Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Remove slice deque #30

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Oct 3, 2022
Merged

Remove slice deque #30

merged 2 commits into from
Oct 3, 2022

Conversation

joeri
Copy link

@joeri joeri commented Sep 26, 2022

Unlike what the orignal commit says this performs better than slice-deque on my machine running on Linux (I'd assume the performance benefit is even larger on Windows). This becomes even more pronounced with the sozu-proxy/circular#8 pull request (the same effect can be reached using lto = "thin", at least on the stats example), slice-deque on my machine takes about 4 minutes to run stats on lichess_db_standard_rated_2018-10.pgn, circular 0.3 without inlining 3 minutes 30, circular with the inlining annotations or with lto = thin takes 1 minute 40 seconds (everything tested in release mode).

Joeri Samson added 2 commits September 26, 2022 12:03
This probably performs worse, but it removes platform dependent code and
it removes all uses of unsafe (which makes me feel better).

This is for the moment a straight forward replacement with the minimal
changes necessary to make it compile, circular::Buffer has some methods
that could be used to tune when the buffer is shifted. We  might want to
take a look at optimizing the size of the buffer as well.
@joeri
Copy link
Author

joeri commented Sep 26, 2022

Another benefit is that there no longer is any unsafe code (there is some in circular 0.3, I have a patch removing unsafety in circular as well, that patch doesn't seem to affect performance)

Copy link
Owner

@niklasf niklasf left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Awesome, thanks!

@@ -637,44 +626,34 @@ impl<R: Read> ReadPgn for BufferedReader<R> {
type Err = io::Error;

fn fill_buffer_and_peek(&mut self) -> io::Result<Option<u8>> {
Copy link
Owner

@niklasf niklasf Sep 30, 2022

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Correctness requires that this method definitely fills the buffer with at least MIN_BUFFER_SIZE bytes, or all bytes until the end of the file. Is this true with the new implementation?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It loops until available_data in the buffer is MIN_BUFFER_SIZE and it only breaks out of the loop when it reads no more data, which is the same logic as was used with slice-deque, so yes that behaviour is unchanged.

To be honest when changing that function I was unsure why it needed to read to fill the buffer that far. It can't be for correctness in parsing as far as I understand it there is no reason to see that far ahead. And it's unnecessary for safety reasons (the buffer gets fully initialized at the very beginning and constantly reused, so there are never any poisonous undefined bytes that can get read).

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

It needs this only in a one or two places, parsing headers and comments, so that the entire header/comment will be present in the slice at once. All other places could use a more relaxed "peek", if there's a performance difference.

Is it not possible for space() to be empty, and then read() being called on a 0-sized buffer and breaking out of the loop?

Copy link
Author

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Unless the consume_noshift variant of consume is used the buffer will be shifted when the position pointer of the buffer is over the halfway point in it's internal storage.

That means that available_data() + available_space() should always be more than half of the buffer size which I kept at MIN_BUFFER_SIZE * 2.

Copy link
Owner

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ah, cool.

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants