Issue #12142 has been updated by Vladimir Makarov.


Eric Wong wrote:
> Encouraging performance results!
>  

Thanks.

>  I didn't test fully, but "make test-all" gets stuck for me
>  test_callcc of TestHash:
>  
>  	make test-all TESTS=test/ruby/test_hash.rb
>  
>  I'm on Debian wheezy, x86-64 gcc-4.7.real (Debian 4.7.2-5) 4.7.2
>  There may be other tests which fail, but I didn't investigate
>  further.
>  
> 

I am a novice to MRI.  When I used `test-all` recently I have some errors on the trunk with and without my code.  So I used only `test`.  I guess I should try what you did.
 
>  Other notes (mostly reiterating other comments):
>  
>  In my experience, more users complain about memory usage than
>  performance since Ruby 1.9/2.x days.  Maybe it's because
>  traditionally, the Ruby ecosystem did not have great non-blocking
>  I/O or thread support; users find it easier to fork processes,
>  instead.
> 

Interesting.  I got a different impression that people complaining more about that MRI is slow.  Moving to VM was a really great improvement (2-3 times as I remember) and made Ruby actually faster than CPython.  But it is still much slower PyPy, JS, LuaJIT.  That is why probably people are complaining.  Getting this impression I decided to try to help improving MRI performance.  MRI is the language definition so I think working on alternative Ruby implementations would be not wise.  I have some ideas and hope my management permits me to spend part of my time to work on their implementation.
 
>  Small hashes are common in Ruby and important to parameter
>  passing, ivar indices in small classes, short-lived statistics,
>  and many other cases.  Because hashes are so easy-to-create,
>  Rubyists tend to create many of them.
> 

Thanks.  I completely realize now that compact hash tables are important.
 
>  st.h is unfortunately part of our public C API; so num_entries
>  shouldn't change.  I propose we hide the new struct fields
>  somehow in similar fashion to private_list_head or at least give
>  them scary names which discourage public use.
> 

Yes, I'll fix it and use the old names or try to figure out a better terminology which does not change names in st.h. 

>  
>  Anyways, I'm excited about these changes and hope we can get
>  the most of the benefits without the downsides.

Thanks again.


----------------------------------------
Feature #12142: Hash tables with open addressing
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12142#change-57320

* Author: Vladimir Makarov
* Status: Open
* Priority: Normal
* Assignee: 
----------------------------------------
~~~
 Hello, the following patch contains a new implementation of hash
tables (major files st.c and include/ruby/st.h).

  Modern processors have several levels of cache.  Usually,the CPU
reads one or a few lines of the cache from memory (or another level of
cache).  So CPU is much faster at reading data stored close to each
other.  The current implementation of Ruby hash tables does not fit
well to modern processor cache organization, which requires better
data locality for faster program speed.

The new hash table implementation achieves a better data locality
mainly by

  o switching to open addressing hash tables for access by keys.
    Removing hash collision lists lets us avoid *pointer chasing*, a
    common problem that produces bad data locality.  I see a tendency
    to move from chaining hash tables to open addressing hash tables
    due to their better fit to modern CPU memory organizations.
    CPython recently made such switch
    (https://hg.python.org/cpython/file/ff1938d12240/Objects/dictobject.c).
    PHP did this a bit earlier
    https://nikic.github.io/2014/12/22/PHPs-new-hashtable-implementation.html.
    GCC has widely-used such hash tables
    (https://gcc.gnu.org/svn/gcc/trunk/libiberty/hashtab.c) internally
    for more than 15 years.

  o removing doubly linked lists and putting the elements into an array
    for accessing to elements by their inclusion order.  That also
    removes pointer chaising on the doubly linked lists used for
    traversing elements by their inclusion order.

A more detailed description of the proposed implementation can be
found in the top comment of the file st.c.

The new implementation was benchmarked on 21 MRI hash table benchmarks
for two most widely used targets x86-64 (Intel 4.2GHz i7-4790K) and ARM
(Exynos 5410 - 1.6GHz Cortex-A15):

make benchmark-each ITEM=bm_hash OPTS='-r 3 -v' COMPARE_RUBY='<trunk ruby>'

Here the results for x86-64:

hash_aref_dsym       1.094
hash_aref_dsym_long          1.383
hash_aref_fix        1.048
hash_aref_flo        1.860
hash_aref_miss       1.107
hash_aref_str        1.107
hash_aref_sym        1.191
hash_aref_sym_long           1.113
hash_flatten         1.258
hash_ident_flo       1.627
hash_ident_num       1.045
hash_ident_obj       1.143
hash_ident_str       1.127
hash_ident_sym       1.152
hash_keys            2.714
hash_shift           2.209
hash_shift_u16       1.442
hash_shift_u24       1.413
hash_shift_u32       1.396
hash_to_proc         2.831
hash_values          2.701

The average performance improvement is more 50%.  ARM results are
analogous -- no any benchmark performance degradation and about the
same average improvement.

The patch can be seen as

https://github.com/vnmakarov/ruby/compare/trunk...hash_tables_with_open_addressing.patch

or in a less convenient way as pull request changes

https://github.com/ruby/ruby/pull/1264/files


This is my first patch for MRI and may be my proposal and
implementation have pitfalls.  But I am keen to learn and work on
inclusion of this code into MRI.

~~~



-- 
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/

Unsubscribe: <mailto:ruby-core-request / ruby-lang.org?subject=unsubscribe>
<http://lists.ruby-lang.org/cgi-bin/mailman/options/ruby-core>