We allocate and free many memory blocks. We use Memory Heap. However, heap access is costly.
For faster memory access allocation and freeing, we adopt a global Free List. As we make a multithreaded program, the Free List is protected by a Critical Section. However, Critical Section causes a bottleneck in parallelism.
For removing the Critical Section, we assign a Free List for each thread, i.e. Thread Local Storage. However, thread T1 always memory blocks and thread T2 always frees them, so Free List in thread T2 is always increasing, meanwhile there is no benefit of Free List.
Despite of the bottleneck of Critical Section, we adopt the Critical Section again, with some different method. We prepare several Free Lists as well as Critical Sections which is assigned to each Free List, thus 0~N-1 Free Lists and 0~N-1 Critical Sections. We prepare an atomic-operated integer value which mutates to 0, 1, 2, ... N-1 then 0, 1, 2, ... again. For each allocation and freeing, we get the integer value X, then mutate it, access X-th Critical Section, then access X-th Free List. However, this is quite slower than the previous method (using Thread Local Storage). Atomic operation is quite slow as there are more threads.
As mutating the integer value non-atomically cause no corruption, we did the mutation in non-atomic way. However, as the integer value is sometimes stale, there is many chance of accessing the same Critical Section and Free List by different threads. This causes the bottleneck again, though it is quite few than the previous method.
Instead of the integer value, we used thread ID with hashing to the range (0~N-1), then the performance got better.
I guess there must be much better way of doing this, but I cannot find an exact one. Are there any ideas for improving what we have made?
Dealing with heap memory is a task for the OS. Nothing guarantees you can do a better/faster job than the OS does.
But there are some conditions where you can get a bit of improvement, specially when you know something about your memory usage that is unknown to the OS.
I'm writting here my untested idea, hope you'll get some profit of it.
Let's say you have T threads, all of them reserving and freeing memory. The main goal is speed, so I'll try not to use TLS, nor critical blocking, not atomic ops.
If (repeat: if, if, if) the app can fit to several discrete sizes of memory blocks (not random sizes, so as to avoid fragmentation and unuseful holes) then start asking the OS for a number of these discrete blocks.
For example, you have an array of n1 blocks each of size size1, an array of n2 blocks each of size size2, an array of n3... and so on. Each array is bidimensional, the second field just stores a flag for used/free block. If your arrays are very large then it's better to use a dedicated array for the flags (due to contiguous memory usage is always faster).
Now, some one asks for a block of memory of size sB. A specialized function (or object or whatever) searches the array of blocks of size greater or equal to sB, and then selects a block by looking at the used/free flag. Just before ending this task the proper block-flag is set to "used".
When two or more threads ask for blocks of the same size there may be a corruption of the flag. Using TLS will solve this issue, and critical blocking too. I think you can set a bool flag at the beggining of the search into flags-array, that makes the other threads to wait until the flag changes, which only happens after the block-flag changes. With pseudo code:
MemoryGetter(sB)
{
//select which array depending of 'sB'
for (i=0, i < numOfarrays, i++)
if (sizeOfArr(i) >= sB)
arrMatch = i
break //exit for
//wait if other thread wants a block from the same arrMatch array
while ( searching(arrMatch) == true )
; //wait
//blocks other threads wanting a block from the same arrMatch array
searching(arrMatch) = true
//Get the first free block
for (i=0, i < numOfBlocks, i++)
if ( arrOfUsed(arrMatch, i) != true )
selectedBlock = addressOf(....)
//mark the block as used
arrOfUsed(arrMatch, i) = true
break; //exit for
//Allow other threads
searching(arrMatch) = false
return selectedBlock //NOTE: selectedBlock==NULL means no free block
}
Freeing a block is easier, just mark it as free, no thread concurrency issue.
Dealing with no free blocks is up to you (wait, use a bigger block, ask OS for more, etc).
Note that the whole memory is reserved from the OS at app start, which can be a problem.
If this idea makes your app faster, let me know. What I can say for sure is that memory used is greater than if you use normal OS request; but not much if you choose "good" sizes, those most used.
Some improvements can be done:
Cache the last freeded block (per size) so as to avoid the search.
Start with not that much blocks, and ask the OS for more memory only
when needed. Play with 'number of blocks' for each size depending on
your app. Find the optimal case.
Related
What do you think about an option to fill freed (not actually used) pages with zero bytes? This may improve performance under Windows, and also under VMWare and other virtual machine environments? For example, VMWare and HyperV calculate hash of memory pages, and, if the contents is the same, mark this page as "shared" inside a virtual machine and between virtual machines on the same host, until the page is modified. It effectively decreases memory consumption. Windows does the same - it handles zero pages differently, treating them as free.
We could have the heap manager that would automatically fill memory with zeros when we call FreeMem/ReallocMem. As an alternative option, we could have a function that zeroizes empty memory by demand, i.e. only when this function is explicitly called. Of course, this function has to be thread-safe.
The drawback of filling memory with zeros is touching the memory, which might have already been turned into virtual, thus issuing page faults. Besides that, any memory store operations are slow, so our program will be slower, albeit to an unknown extent (maybe negligible).
If we manage to fill 4-K pages completely with zeros, the hypervisor or Windows will explicitly mark it as a zero page. But even partial zeroizing may be beneficial, since the hypervisor may compress pages using LZ or similar algorithms to save physical memory.
I just want to know your opinion whether the benefits of filling emptied heap memory with zero bytes by the heap manager itself will outweigh the disadvantages of such a technique.
Is zeroizing worth its price when we buy reduced physical memory consumption?
When you have a page whose contents you no longer care about but you still want to keep it allocated, you can call VirtualAlloc (and variants) and pass the MEM_RESET flag.
From VirtualAlloc on MSDN:
MEM_RESET
Indicates that data in the memory range specified by lpAddress and
dwSize is no longer of interest. The pages should not be read from or
written to the paging file. However, the memory block will be used
again later, so it should not be decommitted. This value cannot be
used with any other value.
Using this value does not guarantee that
the range operated on with MEM_RESET will contain zeros. If you want
the range to contain zeros, decommit the memory and then recommit it.
This gives the best of both worlds - you don't have the cost of zeroing the memory, and the system does not have the cost of paging it back in. You get to take advantage of the well-tuned memory manager which already has a zero-pool.
Similar functionality also exists on Linux under the MADV_FREE (or MADV_DONTNEED for Posix) flag to madvise. Glibc uses this function in the implementation of its heap.:
/*
* Stack:
* int shrink_heap (heap_info *h, long diff)
* int heap_trim (heap_info *heap, size_t pad) at arena.c:660
* void _int_free (mstate av, mchunkptr p, int have_lock) at malloc.c:4097
* void __libc_free (void *mem) at malloc.c:2948
* void free(void *mem)
*/
static int
shrink_heap (heap_info *h, long diff)
{
long new_size;
new_size = (long) h->size - diff;
/* ... snip ... */
__madvise ((char *) h + new_size, diff, MADV_DONTNEED);
/* ... snip ... */
h->size = new_size;
return 0;
}
If your heap is in user space this will never work. The kernel can only trust itself, not user space. If the kernel zeros a page, it can treat it as zero. If user space says it zeroed a page, the kernel would still have to check that. It might just as well zero it. One thing user space can do is to discard pages. Which marks them as "don't care". Then a kernel can treat them as zero. But manually zeroing pages in user space is futile.
I have two arrays: A with N_A random integers and B with N_B random integers between 0 and (N_A - 1). I use the numbers in B as indices into A in the following loop:
for(i = 0; i < N_B; i++) {
sum += A[B[i]];
}
Experimenting on an Intel i7-3770, N_A = 256 million, N_B = 64 million, this loop takes only .62 seconds, which corresponds to a memory access latency of about 9 nanoseconds.
As this latency is too small, I was wondering if the hardware prefetcher is playing a role. Can someone offer an explanation?
The HW prefetcher can see through your first level of indirection (B[i]) since these elements are sequential. It's capable of issuing multiple prefetches ahead, so you could assume that the average access into B would hit the caches (either L1 or L2). However, there's no way that the prefetcher can predict random addresses (the data stored in B) and prefetch the correct elements from A. You still have to perform a memory access in almost all accesses to A (disregarding occasional lucky cache hits due to reuse of lines)
The reason you see such low latency is that the accesses into A are non serialized, the CPU can access multiple elements of A simultaneously, so the time doesn't just accumulate. In fact, you measure memory BW here, checking how long it takes to access 64M elements overall, not memory latency (how long it takes to access a single element).
A reasonable "snapshot" of the CPU memory unit should show several outstanding requests - a few accesses into B[i], B[i+64], ... (the intermediate accesses should simply get merged as each request fetches a 64Byte line), all of which would probably be prefetches reflecting future values of i, intermixed with random accesses to A elements according to the previously fetched elements of B.
To measure latency, you need each access to depends on the result of the previous one, for e.g. by making the content of each element in A the index of the next access.
The CPU charges ahead in the instruction stream and will juggle multiple outstanding loads at once. The stream looks like this:
load b[0]
load a[b[0]]
add
loop code
load b[1]
load a[b[1]]
add
loop code
load b[1]
load a[b[1]]
add
loop code
...
The iterations are only serialized by the loop code, which runs quickly. All loads can run concurrently. Concurrency is just limited by how many loads the CPU can handle.
I suspect you wanted to benchmark random, unpredictable, serialized memory loads. This is actually pretty hard on a modern CPU. Try to introduce an unbreakable dependency chain:
int lastLoad = 0;
for(i = 0; i < N_B; i++) {
var load = A[B[i] + (lastLoad & 1)]; //be sure to make A one element bigger
sum += load;
lastLoad = load;
}
This requires the last load to be executed until the address of the next load can be computed.
I tested the speed of memcpy() noticing the speed drops dramatically at i*4KB. The result is as follow: the Y-axis is the speed(MB/second) and the X-axis is the size of buffer for memcpy(), increasing from 1KB to 2MB. Subfigure 2 and Subfigure 3 detail the part of 1KB-150KB and 1KB-32KB.
Environment：
CPU : Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5620 # 2.40GHz
OS : 2.6.35-22-generic #33-Ubuntu
GCC compiler flags : -O3 -msse4 -DINTEL_SSE4 -Wall -std=c99
I guess it must be related to caches, but I can't find a reason from the following cache-unfriendly cases:
Why is my program slow when looping over exactly 8192 elements?
Why is transposing a matrix of 512x512 much slower than transposing a matrix of 513x513?
Since the performance degradation of these two cases are caused by unfriendly loops which read scattered bytes into the cache, wasting the rest of the space of a cache line.
Here is my code:
void memcpy_speed(unsigned long buf_size, unsigned long iters){
struct timeval start, end;
unsigned char * pbuff_1;
unsigned char * pbuff_2;
pbuff_1 = malloc(buf_size);
pbuff_2 = malloc(buf_size);
gettimeofday(&start, NULL);
for(int i = 0; i < iters; ++i){
memcpy(pbuff_2, pbuff_1, buf_size);
}
gettimeofday(&end, NULL);
printf("%5.3f\n", ((buf_size*iters)/(1.024*1.024))/((end.tv_sec - \
start.tv_sec)*1000*1000+(end.tv_usec - start.tv_usec)));
free(pbuff_1);
free(pbuff_2);
}
UPDATE
Considering suggestions from #usr, #ChrisW and #Leeor, I redid the test more precisely and the graph below shows the results. The buffer size is from 26KB to 38KB, and I tested it every other 64B(26KB, 26KB+64B, 26KB+128B, ......, 38KB). Each test loops 100,000 times in about 0.15 second. The interesting thing is the drop not only occurs exactly in 4KB boundary, but also comes out in 4*i+2 KB, with a much less falling amplitude.
PS
#Leeor offered a way to fill the drop, adding a 2KB dummy buffer between pbuff_1 and pbuff_2. It works, but I am not sure about Leeor's explanation.
Memory is usually organized in 4k pages (although there's also support for larger sizes). The virtual address space your program sees may be contiguous, but it's not necessarily the case in physical memory. The OS, which maintains a mapping of virtual to physical addresses (in the page map) would usually try to keep the physical pages together as well but that's not always possible and they may be fractured (especially on long usage where they may be swapped occasionally).
When your memory stream crosses a 4k page boundary, the CPU needs to stop and go fetch a new translation - if it already saw the page, it may be cached in the TLB, and the access is optimized to be the fastest, but if this is the first access (or if you have too many pages for the TLBs to hold on to), the CPU will have to stall the memory access and start a page walk over the page map entries - that's relatively long as each level is in fact a memory read by itself (on virtual machines it's even longer as each level may need a full pagewalk on the host).
Your memcpy function may have another issue - when first allocating memory, the OS would just build the pages to the pagemap, but mark them as unaccessed and unmodified due to internal optimizations. The first access may not only invoke a page walk, but possibly also an assist telling the OS that the page is going to be used (and stores into, for the target buffer pages), which would take an expensive transition to some OS handler.
In order to eliminate this noise, allocate the buffers once, perform several repetitions of the copy, and calculate the amortized time. That, on the other hand, would give you "warm" performance (i.e. after having the caches warmed up) so you'll see the cache sizes reflect on your graphs. If you want to get a "cold" effect while not suffering from paging latencies, you might want to flush the caches between iteration (just make sure you don't time that)
EDIT
Reread the question, and you seem to be doing a correct measurement. The problem with my explanation is that it should show a gradual increase after 4k*i, since on every such drop you pay the penalty again, but then should enjoy the free ride until the next 4k. It doesn't explain why there are such "spikes" and after them the speed returns to normal.
I think you are facing a similar issue to the critical stride issue linked in your question - when your buffer size is a nice round 4k, both buffers will align to the same sets in the cache and thrash each other. Your L1 is 32k, so it doesn't seem like an issue at first, but assuming the data L1 has 8 ways it's in fact a 4k wrap-around to the same sets, and you have 2*4k blocks with the exact same alignment (assuming the allocation was done contiguously) so they overlap on the same sets. It's enough that the LRU doesn't work exactly as you expect and you'll keep having conflicts.
To check this, i'd try to malloc a dummy buffer between pbuff_1 and pbuff_2, make it 2k large and hope that it breaks the alignment.
EDIT2:
Ok, since this works, it's time to elaborate a little. Say you assign two 4k arrays at ranges 0x1000-0x1fff and 0x2000-0x2fff. set 0 in your L1 will contain the lines at 0x1000 and 0x2000, set 1 will contain 0x1040 and 0x2040, and so on. At these sizes you don't have any issue with thrashing yet, they can all coexist without overflowing the associativity of the cache. However, everytime you perform an iteration you have a load and a store accessing the same set - i'm guessing this may cause a conflict in the HW. Worse - you'll need multiple iteration to copy a single line, meaning that you have a congestion of 8 loads + 8 stores (less if you vectorize, but still a lot), all directed at the same poor set, I'm pretty sure there's are a bunch of collisions hiding there.
I also see that Intel optimization guide has something to say specifically about that (see 3.6.8.2):
4-KByte memory aliasing occurs when the code accesses two different
memory locations with a 4-KByte offset between them. The 4-KByte
aliasing situation can manifest in a memory copy routine where the
addresses of the source buffer and destination buffer maintain a
constant offset and the constant offset happens to be a multiple of
the byte increment from one iteration to the next.
...
loads have to wait until stores have been retired before they can
continue. For example at offset 16, the load of the next iteration is
4-KByte aliased current iteration store, therefore the loop must wait
until the store operation completes, making the entire loop
serialized. The amount of time needed to wait decreases with larger
offset until offset of 96 resolves the issue (as there is no pending
stores by the time of the load with same address).
I expect it's because:
When the block size is a 4KB multiple, then malloc allocates new pages from the O/S.
When the block size is not a 4KB multiple, then malloc allocates a range from its (already allocated) heap.
When the pages are allocated from the O/S then they are 'cold': touching them for the first time is very expensive.
My guess is that, if you do a single memcpy before the first gettimeofday then that will 'warm' the allocated memory and you won't see this problem. Instead of doing an initial memcpy, even writing one byte into each allocated 4KB page might be enough to pre-warm the page.
Usually when I want a performance test like yours I code it as:
// Run in once to pre-warm the cache
runTest();
// Repeat
startTimer();
for (int i = count; i; --i)
runTest();
stopTimer();
// use a larger count if the duration is less than a few seconds
// repeat test 3 times to ensure that results are consistent
Since you are looping many times, I think arguments about pages not being mapped are irrelevant. In my opinion what you are seeing is the effect of hardware prefetcher not willing to cross page boundary in order not to cause (potentially unnecessary) page faults.
I use this routine to fill unused ram with zero.
It procures crash on some computers and is coarse
size = size - (size /10);
There is a more accurate way to determine the unused RAM amount to be filled with zeroes?
DWORDLONG getTotalSystemMemory(){
PROCESS_MEMORY_COUNTERS lMemInfo;
BOOL success = GetProcessMemoryInfo(
GetCurrentProcess(),
&lMemInfo,
sizeof(lMemInfo)
);
MEMORYSTATUSEX statex;
statex.dwLength = sizeof(statex);
GlobalMemoryStatusEx(&statex);
wprintf(L"Mem: %d\n", lMemInfo.WorkingSetSize);
return statex.ullAvailPhys - lMemInfo.WorkingSetSize;
}
void Zero(){
int size = getTotalSystemMemory();//-(1024*140000)
size = size - (size /10);
//if(size>1073741824) size=1073741824; //2^32-1
wprintf(L"Mem: %d\n", size);
BYTE* ar = new BYTE[size];
RtlSecureZeroMemory(ar,size);
delete[] ar;
}
This program does not do what you think it does. In fact, it is counterproductive. Fortunately, it is also unnecessary.
First of all, the program is unncessary Windows already has a thread whole sole job to zero out free pages, uncreatively known as the zero page thread. This blog entry goes into quite a bit of detail on how it works. Therefore, the way to fill free memory with zeroes is to do nothing because there is already somebody filling free memory with zeroes.
Second, the program does not do what you think it does because when an application allocates memory, the kernel makes sure that the memory is full of zeroes before giving it to the application. (If there are not enough pre-zeroed pages available, the kernel will zero out the pages right there.) Therefore, your program which writes out zeroes is just writing zeroes on top of zeroes.
Third, the program is counterproductive because it is not limiting itself to memory that is free. It is zeroing out a big chunk of memory that might have been busy. This may force other applications to give up their active memory so that it can be given to you.
The program is also counterproductive because even if it manages only to grab free memory, it dirties the memory (by writing zeroes) before freeing it. Returning dirty pages to the kernel puts them on the "dirty free memory" list, which means that the zero page thread has to go and zero them out again. (Redundantly, in this case, but the kernel doesn't bother checking whether a freed page is full of zeros before zeroing it out. Checking whether a page is full of zeroes is about as expensive as just zeroing it out anyway.)
It is unclear what the purpose of your program is. Why does it matter that free memory is full of zeroes or not?
If you are not reading a value but assigning a value
for example
int array[] = new int[5];
for(int i =0; i < array.length(); i++){
array[i] = 2;
}
Still does the array come to the cache? Can't the cpu bring the array elements one by one to its registers and do the assignment and after that write the updated value to the main memory, bypasing the cache because its not necessary in this case ?
The answer depends on the cache protocol I answered assuming Write Back Write Allocate.
The array will still come to the cache and it will make a difference. When a cache block is retrieved from it's more than just a single memory location (the actual size depends on the design of the cache). So since arrays are stored in order in memory pulling in array[0] will pulling the rest of the block which will include (at least some of) array[1] array[2] array[3] and array[4]. This means the following calls will not have to access main memory.
Also after all this is done the values will NOT be written to memory immediately (under write back) instead the CPU will keep using the cache as the memory for reads/writes until that cache block is replaced from the cache at which point the values will be written to main memory.
Overall this is preferable to going to memory every time because the cache is much faster and the chances are the user is going to use the memory he just set relatively soon.
If the protocol is Write Through No Allocate then it won't bring the block into memory and it will right straight through to the main memory.