Issue #12142 has been updated by Vladimir Makarov.


Koichi Sasada wrote:
> On 2016/03/07 3:37, vmakarov / redhat.com wrote:
>  > I don't think it is a leak.  What you measure is the maximal residential size.  I think the table is rebuilt many times and memory for previous version of tables is freed but it is not freed to OS by MRI (or glibc.  I don't know yet what allocation library is used by MRI).  Still this is *very* bad.  I should definitely to investigate and fix it.  I believe I know how to fix it.  I should reuse the array elements when it is possible.  Thanks for pointing this out.
>  
>  trunk (without your patch):
>  
>  $ for i in 1 10 100 1000 10000 100000 1000000 10000000
>  > do /usr/bin/time -f%Mkb ./miniruby -e "h=Hash.new; $i.times{|i|h[i] =
>  i; h.delete(i-1)}"
>  > done
>  3504kb
>  3504kb
>  3512kb
>  3508kb
>  3504kb
>  3516kb
>  3516kb
>  3516kb
>  
>  This is what I asked in my comment.
>  

Thank you. I tried this too and see it is a real problem I should solve.
 
>  >   * (rare case) so many deletion can keep spaces (does it collected? i need to read code more)
>  > 
>  ...
>  > 
>  > We can generalize the last issue as "compaction".
>  > This is what I didn't touch this issue yet (maybe not a big problem).
>  
>  And you didn't response about that :)
>  

No, I did not. Sorry.  I answered about another way how the proposed tables can reclaim memory.  Now understanding what you meant I can say that there is no compaction. But you are already know it :)

My thought behind skipping compaction was that in any case we should traverse all elements and it will take practically the same time as for table rebuilding while this approach simplifies code considerably.  Getting responses from people providing small tests I see that I was wrong.  I missed the effect of memory allocation layer.  So we should definitely have the compaction.

Another thought I got recently that the compaction traversing even all elements have more chances to work with cached data than in the case of rebuilding.


----------------------------------------
Feature #12142: Hash tables with open addressing
https://bugs.ruby-lang.org/issues/12142#change-57329

* 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>