|
This replaces the current benchmarking framework with nanobench [1], an
MIT licensed single-header benchmarking library, of which I am the
autor. This has in my opinion several advantages, especially on Linux:
* fast: Running all benchmarks takes ~6 seconds instead of 4m13s on
an Intel i7-8700 CPU @ 3.20GHz.
* accurate: I ran e.g. the benchmark for SipHash_32b 10 times and
calculate standard deviation / mean = coefficient of variation:
* 0.57% CV for old benchmarking framework
* 0.20% CV for nanobench
So the benchmark results with nanobench seem to vary less than with
the old framework.
* It automatically determines runtime based on clock precision, no need
to specify number of evaluations.
* measure instructions, cycles, branches, instructions per cycle,
branch misses (only Linux, when performance counters are available)
* output in markdown table format.
* Warn about unstable environment (frequency scaling, turbo, ...)
* For better profiling, it is possible to set the environment variable
NANOBENCH_ENDLESS to force endless running of a particular benchmark
without the need to recompile. This makes it to e.g. run "perf top"
and look at hotspots.
Here is an example copy & pasted from the terminal output:
| ns/byte | byte/s | err% | ins/byte | cyc/byte | IPC | bra/byte | miss% | total | benchmark
|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|---------------:|--------:|----------:|:----------
| 2.52 | 396,529,415.94 | 0.6% | 25.42 | 8.02 | 3.169 | 0.06 | 0.0% | 0.03 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp RIPEMD160`
| 1.87 | 535,161,444.83 | 0.3% | 21.36 | 5.95 | 3.589 | 0.06 | 0.0% | 0.02 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA1`
| 3.22 | 310,344,174.79 | 1.1% | 36.80 | 10.22 | 3.601 | 0.09 | 0.0% | 0.04 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256`
| 2.01 | 496,375,796.23 | 0.0% | 18.72 | 6.43 | 2.911 | 0.01 | 1.0% | 0.00 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256D64_1024`
| 7.23 | 138,263,519.35 | 0.1% | 82.66 | 23.11 | 3.577 | 1.63 | 0.1% | 0.00 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA256_32b`
| 3.04 | 328,780,166.40 | 0.3% | 35.82 | 9.69 | 3.696 | 0.03 | 0.0% | 0.03 | `bench/crypto_hash.cpp SHA512`
[1] https://github.com/martinus/nanobench
* Adds support for asymptotes
This adds support to calculate asymptotic complexity of a benchmark.
This is similar to #17375, but currently only one asymptote is
supported, and I have added support in the benchmark `ComplexMemPool`
as an example.
Usage is e.g. like this:
```
./bench_bitcoin -filter=ComplexMemPool -asymptote=25,50,100,200,400,600,800
```
This runs the benchmark `ComplexMemPool` several times but with
different complexityN settings. The benchmark can extract that number
and use it accordingly. Here, it's used for `childTxs`. The output is
this:
| complexityN | ns/op | op/s | err% | ins/op | cyc/op | IPC | total | benchmark
|------------:|--------------------:|--------------------:|--------:|----------------:|----------------:|-------:|----------:|:----------
| 25 | 1,064,241.00 | 939.64 | 1.4% | 3,960,279.00 | 2,829,708.00 | 1.400 | 0.01 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 50 | 1,579,530.00 | 633.10 | 1.0% | 6,231,810.00 | 4,412,674.00 | 1.412 | 0.02 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 100 | 4,022,774.00 | 248.58 | 0.6% | 16,544,406.00 | 11,889,535.00 | 1.392 | 0.04 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 200 | 15,390,986.00 | 64.97 | 0.2% | 63,904,254.00 | 47,731,705.00 | 1.339 | 0.17 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 400 | 69,394,711.00 | 14.41 | 0.1% | 272,602,461.00 | 219,014,691.00 | 1.245 | 0.76 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 600 | 168,977,165.00 | 5.92 | 0.1% | 639,108,082.00 | 535,316,887.00 | 1.194 | 1.86 | `ComplexMemPool`
| 800 | 310,109,077.00 | 3.22 | 0.1% |1,149,134,246.00 | 984,620,812.00 | 1.167 | 3.41 | `ComplexMemPool`
| coefficient | err% | complexity
|--------------:|-------:|------------
| 4.78486e-07 | 4.5% | O(n^2)
| 6.38557e-10 | 21.7% | O(n^3)
| 3.42338e-05 | 38.0% | O(n log n)
| 0.000313914 | 46.9% | O(n)
| 0.0129823 | 114.4% | O(log n)
| 0.0815055 | 133.8% | O(1)
The best fitting curve is O(n^2), so the algorithm seems to scale
quadratic with `childTxs` in the range 25 to 800.
|
|
5fbf7c4 fix nits: variable naming, typos (Martin Ankerl)
1e0ee90 Use best-fit strategy in Arena, now O(log(n)) instead O(n) (Martin Ankerl)
Pull request description:
This replaces the first-fit algorithm used in the Arena with a best-fit. According to "Dynamic Storage Allocation: A Survey and Critical Review", Wilson et. al. 1995, http://www.scs.stanford.edu/14wi-cs140/sched/readings/wilson.pdf, both startegies work well in practice.
The advantage of using best-fit is that we can switch the O(n) allocation to O(log(n)). Additionally, some previously O(log(n)) operations are now O(1) operations by using hash maps. The end effect is that the benchmark runs about 2.5 times faster on my machine:
# Benchmark, evals, iterations, total, min, max, median
old: BenchLockedPool, 5, 530, 5.25749, 0.00196938, 0.00199755, 0.00198172
new: BenchLockedPool, 5, 1300, 5.11313, 0.000781493, 0.000793314, 0.00078606
I've run all unit tests and benchmarks, and increased the number of iterations so that BenchLockedPool takes about 5 seconds again.
Tree-SHA512: 6551e384671f93f10c60df530a29a1954bd265cc305411f665a8756525e5afe2873a8032c797d00b6e8c07e16d9827465d0b662875433147381474a44119ccce
|
|
This replaces the first-fit algorithm used in the Arena with a best-fit. According to "Dynamic Storage Allocation: A Survey and Critical Review", Wilson et. al. 1995, http://www.scs.stanford.edu/14wi-cs140/sched/readings/wilson.pdf, both startegies work well in practice.
The advantage of using best-fit is that we can switch the slow O(n) algorithm to O(log(n)) operations. Additionally, some previously O(log(n)) operations are now replaced with O(1) operations by using a hash map. The end effect is that the benchmark runs about 2.5 times faster on my machine:
old: BenchLockedPool, 5, 530, 5.25749, 0.00196938, 0.00199755, 0.00198172
new: BenchLockedPool, 5, 1300, 5.11313, 0.000781493, 0.000793314, 0.00078606
I've run all unit tests and benchmarks.
|
