ea8e48a679
According to my profiling of Qt Creator, qHash and the SHA-1 calculation are the hottest spots remaining in QtCore. The current qHash function is not really vectorizable. We could come up with a different algorithm that is more SIMD-friendly, but since we have the CRC32 instruction that can read 32- and 64-bit entities, we're set. This commit also updates the benchmark for QHash and benchmarks both the hashing function itself and the QHash class. The updated benchmarks for the CRC32 on my machine shows that the hashing function is *always* improved, but the hashing isn't always. In particular, the current algorithm is better for the "numbers" case, for which the data sample differs in very few bits. The new code is 33% slower for that particular case. On average, the improvement (including the "numbers" case) is: compared to qHash only QHash Qt 5.0 function 2.54x 1.06x Qt 4.x function 4.34x 1.34x Java function 2.71x 1.11x Test machine: Sandybridge Core i7-2620M @ 2.66 GHz with turbo disabled for the benchmarks Change-Id: Ia80b98c0e20d785816f7a7f6ddf40b4b302c7297 Reviewed-by: Oswald Buddenhagen <oswald.buddenhagen@digia.com> Reviewed-by: Lars Knoll <lars.knoll@digia.com> Reviewed-by: Thiago Macieira <thiago.macieira@intel.com> |
||
---|---|---|
.. | ||
corelib | ||
dbus | ||
gui | ||
network | ||
opengl | ||
plugins/imageformats/jpeg | ||
sql | ||
benchmarks.pro | ||
README | ||
trusted-benchmarks.pri |
The most reliable way of running benchmarks is to do it in an otherwise idle system. On a busy system, the results will vary according to the other tasks demanding attention in the system. We have managed to obtain quite reliable results by doing the following on Linux (and you need root): - switching the scheduler to a Real-Time mode - setting the processor affinity to one single processor - disabling the other thread of the same core This should work rather well for CPU-intensive tasks. A task that is in Real- Time mode will simply not be preempted by the OS. But if you make OS syscalls, especially I/O ones, your task will be de-scheduled. Note that this includes page faults, so if you can, make sure your benchmark's warmup code paths touch most of the data. To do this you need a tool called schedtool (package schedtool), from http://freequaos.host.sk/schedtool/ From this point on, we are using CPU0 for all tasks: If you have a Hyperthreaded multi-core processor (Core-i5 and Core-i7), you have to disable the other thread of the same core as CPU0. To discover which one it is: $ cat /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu0/topology/thread_siblings_list This will print something like 0,4, meaning that CPUs 0 and 4 are sibling threads on the same core. So we'll turn CPU 4 off: (as root) # echo 0 > /sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu4/online To turn it back on, echo 1 into the same file. To run a task on CPU 0 exclusively, using FIFO RT priority 10, you run the following: (as root) # schedtool -F -p 10 -a 1 -e ./taskname For example: # schedtool -F -p 10 -a 1 -e ./tst_bench_qstring -tickcounter Warning: if your task livelocks or takes far too long to complete, your system may be unusable for a long time, especially if you don't have other cores to run stuff on. To prevent that, run it before schedtool and time it. You can also limit the CPU time that the task is allowed to take. Run in the same shell as you'll run schedtool: $ ulimit -s 300 To limit to 300 seconds (5 minutes) If your task runs away, it will get a SIGXCPU after consuming 5 minutes of CPU time (5 minutes running at 100%). If your app is multithreaded, you may want to give it more CPUs, like CPU0 and CPU1 with -a 3 (it's a bitmask). For best results, you should disable ALL other cores and threads of the same processor. The new Core-i7 have one processor with 4 cores, each core can run 2 threads; the older Mac Pros have two processors with 4 cores each. So on those Mac Pros, you'd disable cores 1, 2 and 3, while on the Core-i7, you'll need to disable all other CPUs. However, disabling just the sibling thread seems to produce very reliable results for me already, with variance often below 0.5% (even though there are some measurable spikes). Other things to try: Running the benchmark with highest priority, i.e. "sudo nice -19" usually produces stable results on some machines. If the benchmark also involves displaying something on the screen (on X11), running it with "-sync" is a must. Though, in that case the "real" cost is not correct, but it is useful to discover regressions. Also; not many people know about ionice (1) ionice - get/set program io scheduling class and priority