I have a situation where I need to work with a number (15-30) of large (several hundreds mb) data structures. They won't fit into memory all at the same time. To make things worse, the algorithms operating on them work across all those structures, i.e. not first one, then the other etc. I need to make this as fast as possible.
So I figured I'd allocate memory on disk, in files that are basically direct binary representations of the data when it's loaded into memory, and use memory mapped files to access the data. I use mmap 'views' of for example 50 megabytes (50 mb of the files are loaded into memory at a time), so when I have 15 data sets, my process uses 750 mb of memory for the data. Which was OK initially (for testing), when I have more data I adjust the 50 mb down at the cost of some speed.
However this heuristic is hard-coded for now (I know the size of the data set I will test with). 'In the wild', my software will need to be able to determine the 'right' amount of memory to allocate to maximize performance. I could say 'I will target a memory use of 500 mb' and then divide 500 by the amount of data structures to come to a mmap view size. I have found that when trying to set this 'target memory usage' too high, that the virtual memory manager disk thrashing will (almost) lock up the machine and render it unusable until the processing finishes. This is to be avoided in my 'production' solution.
So my questions, all somewhat different approaches to the problem:
What is the 'best' target size for a single process? Should I just try to max out the 2gb that I have (assuming 32 bit Win XP and up, non-/3GB for now) or try to keep my process size smaller so that my software won't hog the machine? When I have 2 Visual Studio's, Outlook and a Firefox open on my machine, those use 1/2 gb of virtual memory easily by themselves - if I let my software use 2 gb of virtual memory the swapping will severely slow down the machine. But then how do I determine the 'best' process size.
What can I do to keep performance of the machine in check when working with memory-mapped files? My application does fairly simple numerical operations on the data, which basically means that it zips over hundreds of megabytes of data real quick, causing the whole memory-mapped files (several gigabytes) to be loaded into memory and swapped out again very quickly, again and again (think Monte Carlo style simulation).
Is there any chance that not using memory-mapped files and just using fseek/fgets is going to be faster or less intrusive than using memory mapped files?
Any articles, papers or books I can read about this? Either with 'cookbook' style solutions or fundamental concepts.
Thanks.
It occurs to me that you could set some predefined threshold for "too darn slow" and use the computer's wall-clock to make your alterations on the fly.
Start conservatively low. If this is below your "too darn slow" threshold, bump the size up a little bit for the next file. do this iteratively. When you go above the threshold, slowly back the size off iteratively.
I think it's a good place to try Address Windowing Extensions: http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa366527(v=VS.85).aspx
It will allow to use more than 4GB of memory by providing a sliding window. The drawback is that not all versions of windows have it.
I probably wouldn't use a memory-mapped file for this app. Memory-mapped files work best when you have a large virtual address space (at least relative to the size of the data you're processing). You map the entire file, and let the OS decide which pieces remain resident.
However, if you're repeatedly mapping and unmapping segments of the file (rather than the entire file), you'll probably end up doing just as well by reading chunks via fseek and fread -- note, however, that you do not want to read individual pieces of data this way (ie, do one large read rather than a lot of small reads).
The one way that manually segmented memory-mapped files might win is if you have sparse reads: if you'll only be touching, say 10% of a given file. In this case, memory mapping means the OS will read only those pages that are touched, whereas explicit reads will load the entire file.
Oh, and I would definitely not spend time trying to control my resource consumption. The OS will do that better than you can, because it knows about all competing processes.
It will probably be best to fix the size of the memory mapped file to be a some percentage of the total system memory with probably a set minimum.
Remember that the operating system will effectively load a whole memory page when you access a single byte, this may well happen in the background but will only be fast if sequential data accesses tend to be close together.
You should therefore try to keep sequential accesses to your data as close together in memory/the file as possible. You can also look a preloading strategies access your data speculatively before actually requiring the data. These are the same considerations that you will need when optimizing for memory cache efficiency.
If sequential data accesses are scattered widely in your file, you may be better off using fseek and fread to access the data since this will give you better fine-grain control of what data is written to memory when.
Also remember that there are no hard and fast rules. Optimizations can sometimes be counter-intuitive so try a whole bunch of different things and see which works best on the platform that this will need to operate on.
Perhaps you can use /LARGEADDRESSAWARE for you linker of Visual Studio, and use bcdedit for your process to use memory larger than 2GB.
Related
I would like to know how to optimise data-structures in openCV (the mat type specifically) so that I am able to leverage the operating systems built in memory/virtual memory management.
For a full context please read the Q and A here - but otherwise the situation could be summed up that I have a large collection of mats* that I'll need to access arbitrarily and rapidly. The main complication is that full amount of data is well above the amount of RAM available.
(*Conceptually the data is a recursively defined 3D array of 3D arrays, but let's not muddy the water with that confusion!)
Rather than build my own LRU cache and RAM-hungry and inefficient 'page' addressing strategies to access it, I'd rather let the OS do this for me.
I think I get the concepts, but when it comes to the actual implementation I'm twiddling thumbs:
Is this a generic C++ consideration, or something I need to address at the openCV level?
Is it as simple as making the granularity of the of data close to (but not over) 4KB? (see the solution here for the 4KB motivation)
How would the mat(s) actually be saved, accessed and represented on disk? (is this how memory-mapping is involved?)
Is this a generic C++ consideration, or something I need to address at the openCV level?
You just allocate and use boatloads of memory. The whole point of paging / virtual memory is that it's completely transparent. Everything gets extremely slow, but keeps working. You don't get ENOMEM until you're out of swap space + RAM.
On a normal Linux system, your normal swap partition should be very small (under 1GB), so you'll probably need to dd a swap file, and mkswap / swapon on it. Make sure the swap file is has read-write permission for root only. Obviously every major OS will have its own procedures.
Is it as simple as making the granularity of the of data close to (but not over) 4KB? (see the solution here for the 4KB motivation)
If you have pointers to other data, make sure you keep them together. You want all the small "hot" data to be in only a few pages that a decent OS LRU algorithm won't page out.
If you have hot data mixed with cold data, it will easily get paged out and lead to an extra page-file round trip before the cache miss for the final data can even happen.
Like Yakk says, sequential access patterns will do much better, because disk I/O does better with multi-block reads. (Even SSDs have better throughput with larger blocks). This also allows prefetching, which allows one I/O request to start before the previous one's data arrives. Maxing out I/O throughput requires pipelining requests.
Try to design your algorithms to do sequential accesses when possible. This is advantageous at all levels of memory, from paging all the way up to L1 cache. Sequential access even enables auto-vectorization with vector-registers.
Cache blocking (aka loop tiling) techniques are also applicable to page misses. Google for details, but the main idea is to do all the steps of your algorithm over a subset of the data, instead of touching all the data at each step. Then each piece of data only has to be loaded into cache once total, instead of once for each step of your algorithm.
Think of DRAM as a cache for your giant virtual address space.
How would the mat(s) actually be saved, accessed and represented on disk? (is this how memory-mapping is involved?)
Swap space / the pagefile is the backing store for your process's address space. So yes, it's very similar to what you'd get if you allocated memory by mmaping a big file instead of making an anonymous allocation.
My program works with large data sets that need to be stored in contiguous memory (several Gigabytes). Allocating memory using std::allocator (i.e. malloc or new) causes system stalls as large portions of virtual memory are reserved and physical memory gets filled up.
Since the program will mostly only work on small portions at a time, my question is if using memory mapped files would provide an advantage (i.e. mmap or the Windows equivalent.) That is creating a large sparse temporary file and mapping it to virtual memory. Or is there another technique that would change the system's pagination strategy such that less pages are loaded into physical memory at a time.
I'm trying to avoid building a streaming mechanism that loads portions of a file at a time and instead rely on the system's vm pagination.
Yes, mmap has the potential to speed things up.
Things to consider:
Remember the VMM will page things in and out in page size blocked (4k on Linux)
If your memory access is well localised over time, this will work well. But if you do random access over your entire file, you will end up with a lot of seeking and thrashing (still). So, consider whether your 'small portions' correspond with localised bits of the file.
For large allocations, malloc and free will use mmap with MAP_ANON anyway. So the difference in memory mapping a file is simply that you are getting the VMM to do the I/O for you.
Consider using madvise with mmap to assist the VMM in paging well.
When you use open and read (plus, as erenon suggests, posix_fadvise), your file is still held in buffers anyway (i.e. it's not immediately written out) unless you also use O_DIRECT. So in both situations, you are relying on the kernel for I/O scheduling.
If the data is already in a file, it would speed up things, especially in the non-sequential case. (In the sequential case, read wins)
If using open and read, consider using posix_fadvise as well.
This really depends on your mmap() implementation. Mapping a file into memory has several advantages that can be exploited by the kernel:
The kernel knows that the contents of the mmap() pages is already present on disk. If it decides to evict these pages, it can omit the write back.
You reduce copying operations: read() operations typically first read the data into kernel memory, then copy it over to user space.
The reduced copies also mean that less memory is used to store data from the file, which means more memory is available for other uses, which can reduce paging as well.
This is also, why it is generally a bad idea to use large caches within an I/O library: Modern kernels already cache everything they ever read from disk, caching a copy in user space means that the amount of data that can be cached is actually reduced.
Of course, you also avoid a lot of headaches that result from buffering data of unknown size in your application. But that is just a convenience for you as a programmer.
However, even though the kernel can exploit these properties, it does not necessarily do so. My experience is that LINUX mmap() is generally fine; on AIX, however, I have witnessed really bad mmap() performance. So, if your goal is performance, it's the old measure-compare-decide stand by.
If a 64bit program wants to consume lot of memory, does it matter if memory is allocated in process heap or from memory map file/s? I understand other benefits of memory map file like sharing across two or more processes, however, in my case, data in memory maps is not shared across processes.
It's not entirely clear what you mean would be the difference, especially given that large allocations [by some definition of large that depends on settings in the C library] are typically make by using anonymous mmap regions (that is, memory mapped files that don't actually have a real file backing them - the OS uses /dev/zero as the "file", so when memory is paged in from the "file" it reads as zero. It is never written back...].
In other words, whilst "heap" is memory managed by the C library, and if you manually manage memory mapped files you have to do the "management" in your code for that, it's otherwise the same thing.
Edit:
In response to the comment:
It's really going to depend on:
The amount of memory in the system. If you have 1TB+, then you will probably be able to use either method with approximately the same result.
How large the sections are from file - if you are reading little portions (significantly less than 4KB) in many different places, then malloc will probably win. If the sections of file you are working on is much larger, then either method will have about the same memory usage factor.
Either method will not give decent performance if you have a lot less memory than the actual amount of data you are processing, because too much time is spent reading/writing data to/from disk, and/or allocating/deallocating memory.
In general, mapping files to memory is the fastest way of loading the data into memory (there is fewer times the OS has to copy the data on the way from the disk to the final location in memory). But for any relatively large files, the actual speed the data comes off the disk will be the main factor, and no matter what you do, that will dominate the time it takes to read 1TB of file(s).
I am working on a mathematical problem that has the advantage of being able to "pre-compute" about half of the problem, save this information to file, and then reuse it many times to compute various 'instances' of my problem. The difficulty is that uploading all of this information in order to solve the actual problem is a major bottleneck.
More specifically:
I can pre-compute a huge amount of information - tons of probabilities (long double), a ton of std::map<int,int>, and much more - and save all this stuff to disk (several Gb).
The second half of my program accepts an input argument D. For each D, I need to perform a great many computations that involve a combination of the pre-computed data (from file), and some other data that are specific to D (so that the problem is different for each D).
Sometimes I will need to pick out certain pieces of pre-computed information from the files. Other times, I will need to upload every piece of data from a (large) file.
Are there any strategies for making the IO faster?
I already have the program parallelized (MPI, via boost::mpi) for other reasons, but regardless, accessing files on the disk is making my compute time unbearable.
Any strategies or optimizations?
Currently I am doing everything with cstdio, i.e. no iostream. Will that make a big difference?
Certainly the fastest (but the fragilest) solution would be to mmap the data to a fixed address. Slap it all in one big struct, and instantiate the std:::map with an allocator which will allocate in a block attached to the end of the struct. It's not simple, but it will be fast; one call to mmap, and the data is in your (virtual) memory. And because you're forcing the address in mmap, you can even store the pointers, etc.
As mentioned above, in addition to requiring a fair amount of work, it's fragile. Recompile your application, and the targeted address might not be available, or the layout might be different, or whatever. But since it's really just an optimization, this might not be an issue; anytime a compatibility issue arises, just drop the old file and start over. It will make the first run after a change which breaks compatibility extremely slow, but if you don't break compatibility too often...
The stuff that isn't in a map is easy. You put everything in one contiguous chunk of memory that you know (like a big array, or a struct/class with no pointers), and then use write() to write it out. Later use read() to read it in, in a single operation. If the size might vary, then use one operation to read a single int with the size, allocate the memory, and then use a single read() to pull it in.
The map part is a bit harder, since you can't do it all in one operation. Here you need to come up with a convention for serializing it. To make the i/o as fast as possible, your best bet is to convert it from the map to an in-memory form that is all in one place and you can convert back to the map easily and quickly. If, for example your keys are ints, and your values are of constant size then you could make an array of keys, and an array of values, copy your keys into the one array and values into the other, and then write() the two arrays, possibly writing out their size as well. Again, you read things in with only two or three calls to read().
Note that nothing ever got translated to ASCII, and there are a minimum number of system calls. The file will not be human readable, but it will be compact, and fast to read in. Three things make i/o slow: 1) system calls, if you use small reads/writes; 2) translation to/from ASCII (printf, scanf); 3) disk speed. Hard to do much about 3) (other than an SSD). You can do the read in a background thread, but you might need to block waiting for the data to be in.
Some guidelines:
multiple calls to read() are more expensive than single call
binary files are faster than text files
single file is faster than multiple files for large values of "multiple"
use memory-mapped files if you can
use 64 bit OS to let OS manage the memory for you
Ideally, I'd try to put all long doubles into memory-mapped file, and all maps into binary files.
Divide and conquer: if 64 bits is not an option, try to break your data into large chunks in a way that all chunks are never used together, and the entire chunk is needed when it's needed. This way you could load the chunks when they needed and discard them when they are not.
These suggestions of uploading the whole data to the RAM are good when two conditions are met:
Sum of all I/O times during is much more than cost of loading all data to RAM
Relatively large portion of all data is being accessed during application run
(they are usually met when some application is running for a long time processing different data)
However for other cases other options might be considered.
E.g. it is essential to understand if access pattern is truly random. If no, look into reordering data to ensure that items that are accessible together are close to each other. This will ensure that OS caching is performing at its best, and also will reduce HDD seek times (not a case for SSD of course).
If accesses are truly random, and application is not running as long as needed to ammortize one-time data loading cost I would look into architecture, e.g. by extracting this data manager into separate module that will keep this data preloaded.
For Windows it might be system service, for other OSes other options are available.
Cache, cache, cache. If it's only several GB it should be feasible to cache most if not all of your data in something like memcached. This is an especially good solution if you're using MPI across multiple machines rather than just multiple processors on the same machine.
If it's all running on the same machine, consider a shared memory cache if you have the memory available.
Also, make sure your file writes are being done on a separate thread. No need to block an entire process waiting for a file to write.
As was said, cache as much as you can in memory.
If you're finding that the amount you need to cache is larger than your memory will allow, try swapping out the caches between memory and disk how it is often done when virtual memory pages need to be swapped to disk. It is essentially the same problem.
One common method is the Least Recently Used Algorithm for determining which page will be swapped.
It really depends on how much memory is available and what the access pattern is.
The simplest solution is to use memory mapped files. This generally requires that the file has been layed out as if the objects were in memory, so you will need to only use POD data with no pointers (but you can use relative indexes).
You need to study your access pattern to see if you can group together the values that are often used together. This will help the OS in better caching those values (ie, keeping them in memory for you, rather than always going to the disk to read them).
Another option will be to split the file into several chunks, preferably in a logical way. It might be necessary to create an index file that map a range of values to the file that contain them.
Then, you can only access the set of files required.
Finally, for complex data structures (where memory mapped files fail) or for sparse reading (when you only ever extract only a small piece of information from a given file), it might be interesting to read about LRU caches.
The idea will be to use serialization and compression. You write several files, among which an index, and compress all of them (zip). Then, at launch time, you start by loading the index and save it in memory.
Whenever you need to access a value, you first try your cache, if it is not it, you access the file that contains it, decompress it in memory, dump its content in your cache. Note: if the cache is too small, you have to be picky about what you dump in... or reduce the size of the files.
The frequently accessed values will stay in cache, avoiding unnecessary round-trip, and because the file is zipped there will be less IO.
Structure your data in a way that caching can be effective. For instance, when you are reading "certain pieces," if those are all contiguous it won't have to seek around the disk to gather all of them.
Reading and writing in batches, instead of record by record will help if you are sharing disk access with another process.
More specifically: I can pre-compute a huge amount of information - tons of probabilities (long double), a ton of std::map, and much more - and save all this stuff to disk (several Gb).
As far as I understood the std::map are pre-calculated also and there are no insert/remove operations. Only search. How about an idea to replace the maps to something like std::hash_map or sparsehash. In theory it can give performance gain.
More specifically: I can pre-compute a huge amount of information - tons of probabilities (long double), a ton of std::map, and much more - and save all this stuff to disk (several Gb).
Don't reinvent the wheel. I'd suggest using a key-value data store, such as berkeley db: http://docs.oracle.com/cd/E17076_02/html/gsg/C/concepts.html
This will enable saving and sharing the files, caching the parts you actually use a lot and keeping other parts on disk.
My environment is XP 32-bit. I find when allocated memory is nearly the maximum size, 2GB, that means a little virtual space is available, allocationnew memory is very slow.
So if I have a page file, my app need to analyze them.
I have two ways. One is to read them all into system memory, then do the analysis.
The other is to reserv a memory buffer first as a cache, and read part of page file into that buffer, analyze and then discard it, then read second part of page file, and override the cache, do the analysis again.
From the profiling, it looks the second one is faster, since it avoid the allocation time cost.
What do you think? Thanks in adavance.
(1) I'm not sure the question matches the title. If you're allocating close to 2GB of RAM on 32 bit Windows, the system is probably paging a lot of memory to disk, and that's where I'd look first for the slow down. When you're using a lot of memory, you should think of it as being stored on disk (in pagefile.sys) but cached in physical RAM. The second one might be faster not because of the cost of doing allocation, but because of the cost of using a lot of memory at once. In effect when you copy the file into one big allocation you're copying much of it disk->disk via RAM, then when you run over it again to analyse, you're loading the copy back to RAM again. If your analysis is a single-pass algorithm that's a lot of redundant work.
(2) What I think is, mmap the file (MapViewOfFile and friends on Windows).
Edit: (3) a caution. If the file is currently 1.8GB, there might be a chance that next year it might be 4GB. If so, I'd plan now for it to have a size greater than 2^32 on a 32bit machine, which means either taking your second option, or else still using MapViewOfFile but doing it one sensible-sized chunk of the file at a time, rather than all at once. Otherwise you'll be revisiting this code the first time someone tries it on a big file and reports the bug.
You forget 3d way - to map memory onto file, see function CreateFileMapping/MapViewOfFile
This is most fast way
You best bet is to use the windows MapViewOfFile and similar functions (the Windows equivalent of mmap). This will allow the operating system to manage the paging in of various parts of the file.
Why is the amount allocated memory so high? If memory allocations take a reasonable amount of time then you will find doing it in memory is far far quicker - my approach would be to do it in memory, and try to find a way to reduce the memory usage to the point where its quick again.
As I see the situation, you either manage the paging yourself or let the operating system manage the paging for you. In most cases I would suggest letting the operating system handle the paging (use virtual memory). Since I have a distrust of MS operating systems, I cannnot recommend this technique, although your mileage may vary.