
long long expectedResult = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < TEST_SIZE; ++i) {
expectedResult += testArray[i];
}
auto seqEndTime = clock();
auto seqTime = seqEndTime - seqStartTime;
cout << "sequential time: " << seqTime << endl << "result: " << expectedResult << endl;
delete[]testArray;
return 0;
}
As pointed out by #High Performance Mark, I should use omp_get_wtime() instead of clock().
clock() is 'active processor time', not 'elapsed time.
See
OpenMP time and clock() give two different results
https://en.cppreference.com/w/c/chrono/clock
After using omp_get_wtime(), and fixing the int i to size_t i, the result is more meaningful:
Your thread count is: 12
Filling arrays
filling time：267.038
Now running omp code
2thread omp time:26.1421
result: 15999820788
Now running omp code
4thread omp time:7.16911
result: 15999820788
Now running omp code
6thread omp time:5.66505
result: 15999820788
Now running sequential code
sequential time: 30.4056
result: 15999820788
What I want to do, my project:
I want to make a program that waits 0.5 seconds, for example, does something, let's say cout << "Hello World", once and then again the same for about 10 times(this is a test for another program), but without sleep, sleep_for, sleep or anything similar BCS I don't want the processor to actually sleep, BCS at that time the processor does not just wait, it does nothing for that time, for these 0.5 seconds it does nothing and I don't want that, and the main reason is BCS it also doesn't take input.
What I tried:
What I tried was to keep two points in time(time_point start,end), duration_cast their difference (end - start) in a for loop ((int i = 0;i < 10;i++)), and if their difference was 500 milliseconds, then, cout << "Hello World\n";.
My code looked something like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
using namespace chrono;
int main()
{
time_point<steady_clock> t = steady_clock::now():
for (int i = 0; i < 10;)
{
duration<double> d = steady_clock::now() - t;
uint32_t a = duration_cast<milliseconds>(d).count();
if (a >= 500)
{
cout << a << " Hello World!" << endl;
t = steady_clock::now();
i++;
}
}
return 0;
}
My problem:
It overflows, most of the time, I don't know what exactly overflows, but a appears to be sometimes 6??? others 47??? (? = some digit)
I tried many things, I ended up to something like this:
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
#include <ctime>
using namespace std;
using namespace chrono;
int main()
{
time_point<high_resolution_clock> t = high_resolution_clock::now();
for (int i = 0; i< 10;)
{
duration<double,ratio<1,1000000>> d = high_resolution_clock::now() - t;
uint32_t a = duration_cast<microseconds>(d).count();
if (d >= microseconds(500000) )
{
cout << a << " Hello World!" << endl;
i++;
t = high_resolution_clock::now();
}
}
return 0;
}
It didn't really solve the problem, but the max value appears is `~1500(1500000 in microseconds) and when it happens it takes longer to print the message, I don't know if its still overflow, to be honest, but...
Question
Anyway, do you have any suggestions about how to stop the overflow or a completely different way to achieve what I want, even if you don't, thanks for spending time to read my question, I hope to express someone else's question if there someone who has the same question as me.
Not sure if this is what you're looking for or not. But if not, maybe we can build on this to figure out what you want:
#include <chrono>
#include <iostream>
int
main()
{
using namespace std;
using namespace std::chrono;
auto t = steady_clock::now();
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
{
auto t1 = t + 500ms;
while (steady_clock::now() < t1)
;
cout << duration<double>(t1-t).count() << " Hello World!" << endl;
t = t1;
}
}
The code sets a time_point for 500ms in the future, and then enters a busy loop until that future time_point is now.
my first post here. Just wondering why my stopwatch is always showing 0 seconds or 0 milliseconds no matter the amount of random numbers in my array. I appreciate the help so much.
Here's my code:
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdlib>
#include <time.h>
using namespace std;
double clock_start()
{
clock_t start = clock();
return start;
}
void random_number()
{
int array[10000];
srand(6);
cout << "10k Random numbers: ";
for (int i = 0; i < 10000; i++)
{
array[i] = rand() % 99 + 1;
cout << array[i] << "\n";
}
}
int main()
{
setlocale(LC_ALL, "");
//-------------------------//
random_number();
clock_t elapsed = (clock() - clock_start()) / (CLOCKS_PER_SEC / 1000);
cout << "Stopwatch: " << elapsed << "ms" << " or " << elapsed * 1000 << "s" << endl;
//-------------------------//
system("pause > nul");
return 0;
}
(clock() - clock_start()) will be evaluated in the blink of an eye.
All clock_start() does is return clock(). (In fact, a good optimising compiler will replace clock_start() with clock() !)
The difference will almost certainly be zero. Did you want something like
clock_t start = clock();
random_number();
clock_t elapsed = (clock() - start) / (CLOCKS_PER_SEC / 1000);
instead?
Thanks for the help guys! I'm amazed how fast this community is at replying.
So i deleted the clock_start() function. And i added the:
clock_t start = clock();
to my main function.
I have following which stop execution of program after certain time.
#include <iostream>
#include<ctime>
using namespace std;
int main( )
{
time_t timer1;
time(&timer1);
time_t timer2;
double second;
while(1)
{
time(&timer2);
second = difftime(timer2,timer1);
//check if timediff is cross 3 seconds
if(second > 3)
{
return 0;
}
}
return 0;
}
Is above program would work if time increase from 23:59 to 00:01 ?
If there any other better way?
Provided you have C++11, you can have a look at this example:
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
int main() {
std::this_thread::sleep_for (std::chrono::seconds(3));
return 0;
}
Alternatively I'd go with a threading library of your choice and use its Thread sleep function. In most cases it is better to send your thread to sleep instead of busy waiting.
time() returns the time since the Epoch (00:00:00 UTC, January 1, 1970), measured in seconds. Thus, the time of day does not matter.
You can use std::chrono::steady_clock in C++11. Check the example in the now static method for an example :
using namespace std::chrono;
steady_clock::time_point clock_begin = steady_clock::now();
std::cout << "printing out 1000 stars...\n";
for (int i=0; i<1000; ++i) std::cout << "*";
std::cout << std::endl;
steady_clock::time_point clock_end = steady_clock::now();
steady_clock::duration time_span = clock_end - clock_begin;
double nseconds = double(time_span.count()) * steady_clock::period::num / steady_clock::period::den;
std::cout << "It took me " << nseconds << " seconds.";
std::cout << std::endl;
How do I call clock() in C++?
For example, I want to test how much time a linear search takes to find a given element in an array.
#include <iostream>
#include <cstdio>
#include <ctime>
int main() {
std::clock_t start;
double duration;
start = std::clock();
/* Your algorithm here */
duration = ( std::clock() - start ) / (double) CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
std::cout<<"printf: "<< duration <<'\n';
}
An alternative solution, which is portable and with higher precision, available since C++11, is to use std::chrono.
Here is an example:
#include <iostream>
#include <chrono>
typedef std::chrono::high_resolution_clock Clock;
int main()
{
auto t1 = Clock::now();
auto t2 = Clock::now();
std::cout << "Delta t2-t1: "
<< std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::nanoseconds>(t2 - t1).count()
<< " nanoseconds" << std::endl;
}
Running this on ideone.com gave me:
Delta t2-t1: 282 nanoseconds
clock() returns the number of clock ticks since your program started. There is a related constant, CLOCKS_PER_SEC, which tells you how many clock ticks occur in one second. Thus, you can test any operation like this:
clock_t startTime = clock();
doSomeOperation();
clock_t endTime = clock();
clock_t clockTicksTaken = endTime - startTime;
double timeInSeconds = clockTicksTaken / (double) CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
On Windows at least, the only practically accurate measurement mechanism is QueryPerformanceCounter (QPC). std::chrono is implemented using it (since VS2015, if you use that), but it is not accurate to the same degree as using QueryPerformanceCounter directly. In particular it's claim to report at 1 nanosecond granularity is absolutely not correct. So, if you're measuring something that takes a very short amount of time (and your case might just be such a case), then you should use QPC, or the equivalent for your OS. I came up against this when measuring cache latencies, and I jotted down some notes that you might find useful, here;
https://github.com/jarlostensen/notesandcomments/blob/master/stdchronovsqcp.md
#include <iostream>
#include <ctime>
#include <cstdlib> //_sleep() --- just a function that waits a certain amount of milliseconds
using namespace std;
int main()
{
clock_t cl; //initializing a clock type
cl = clock(); //starting time of clock
_sleep(5167); //insert code here
cl = clock() - cl; //end point of clock
_sleep(1000); //testing to see if it actually stops at the end point
cout << cl/(double)CLOCKS_PER_SEC << endl; //prints the determined ticks per second (seconds passed)
return 0;
}
//outputs "5.17"
You can measure how long your program works. The following functions help measure the CPU time since the start of the program:
C++ (double)clock() / CLOCKS_PER_SEC with ctime included.
Python time.clock() returns floating-point value in seconds.
Java System.nanoTime() returns long value in nanoseconds.
My reference: algorithms toolbox week 1 course part of data structures and algorithms specialization by University of California San Diego & National Research University Higher School of Economics
So you can add this line of code after your algorithm:
cout << (double)clock() / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
Expected Output: the output representing the number of clock ticks per second
Probably you might be interested in timer like this :
H : M : S . Msec.
the code in Linux OS:
#include <iostream>
#include <unistd.h>
using namespace std;
void newline();
int main() {
int msec = 0;
int sec = 0;
int min = 0;
int hr = 0;
//cout << "Press any key to start:";
//char start = _gtech();
for (;;)
{
newline();
if(msec == 1000)
{
++sec;
msec = 0;
}
if(sec == 60)
{
++min;
sec = 0;
}
if(min == 60)
{
++hr;
min = 0;
}
cout << hr << " : " << min << " : " << sec << " . " << msec << endl;
++msec;
usleep(100000);
}
return 0;
}
void newline()
{
cout << "\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n";
}