Related
I'm having trouble refactoring my C++ code. The code itself is barely 200 lines, if even, however, being an image processing affair, it loops a lot, and the roadblocks I'm encoutering (I assume) deal with very gritty details (e.g. memory access).
The program produces a correct output, but is supposed to ultimately run in realtime. Initially, it took ~3 minutes per 320x240px frame, but it's at around 2 seconds now (running approximately as fast on mid-range workstation and low-end laptop hardware; red flag?). Still a far cry from 24 times per second, however. Basically, any change I make propagates through the millions of repetitions, and tracking my beginner mistakes has become exponentially more cumbersome as I approach the realtime mark.
At 2 points, the program calculates a less computationally expensive variant of Euclidean distance, called taxicab distance (the sum of absolute differences).
Now, the abridged version:
std::vector<int> positiveRows, positiveCols;
/* looping through pixels, reading values */
distance = (abs(pValues[0] - qValues[0]) + abs(pValues[1] - qValues[1]) + abs(pValues[2] - qValues[2]));
if(distance < threshold)
{
positiveRows.push_back(row);
positiveCols.push_back(col);
}
If I wrap the functionality, as follows:
int taxicab_dist(int Lp,
int ap,
int bp,
int Lq,
int aq,
int bq)
{
return (abs(Lp - Lq) + abs(ap - aq) + abs(bp - bq));
}
and call it from within the same .cpp file, there is no performance degradation. If I instead declare and define it in separate .hpp / .cpp files, I get a significant slowdown. This directly opposes what I've been told in my undergraduate courses ("including a file is the same as copy-pasting it"). The closest I've gotten to the original code's performance was by declaring the arguments const, but it still takes ~100ms longer, which my judgement says is not affordable for such a meager task. Then again, I don't see why it slows down (significantly) if I also make them const int&. Then, when I do the most sensible thing, and choose to take arrays as arguments, again I take a performance hit. I don't even dare attempt any templating shenanigans, or try making the function modify its behavior so that it accepts an arbitrary number of pairs, at least not until I understand what I've gotten myself into.
So my question is: how can take the calculation definition to a separate file, and have it perform the same as the original solution? Furthermore, should the fact that compilers are optimizing my program to run 2 seconds instead of 15 be a huge red flag (bad algorithm design, not using more exotic C++ keywords / features)?
I'm guessing the main reason why I've failed to find an answer is because I don't know what is the name of this stuff. I've heard the terms "vectorization" tossed around quite a bit in the HPC community. Would this be related to that?
If it helps in any way at all, the code it its entirety can be found here.
As Joachim Pileborg says, you should profile first. Find out where in your program most of the execution time occurs. This is the place where you should optimize.
Reserving space in vector
Vectors start out small and then reallocate as necessary. This involves allocating a larger space in memory and then copying the old elements to the new vector. Finally deallocating the memory. The std::vector has the capability of reserving space upon construction. For large sizes of vectors, this can be a time saver, eliminating many reallocations.
Compiling with speed optimizations
With modern compilers, you should set the optimizations for high speed and see what they can do. The compiler writers have many tricks up their sleeve and can often spot locations to optimize that you or I miss.
Truth is assembly language
You will need to view the assembly language listing. If the assembly language shows only two instructions in the area you think is the bottleneck, you really can't get faster.
Loop unrolling
You may be able to get more performance by copying the content in a for loop many times. This is called loop unrolling. In some processors, branch or jump instructions cost more execution time than data processing instructions. Unrolling a loop reduces the number of executed branch instructions. Again, the compiler may automatically perform this when you raise the optimization level.
Data cache optimization
Search the web for "Data cache optimization". Loading and unloading the data cache wastes time. If your data can fit into the processor's data cache, it doesn't have to keep loading an unloading (called cache misses). Also remember to perform all your operations on the data in one place before performing other operations. This reduces the likelihood of the processor reloading the cache.
Multi-processor computing
If your platform has more than one processor, such as a Graphics Processing Unit (GPU), you may be able to delegate some tasks to it. Be aware that you have also added time by communicating with the other processor. So for small tasks, the communications overhead may waste the time you gained by delegating.
Parallel computing
Similar to multi-processors, you can have the Operating System delegate the tasks. The OS could delegate to different cores in your processor (if you have a multi-core processor) or it runs it in another thread. Again there is a cost: overhead of managing the task or thread and communications.
Summary
The three rules of Optimization:
Don't
Don't
Profile
After you profile, review the area where the most execution takes place. This will gain you more time than optimizing a section that never gets called. Design optimizations will generally get you more time than code optimizations. Likewise, requirement changes (such as elimination) may gain you more time than design optimizations.
After your program is working correctly and is robust, you can optimize, only if warranted. If your UI is so slow that the User can go get a cup of coffee, it is a good place to optimize. If you gain 100 milliseconds by optimizing data transfer, but your program waits 1 second for the human response, you have not gained anything. Consider this as driving really fast to a stop sign. Regardless of your speed, you still have to stop.
If you still need performance gain, search the web for "Optimizations c++", or "data optimizations" or "performance optimization".
Some very expencied programmer from another company told me about some low-level code-optimzation tips that targetting specific CPU, including pipeline-optimzation, which means, arrange the code (inlined assembly, obviously) in special orders such that it fit the pipeline better for the targetting hardware.
With the presence of out-of-order and speculative execuation, I just wonder is there any points to do this kind of low-level stuff? We are mostly invovled in high performance computing, so we can really focus on one very specific CPU type to do our optimzation, but I just dont know if there is any point to do this specific optimzation, anyone has any experience here, where to begin? are there any code examples for this kind of optimzation? many thanks!
I'll start by saying that the compiler will usually optimize code sufficiently (i.e. well enough) that you do not need to worry about this provided your high-level code and algorithms are optimized. In general, manual optimizing should only happen if you have hard evidence that there is an actual performance issue that you can quantify and have tracked down.
Now, with that said, it's always possible to improve things - sometimes a little, sometimes a lot.
If you are in the high-performance computing game, then this sort of optimization might make sense. There are all sorts of "tricks" that can be done, but they are best left to real experts and not for the faint of heart.
If you really want to know more about this topic, a good place to start is by reading Agner Fog's website.
Pipeline optimization will improve your programs performance:
Branches and jumps may force your processor to reload the instruction pipeline, which takes some time. This time could be devoted to data processing instructions.
Some platform independent methods for pipeline optimizations:
Reduce number of branches.
Use Boolean Arithmetic
Set up code to allow for conditional execution of instructions.
Unroll loops.
Make loops have short content (that can fit in a processor's cache
without loading).
Edit 1: Other optimizations
Reduce code by eliminating features and requirements.
Review and optimize the design.
Review implementation for more efficient implementations.
Revert to assembly language only when all other optimizations have
provided little performance improvement; optimize only the code that
is executed 80% of the time; find out by profiling.
Edit 2: Data Optimizations
You can also gain performance improvements by organizing your data. Search the web for "Data Driven Design" or "Optimize performance data".
One idea is that the most frequently used data should be close together and ultimately fit into the processor's data cache. This will reduce the frequency that the processor has to reload its data cache.
Another optimization is to: Load data (into registers), operate on data, then write all data back to memory. The idea here is to trigger the processor's data cache loading circuitry before it processes the data (or registers).
If you can, organize the data to fit in one "line" of your processor's cache. Sequential locations require less time than random access locations.
There are always things that "help" vs. "hinder" the execution in the pipeline, but for most general purpose code that isn't highly specialized, I would expect that performance from compiled code is about as good as the best you can get without highly specialized code for each model of processor. If you have a controlled system, where all of your machines are using the same (or a small number of similar) processor model, and you know that 99% of the time is spent in this particular function, then there may be a benefit to optimizing that particular function to become more efficient.
In your case, it being HPC, it may well be beneficial to handwrite some of the low-level code (e.g. matrix multiplication) to be optimized for the processor you are running on. This does take some reasonable amount of understanding of the processor however, so you need to study the optimization guides for that processor model, and if you can, talk to people who've worked on that processor before.
Some of the things you'd look at is "register to register dependencies" - where you need the result of c = a + b to calculate x = c + d - so you try to separate these with some other useful work, such that the calculation of x doesn't get held up by the c = a + b calculation.
Cache-prefetching and generally caring for how the caches are used is also a useful thing to look at - not kicking useful cached data out that you need 100 instructions later, when you are storing the resulting 1MB array that won't be used again for several seconds can be worth a lot of processor time.
It's hard(er) to control these things when compilers decide to shuffle it around in it's own optimisation, so handwritten assembler is pretty much the only way to go.
Good Day,
Suppose that you have a simple for loop like below...
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
//statement 1
//statement 2
}
Assume that statement 1 and statement 2 were O(1). Besides the small overhead of "starting" another loop, would breaking down that for loop into two (not nested, but sequential) loops be as equally fast? For example...
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
//statement 1
}
for(int i=0;i<10;i++)
{
//statement 2
}
Why I ask such a silly question is that I have a Collision Detection System(CDS) that has to loop through all the objects. I want to "compartmentalize" the functionality of my CDS system so I can simply call
cds.update(objectlist);
instead of having to break my cds system up. (Don't worry too much about my CDS implementation... I think I know what I am doing, I just don't know how to explain it, what I really need to know is if I take a huge performance hit for looping through all my objects again.
It depends on your application.
Possible Drawbacks (of splitting):
your data does not fit into the L1 data cache, therefore you load it once for the first loop and then reload it for the second loop
Possible Gains (of splitting):
your loop contains many variables, splitting helps reducing register/stack pressure and the optimizer turns it into better machine code
the functions you use trash the L1 instruction cache so the cache is loaded on each iteration, while by splitting you manage into loading it once (only) at the first iteration of each loop
These lists are certainly not comprehensive, but already you can sense that there is a tension between code and data. So it is difficult for us to take an educated/a wild guess when we know neither.
In doubt: profile. Use callgrind, check the cache misses in each case, check the number of instructions executed. Measure the time spent.
In terms of algorithmic complexity splitting the loops makes no difference.
In terms of real world performance splitting the loops could improve performance, worsen performance or make no difference - it depends on the OS, hardware and - of course - what statement 1 and statement 2 are.
As noted, the complexity remains.
But in the real world, it is impossible for us to predict which version runs faster. The following are factors that play roles, huge ones:
Data caching
Instruction caching
Speculative execution
Branch prediction
Branch target buffers
Number of available registers on the CPU
Cache sizes
(note: over all of them, there's the Damocles sword of misprediction; all are wikipedizable and googlable)
Especially the last factor makes it sometimes impossible to compile the one true code for code whose performance relies on specific cache sizes. Some applications will run faster on CPU with huge caches, while running slower on small caches, and for some other applications it will be the opposite.
Solutions:
Let your compiler do the job of loop transformation. Modern g++'s are quite good in that discipline. Another discipline that g++ is good at is automatic vectorization. Be aware that compilers know more about computer architecture than almost all people.
Ship different binaries and a dispatcher.
Use cache-oblivious data structures/layouts and algorithms that adapt to the target cache.
It is always a good idea to endeavor for software that adapts to the target, ideally without sacrificing code quality. And before doing manual optimization, either microscopic or macroscopic, measure real world runs, then and only then optimize.
Literature:
* Agner Fog's Guides
* Intel's Guides
With two loops you will be paying for:
increased generated code size
2x as many branch predicts
depending what the data layout of statement 1 and 2 are you could be reloading data into cache.
The last point could have a huge impact in either direction. You should measure as with any perf optimization.
As far as the big-o complexity is concerned, this doesn't make a difference if 1 loop is O(n), then so is the 2 loop solution.
As far as micro-optimisation, it is hard to say. The cost of a loop is rather small, we don't know what the cost of accessing your objects is (if they are in a vector, then it should be rather small too), but there is a lot to consider to give a useful answer.
You're correct in noting that there will be some performance overhead by creating a second loop. Therefore, it cannot be "equally fast"; as this overhead, while small, is still overhead.
I won't try to speak intelligently about how collision systems should be built, but if you're trying to optimize performance it's better to avoid building unnecessary control structures if you can manage it without pulling your hair out.
Remember that premature optimization is one of the worst things you can do. Worry about optimization when you have a performance problem, in my opinion.
I'm trying to get a good definition of realtime, near realtime and batch? I am not talking about sync and async although to me, they are different dimensions. Here is what I'm thinking
Realtime is sync web services or async web services.
Near realtime could be JMS or messaging systems or most event driven systems.
Batch to me is more of an timed system that is processing when it wakes up.
Give examples of each and feel free to fix my assumptions.
https://stackoverflow.com/tags/real-time/info
Real-Time
Real-time means that the time of an activity's completion is part of its functional correctness. For example, the sqrt() function's correctness is something like
The sqrt() function is implemented
correctly if, for all x >=0, sqrt(x) =
y implies y^2 == x.
In this setting, the time it takes to execute the sqrt() procedure is not part of its functional correctness. A faster algorithm may be better in some qualitative sense, but no more or less correct.
Suppose we have a mythical function called sqrtrt(), a real-time version of square root. Imagine, for instance, we need to compute the square root of velocity in order to properly execute the next brake application in an anti-lock braking system. In this setting, we might say instead:
The sqrtrt() function is implemented
correctly if
for all x >=0, sqrtrt(x) =
y implies y^2 == x and
sqrtrt() returns a result in <= 275 microseconds.
In this case, the time constraint is not merely a performance parameter. If sqrtrt() fails to complete in 275 microseconds, you may be late applying the brakes, triggering either a skid or reduced braking efficiency, possibly resulting in an accident. The time constraint is part of the functional correctness of the routine. Lift this up a few layers, and you get a real-time system as one (at least partially) composed of activities that have timeliness as part of their functional correctness conditions.
Near Real-Time
A near real-time system is one in which activities completion times, responsiveness, or perceived latency when measured against wall clock time are important aspects of system quality. The canonical example of this is a stock ticker system -- you want to get quotes reasonably quickly after the price changes. For most of us non-high-speed-traders, what this means is that the perceived delay between data being available and our seeing it is negligible.
The difference between "real-time" and "near real-time" is both a difference in precision and magnitude. Real-time systems have time constraints that range from microseconds to hours, but those time constraints tend to be fairly precise. Near-real-time usually implies a narrower range of magnitudes -- within human perception tolerances -- but typically aren't articulated precisely.
I would claim that near-real-time systems could be called real-time systems, but that their time constraints are merely probabilistic:
The stock price will be displayed to the user within 500ms of its change at the exchange, with
probability p > 0.75.
Batch
Batch operations are those which are perceived to be large blocks of computing tasks with only macroscopic, human- or process-induced deadlines. The specific context of computation is typically not important, and a batch computation is usually a self-contained computational task. Real-time and near-real-time tasks are often strongly coupled to the physical world, and their time constraints emerge from demands from physical/real-world interactions. Batch operations, by contrast, could be computed at any time and at any place; their outputs are solely defined by the inputs provided when the batch is defined.
Original Post
I would say that real-time means that the time (rather than merely the correct output) to complete an operation is part of its correctness.
Near real-time is weasel words for wanting the same thing as real-time but not wanting to go to the discipline/effort/cost to guarantee it.
Batch is "near real-time" where you are even more tolerant of long response times.
Often these terms are used (badly, IMHO) to distinguish among human perceptions of latency/performance. People think real-time is real-fast, e.g., milliseconds or something. Near real-time is often seconds or milliseconds. Batch is a latency of seconds, minutes, hours, or even days. But I think those aren't particularly useful distinctions. If you care about timeliness, there are disciplines to help you get that.
I'm curious for feedback myself on this. Real-time and batch are well defined and covered by others (though be warned that they are terms-of-art with very specific technical meanings in some contexts). However, "near real-time" seems a lot fuzzier to me.
I favor (and have been using) "near real-time" to describe a signal-processing system which can 'keep up' on average, but lags sometimes. Think of a system processing events which only happen sporadically... Assuming it has sufficient buffering capacity and the time it takes to process an event is less than the average time between events, it can keep up.
In a signal processing context:
- Real-time seems to imply a system where processing is guaranteed to complete with a specified (short) delay after the signal has been received. A minimal buffer is needed.
- Near real-time (as I have been using it) means a system where the delay between receiving and completion of processing may get relatively large on occasion, but the system will not (except under pathological conditions) fall behind so far that the buffer gets filled up.
- Batch implies post-processing to me. The incoming signal is just saved (maybe with a bit of real-time pre-processing) and then analyzed later.
This gives the nice framework of real-time and near real-time being systems where they can (in theory) run forever while new data is being acquired... processing happens in parallel with acquisition. Batch processing happens after all the data has been collected.
Anyway, I could be conflicting with some technical definitions I'm unaware of... and I assume someone here will gleefully correct me if needed.
There are issues with all of these answers in that the definitions are flawed. For instance, "batch" simply means that transactions are grouped and sent together. Real Time implies transactional, but may also have other implications. So when you combine batch in the same attribute as real time and near real time, clarity in purpose for that attribute is lost. The definition becomes less cohesive, less clear. This would make any application created with the data more fragile. I would guess that practitioners would be better off w/ a clearly modeled taxonomy such as:
Attribute1: Batched (grouped) or individual transactions.
Attribute2: Scheduled (time-driven), event-driven.
Attribute3: Speed per transaction. For batch that would be the average speed/transaction.
Attribute4: Protocol/Technology: SOAP, REST, combination, FTP, SFTP, etc. for data movement.
Attributex: Whatever.
Attribute4 is more related to something I am doing right now, so you could throw that out or expand the list for what you are trying to achieve. For each of these attribute values, there would likely be additional, specific attributes. But to bring the information together, we need to think about what is needed to make the collective data useful. For instance, what do we need to know between batched & transactional flows, to make them useful together. For instance, you may consider attributes for each to provide the ability to understand total throughput for a given time period. Seems funny how we may create conceptual, logical, and physical data models (hopefully) for our business clients, but we don't always apply that kind of thought to how we define terminology in our discussions.
Any system in which time at which output is produced is significant. This is usually because the input corresponding to some movement in the physical environment or world and the output has to relate to the same movement. The lag from input to output time must be sufficiently small for acceptable timelines.
How to predict C++ program running time, if program executes different functions (working with database, reading files, parsing xml and others)? How installers do it?
They do not predict the time. They calculate the number of operations to be done on a total of operations.
You can predict the time by using measurement and estimation. Of course the quality of the predictions will differ. And BTW: The word "predict" is correct.
You split the workload into small tasks, and create an estimation rule for each task, e.g.: if copying files one to ten took 10s, then the remaining 90 files may take another 90s. Measure the time that these tasks take at runtime, and update your estimations.
Each new measurement will make the prediction a bit more precise.
There really is no way to do this in any sort of reliable way, since it depends on thousands of factors.
Progress bars typically measure this in one of two ways:
Overall progress - I have n number of bytes/files/whatever to transfer, and so far I have done m.
Overall work divided by current speed - I have n bytes to transfer, and so far I have done m and it took t seconds, so if things continue at this rate it will take u seconds to complete.
Short answer:
No you can't. For progress bars and such, most applications simply increase the bar length with a percentage based on the overall tasks done. Some psuedo-code:
for(int i=0; i<num_files_to_load; ++i){
files.push_back(File(filepath[i]));
SetProgressBarLength((float)i/((float)num_files_to_load) - 1.0f);
}
This is a very simplified example. Making a for-loop like this would surely block the window system's event/message queue. You would probably add a timed event or something similar instead.
Longer answer:
Given N known parameters, the problem finding whether a program completes at all is undecidable. This is called the Halting problem. You can however, find the time it takes to execute a single instruction. Some very old games actually depended on exact cycle timings, and failed to execute correctly on newer computers due to race conditions that occur because of subtle differences in runtime. Also, on architectures with data and instruction caches, the cycles the instructions consume is not constant anymore. So cache makes cycle-counting unpredictable.
Raymond Chen discussed this issue in his blog.
Why does the copy dialog give such
horrible estimates?
Because the copy dialog is just
guessing. It can't predict the future,
but it is forced to try. And at the
very beginning of the copy, when there
is very little history to go by, the
prediction can be really bad.
In general it is impossible to predict the running time of a program. It is even impossible to predict whether a program will even halt at all. This is undecidable.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halting_problem
As others have said, you can't predict the time. Approaches suggested by Partial and rmn are valid solutions.
What you can do more is assign weights to certain operations (for instance, if you know a db call takes roughly twice as long as some processing step, you can adjust accordingly).
A cool installer compiler would execute a faux install, time each op, then save this to disk for the future.
I used such a technique for a 3D application once, which had a pretty dead-on progress bar for loading and mashing data, after you've run it a few times. It wasn't that hard, and it made development much nicer. (Since we had to see that bar 10-15 times/day, startup was 10-20 secs)
You can't predict it entirely.
What you can do is wait until a fraction of the work is done, say 1%, and estimate the remaining time by that - just time how long it takes for 1% and multiply by 100, for example. That is easily done if you can enumerate all that you have to do in advance, or have some kind of a loop going on..
As I mentioned in a previous answer, it is impossible in general to predict the running time.
However, empirically it may be possible to predict with good accuracy.
Typically all of these programs are approximatelyh linear in some input.
But if you wanted a more sophisticated approach, you could define a large number of features (database size, file size, OS, etc. etc.) and input those feature values + running time into a neural network. If you had millions of examples (obviously you would have an automated method for gathering data, e.g. some discovery programs) you might come up with a very flexible and intelligent prediction algorithm.
Of course this would only be worth doing for fun, as I'm sure the value to your company over some crude guessing algorithm will probably be nil :)
You should make estimation of time needed for different phases of the program. For example: reading files - 50, working with database - 30, working with network - 20. In ideal it would be good if you make some progress callback during all of those phases, but it requires coding the progress calculation into the iterations of algorithm.