Re: [Haskell-cafe] Problem with benchmarking FFI calls with Criterion

27 Nov 2012


      Dnia wtorek, 27 listopada 2012, Gregory Collins napisał:
...
Did you pass the option to criterion asking it to do a GC between
trials? 
Yes.
...
You might be measuring a GC pause.
On Tue, Nov 27, 2012 at 2:41 PM, Janek S.  wrote:
...
Dnia wtorek, 27 listopada 2012, Jake McArthur napisał:
...
I once had a problem like this. It turned out that my laptop was
stepping the cpu clock rate down whenever it got warm. Disabling that
feature in my BIOS fixed it. Your problem might be similar.
I just check - I disabled frequency scaling and results are the same.
Actually I doubt that 39us of benchmarking would cause CPU overheating
with such repeatibility. Besides, this wouldn't explain why the first
benchmark actually got faster.
Janek
...
On Nov 27, 2012 7:23 AM, "Janek S."  wrote:
...
I tested the same code on my second machine - Debian Squeeze (kernel
2.6.32) with GHC 7.4.1 - and
the results are extremely surprising. At first I was unable to
reproduce the problem and got
consistent runtimes of about 107us:
benchmarking FFI/C binding
mean: 107.3837 us, lb 107.2013 us, ub 107.5862 us, ci 0.950
std dev: 983.6046 ns, lb 822.6750 ns, ub 1.292724 us, ci 0.950
benchmarking FFI/C binding
mean: 108.1152 us, lb 107.9457 us, ub 108.3052 us, ci 0.950
std dev: 916.2469 ns, lb 793.1004 ns, ub 1.122127 us, ci 0.950
I started experimenting with the vector size and after bumping its
size to 32K elements I started
getting this:
benchmarking FFI/C binding
mean: 38.50100 us, lb 36.71525 us, ub 46.87665 us, ci 0.950
std dev: 16.93131 us, lb 1.033678 us, ub 40.23900 us, ci 0.950
found 6 outliers among 100 samples (6.0%)
  3 (3.0%) low mild
  3 (3.0%) high severe
variance introduced by outliers: 98.921%
variance is severely inflated by outliers
benchmarking FFI/C binding
mean: 209.9733 us, lb 209.5316 us, ub 210.4680 us, ci 0.950
std dev: 2.401398 us, lb 2.052981 us, ub 2.889688 us, ci 0.950
First result is always about 39us (2,5 faster, despite longer signal!)
while the remaining
benchmarks take almost two times longer.
Janek
Dnia niedziela, 25 listopada 2012, Janek S. napisał:
...
Well, it seems that this only happens on my machine. I will try to
test this code on different computer and see if I can reproduce it.
I don't think using existing vector is a good idea - it would make
the
code
...
impure.
Janek
Dnia sobota, 24 listopada 2012, Branimir Maksimovic napisał:
...
I don't see such behavior neither.ubuntu 12.10, ghc 7.4.2.
Perhaps this has to do with how malloc allocates /cachebehavior.
If you try not to allocate array rather use existing one perhaps
there would
be
...
...
no inconsistency?It looks to me that's about CPU cache
performance. Branimir
> I'm using GHC 7.4.2 on x86_64 openSUSE Linux, kernel 2.6.37.6.
>
> Janek
>
> Dnia piątek, 23 listopada 2012, Edward Z. Yang napisał:
> > Running the sample code on GHC 7.4.2, I don't see the "one
> > fast, rest slow" behavior.  What version of GHC are you
> > running?
> >
> > Edward
> >
> > Excerpts from Janek S.'s message of Fri Nov 23 13:42:03 -0500 2012:
> > > > What happens if you do the benchmark without
> > > > unsafePerformIO involved?
> > >
> > > I removed unsafePerformIO, changed copy to have type Vector
Double
...
...
> > > -> IO (Vector Double) and modified benchmarks like this:
> > >
> > > bench "C binding" $ whnfIO (copy signal)
> > >
> > > I see no difference - one benchmark runs fast, remaining
> > > ones run slow.
> > >
> > > Janek
> > >
> > > > Excerpts from Janek S.'s message of Fri Nov 23 10:44:15
> > > > -0500
2012:
...
...
> > > > > I am using Criterion library to benchmark C code called
> > > > > via
FFI
...
...
> > > > > bindings and I've ran into a problem that looks like a
> > > > > bug.
> > > > >
> > > > > The first benchmark that uses FFI runs correctly, but
> > > > > subsequent benchmarks run much longer. I created demo
> > > > > code (about 50 lines, available at github:
> > > > > https://gist.github.com/4135698 ) in which C function
copies a
...
...
> > > > > vector of doubles. I benchmark that function a couple of
times.
...
...
> > > > > First run results in avarage time of about 17us,
> > > > > subsequent runs take about 45us. In my real code
> > > > > additional time was
about
...
...
> > > > > 15us and it seemed to be a constant factor, not relative
> > > > > to "correct" run time. The surprising thing is that if
> > > > > my C function only allocates memory and does no copying:
> > > > >
> > > > > double* c_copy( double* inArr, int arrLen ) {
> > > > >   double* outArr = malloc( arrLen * sizeof( double ) );
> > > > >
> > > > >   return outArr;
> > > > > }
> > > > >
> > > > > then all is well - all runs take similar amount of time.
> > > > > I
also
...
...
> > > > > noticed that sometimes in my demo code all runs take
> > > > > about 45us, but this does not seem to happen in my real
> > > > > code -
first
...
...
> > > > > run is always shorter.
> > > > >
> > > > > Does anyone have an idea what is going on?
> > > > >
> > > > > Janek
>
> _______________________________________________
> Haskell-Cafe mailing list
> Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe