The current scheme works out to something like this:
```
template <class T, size_t SmallCapacity>
struct SmallVector {
T *BeginX, *EndX, *CapacityX;
T Small[SmallCapacity];
bool isSmall() const { return BeginX == Small; }
T *begin() { return BeginX; }
T *end() { return EndX; }
size_t size() const { return EndX - BeginX; }
size_t capacity() const { return CapacityX - BeginX; }
};
```
In the past I used something more like:
```
template <class T, size_t SmallCapacity>
struct SmallVector2 {
unsigned Size;
unsigned Capacity;
union {
T Small[SmallCapacity];
T *Large;
};
bool isSmall() const { return Capacity == SmallCapacity; } // Or a bit shaved off of Capacity.
T *begin() { return isSmall() ? Small : Large; }
T *end() { return begin() + Size; }
size_t size() const { return Size; }
size_t capacity() const { return Capacity; }
};
```
I'm curious whether this scheme would be really be slower in practice (as a complete replacement for `SmallVector` in ADT). I wonder, has anyone profiled something like this before? If so, in what context? on what workloads?
Duncan
_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
llvm...@lists.llvm.org
http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
> I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of pointers (1 pointer/4B on 32-bit; 2 pointers/16B on 64-bit) if users could afford to test for small-mode vs. large-mode.
Something like this could definitely work, but most smallvectors are on the stack. They are intentionally used when sizeof(smallvector) isn’t important, so I don’t think this optimization will pay off.
Out of curiosity, what brings this up?
-Chris
Doesn’t this scheme have a problem with undefined behaviour, since you may be changing the active member of the union when capacity grows larger than SmallCapacity?
-- Dean
I think Duncan’s approach prohibit any usage of Small after the capacity grow over SmallCapacity.
So when the capacity exceed SmallCapacity, one should:
1. Allocate memory on heap
2. Copy data from Small to that chunk
3. Assign pointer of that chunk to Large
As long as you always access Large after growth, there would be no data lose.
Bekket
> On 22 Jun 2018, at 12:30, Bekket McClane <bekket....@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To Dean,
>
> I think Duncan’s approach prohibit any usage of Small after the capacity grow over SmallCapacity.
> So when the capacity exceed SmallCapacity, one should:
> 1. Allocate memory on heap
> 2. Copy data from Small to that chunk
> 3. Assign pointer of that chunk to Large
>
> As long as you always access Large after growth, there would be no data lose.
>
Ah, yes. That makes sense.
I’m curious to see, like Chris, what the benchmarks say about this alternative approach.
On Jun 21, 2018, at 18:38, Chris Lattner <clat...@nondot.org> wrote:On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of pointers (1 pointer/4B on 32-bit; 2 pointers/16B on 64-bit) if users could afford to test for small-mode vs. large-mode.
Something like this could definitely work, but most smallvectors are on the stack. They are intentionally used when sizeof(smallvector) isn’t important, so I don’t think this optimization will pay off.
Out of curiosity, what brings this up?
On Jun 21, 2018, at 18:38, Chris Lattner <clat...@nondot.org> wrote:On Jun 21, 2018, at 9:52 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:
I've been curious for a while whether SmallVectors have the right speed/memory tradeoff. It would be straightforward to shave off a couple of pointers (1 pointer/4B on 32-bit; 2 pointers/16B on 64-bit) if users could afford to test for small-mode vs. large-mode.
Something like this could definitely work, but most smallvectors are on the stack. They are intentionally used when sizeof(smallvector) isn’t important, so I don’t think this optimization will pay off.For better or worse (mostly worse), there are a ton of SmallVector fields in data structures, including some even nested inside other SmallVectors (e.g., see the cleanup in r235229). Often these data structures are heap-allocated.
Out of curiosity, what brings this up?I've noticed that Clang is using more stack recently (we're seeing more crashes from template recursion; it seems the template recursion limit needs to shrink), and somehow that train of thought led to this.I share your skepticism that it will help stack usage much, but SmallVector/SmallVectorImpl is so ubiquitous, it could help the heap a bit. And if it doesn’t hurt runtime performance in practice, there’s no reason to fork the data structure.If no one has measured before I might try it some time.
On Jun 22, 2018, at 15:18, Reid Kleckner <r...@google.com> wrote:On Thu, Jun 21, 2018 at 9:16 PM Duncan P. N. Exon Smith via llvm-dev <llvm...@lists.llvm.org> wrote:Out of curiosity, what brings this up?I've noticed that Clang is using more stack recently (we're seeing more crashes from template recursion; it seems the template recursion limit needs to shrink), and somehow that train of thought led to this.I share your skepticism that it will help stack usage much, but SmallVector/SmallVectorImpl is so ubiquitous, it could help the heap a bit. And if it doesn’t hurt runtime performance in practice, there’s no reason to fork the data structure.If no one has measured before I might try it some time.I think it's important to keep begin(), end(), and indexing operations branchless, so I'm not sure this pointer union is the best idea. I haven't profiled, but that's my intuition. If you wanted to limit all our vectors to 4 billion elements to save a pointer, I'd probably be fine with that.
I think we might be better off just reducing the pre-allocation size of most of our SmallVectors across LLVM and Clang. They're all wild guesses, never profiled. Especially for vectors of relatively "large" elements, the pre-allocation optimization just doesn't make that much sense. I'd go as far as to suggest providing a default SmallVector N value of something like `sizeof(void*) * 3 / sizeof(T)`, i.e. by default, every SmallVector is at most 6 pointers big.
Something like this could definitely work, but most smallvectors are on the stack. They are intentionally used when sizeof(smallvector) isn’t important, so I don’t think this optimization will pay off.For better or worse (mostly worse), there are a ton of SmallVector fields in data structures, including some even nested inside other SmallVectors (e.g., see the cleanup in r235229). Often these data structures are heap-allocated.
Out of curiosity, what brings this up?I've noticed that Clang is using more stack recently (we're seeing more crashes from template recursion; it seems the template recursion limit needs to shrink), and somehow that train of thought led to this.I share your skepticism that it will help stack usage much, but SmallVector/SmallVectorImpl is so ubiquitous, it could help the heap a bit. And if it doesn’t hurt runtime performance in practice, there’s no reason to fork the data structure.If no one has measured before I might try it some time.
On Jun 23, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexon...@apple.com> wrote:
I think we might be better off just reducing the pre-allocation size of most of our SmallVectors across LLVM and Clang. They're all wild guesses, never profiled. Especially for vectors of relatively "large" elements, the pre-allocation optimization just doesn't make that much sense. I'd go as far as to suggest providing a default SmallVector N value of something like `sizeof(void*) * 3 / sizeof(T)`, i.e. by default, every SmallVector is at most 6 pointers big.Interesting idea... and then audit current instances to drop the size argument.Note that a SmallVector with N value of 0 takes the same storage as an N value of 1, so very large sizeof(T) would still use more than 6 pointers. The cause is that SmallVectorTemplateCommon stores the first element so that it can detect small mode by comparing BeginX against &FirstEl. The fix would be to shave a bit off of capacity (dropping max capacity to 2B)... likely reasonable.
On Jun 23, 2018, at 10:14, Chris Lattner <clat...@nondot.org> wrote:On Jun 23, 2018, at 9:11 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexon...@apple.com> wrote:
I think we might be better off just reducing the pre-allocation size of most of our SmallVectors across LLVM and Clang. They're all wild guesses, never profiled. Especially for vectors of relatively "large" elements, the pre-allocation optimization just doesn't make that much sense. I'd go as far as to suggest providing a default SmallVector N value of something like `sizeof(void*) * 3 / sizeof(T)`, i.e. by default, every SmallVector is at most 6 pointers big.Interesting idea... and then audit current instances to drop the size argument.Note that a SmallVector with N value of 0 takes the same storage as an N value of 1, so very large sizeof(T) would still use more than 6 pointers. The cause is that SmallVectorTemplateCommon stores the first element so that it can detect small mode by comparing BeginX against &FirstEl. The fix would be to shave a bit off of capacity (dropping max capacity to 2B)... likely reasonable.The patch LGTM, but why would someone actually have a SmallVector with N = 0? Isn’t that a vector?
Also if you’re not familiar with it, TinyPtrVector is a very useful type for vectors that are highly biased towards 0/1 element and whose elements are pointer size. It was added relatively late in LLVM’s evolution, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still smallvectors that should be upgraded. TinyPtrVector is designed for use on the heap.
On Jun 23, 2018, at 11:27, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexon...@apple.com> wrote:The patch LGTM, but why would someone actually have a SmallVector with N = 0? Isn’t that a vector?It's a vector that can be passed as a SmallVectorImpl parameter. But yeah, mostly misguided.
On Jun 23, 2018, at 11:27 AM, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexon...@apple.com> wrote:
Also if you’re not familiar with it, TinyPtrVector is a very useful type for vectors that are highly biased towards 0/1 element and whose elements are pointer size. It was added relatively late in LLVM’s evolution, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there are still smallvectors that should be upgraded. TinyPtrVector is designed for use on the heap.Yup, it's great for pointers. Maybe we should make a TinyVector for non-pointers and call it a day.
On Jun 23, 2018, at 16:16, Duncan P. N. Exon Smith <dexon...@apple.com> wrote:
Right, it won't be as good the Ptr version for anything sizeof >= 8, but we could fairly blindly move SmallVector with N=0 over to it.