What are some good tips and/or techniques for optimizing and improving the performance of calculation heavy programs. I'm talking about things like complication graphics calculations or mathematical and simulation types of programming where every second saved is useful, as opposed to IO heavy programs where only a certain amount of speedup is helpful.
While changing the algorithm is frequently mentioned as the most effective method here,I'm trying to find out how effective different algorithms are in the first place, so I want to create as much efficiency with each algorithm as is possible. The "problem" I'm solving isn't something thats well known, so there are few if any algorithms on the web, but I'm looking for any good advice on how to proceed and what to look for.
I am exploring the differences in effectiveness between evolutionary algorithms and more straightforward approaches for a particular group of related problems. I have written three evolutionary algorithms for the problem already and now I have written an brute force technique that I am trying to make as fast as possible.
Edit: To specify a bit more. I am using C# and my algorithms all revolve around calculating and solving constraint type problems for expressions (using expression trees). By expressions I mean things like x^2 + 4 or anything else like that which would be parsed into an expression tree. My algorithms all create and manipulate these trees to try to find better approximations. But I wanted to put the question out there in a general way in case it would help anyone else.
I am trying to find out if it is possible to write a useful evolutionary algorithm for finding expressions that are a good approximation for various properties. Both because I want to know what a good approximation would be and to see how the evolutionary stuff compares to traditional methods.
It's pretty much the same process as any other optimization: profile, experiment, benchmark, repeat.
First you have to figure out what sections of your code are taking up the time. Then try different methods to speed them up (trying methods based on merit would be a better idea than trying things at random). Benchmark to find out if you actually did speed them up. If you did, replace the old method with the new one. Profile again.
I would recommend against a brute force approach if it's at all possible to do it some other way. But, here are some guidelines that should help you speed your code up either way.
There are many, many different optimizations you could apply to your code, but before you do anything, you should profile to figure out where the bottleneck is. Here are some profilers that should give you a good idea about where the hot spots are in your code:
GProf
PerfMon2
OProfile
HPCToolkit
These all use sampling to get their data, so the overhead of running them with your code should be minimal. Only GProf requires that you recompile your code. Also, the last three let you do both time and hardware performance counter profiles, so once you do a time (or CPU cycle) profile, you can zoom in on the hotter regions and find out why they might be running slow (cache misses, FP instruction counts, etc.).
Beyond that, it's a matter of thinking about how best to restructure your code, and this depends on what the problem is. It may be that you've just got a loop that the compiler doesn't optimize well, and you can inline or move things in/out of the loop to help the compiler out. Or, if you're running as fast as you can with basic arithmetic ops, you may want to try to exploit vector instructions (SSE, etc.) If your code is parallel, you might have load balance problems, and you may need to restructure your code so that data is better distributed across cores.
These are just a few examples. Performance optimization is complex, and it might not help you nearly enough if you're doing a brute force approach to begin with.
For more information on ways people have optimized things, there were some pretty good examples in the recent Why do you program in assembly? question.
If your optimization problem is (quasi-)convex or can be transformed into such a form, there are far more efficient algorithms than evolutionary search.
If you have large matrices, pay attention to your linear algebra routines. The right algorithm can make shave an order of magnitude off the computation time, especially if your matrices are sparse.
Think about how data is loaded into memory. Even when you think you're spending most of your time on pure arithmetic, you're actually spending a lot of time moving things between levels of cache etc. Do as much as you can with the data while it's in the fastest memory.
Try to avoid unnecessary memory allocation and de-allocation. Here's where it can make sense to back away from a purely OO approach.
This is more of a tip to find holes in the algorithm itself...
To realize maximum performance, simplify everything inside the most inner loop at the expense of everything else.
One example of keeping things simple is the classic bouncing ball animation. You can implement gravity by looking up the definition in your physics book and plugging in the numbers, or you can do it like this and save precious clock cycles:
initialize:
float y = 0; // y coordinate
float yi = 0; // incremental variable
loop:
y += yi;
yi += 0.001;
if (y > 10)
yi = -yi;
But now let's say you're having to do this with nested loops in an N-body simulation where every particle is attracted to every other particle. This can be an enormously processor intensive task when you're dealing with thousands of particles.
You should of course take the same approach as to simplify everything inside the most inner loop. But more than that, at the very simplest level you should also use data types wisely. For example, math operations are faster when working with integers than floating point variables. Also, addition is faster than multiplication, and multiplication is faster than division.
So with all of that in mind, you should be able to simplify the most inner loop using primarily addition and multiplication of integers. And then any scaling down you might need to do can be done afterwards. To take the y and yi example, if yi is an integer that you modify inside the inner loop then you could scale it down after the loop like this:
y += yi * 0.01;
These are very basic low-level performance tips, but they're all things I try to keep in mind whenever I'm working with processor intensive algorithms. Of course, if you then take these ideas and apply them to parallel processing on a GPU then you can take your algorithm to a whole new level. =)
Well how you do this depends the most on which language
you are using. Still, the key in any language
in the profiler. Profile your code. See which
functions/operations are taking the most time and then determine
if you can make these costly operations more efficient.
Standard bottlenecks in numerical algorithms are memory
usage (do you access matrices in the order which the elements
are stored in memory); communication overhead, etc. They
can be little different than other non-numerical programs.
Moreover, many other factors such as preconditioning, etc.
can lead to drastically difference performance behavior
of the SAME algorithm on the same problem. Make sure
you determine optimal parameters for your implementations.
As for comparing different algorithms, I recommend
reading the paper
"Benchmarking optimization software with performance profiles,"
Jorge Moré and Elizabeth D. Dolan, Mathematical Programming 91 (2002), 201-213.
It provides a nice, uniform way to compare different algorithms being
applied to the same problem set. It really should be better known
outside of the optimization community (in my not so humble opinion
at least).
Good luck!
Related
I have some data about programmer actions inside an ide. From this data I am trying to make a good algorithm to calculate a programmers efficiency.
If we consider
efficiency = useful energy out / energy in
I made this rough equation:
energy in = active time(run events x code editing time)
Basically its the the time where stuff is actually being done by the programmer multiplied by run events like
debugging,build etc x the time where the programmer is actually editing code.
useful energy out = energy in - (#unsuccessfulbuilds + abortedtestruns
+ debuggerusetime)
Useful energy out is basically energy in minus things that I consider to be inefficient.
Can anyone see how to improve this, particularly from a mathematical point of view. Maths isn't my strong point and am not sure if I should use some sort of weighting for the equations and how to do this correctly. Also, I'm thinking of how to make it that whats minused from energy in in the useful energy out equation cant end up as less than 0. Can anyone give a hand with these questions ?
Your "algorithm" is completely arbitrary, making judgement of value over things that are inocuous to whatever you called "efficient/inneficient", and will endup with a completely incoherent final value after being calculated. Compilation time? So the first compilation of a C++ plugin that takes 30+ minutes is good? Debugging time is both efficient and inefficient in your proposal.
A programmer that codes for 10 minutes and make 6 consecutive builds with close to no changes will have the same output as the guy that code for 60 minutes.
I suggest you look firts to what is a good use of a programmers time, how other programs contabilize programmers efficiency. Etc.
Just on a side note, to create a model of efficiency of work of a highly technical and creative field, you must understand quite well math, statistics and project management. Thats why good scrum masters are so sought after.
Anyway, what you propose is not an algorithm, but a scoring system, usually algorithms do make use of scoring systems to help their internal rules work out the best solution based on the scoring. The scoring is just a value, while the algorithm is a process to an end.
For a university lecture I am looking for floating point algorithms with known asymptotic runtime, but potential for low-level (micro-)optimization. This means optimizations such as minimizing cache misses and register spillages, maximizing instruction level parallelism and taking advantage of SIMD (vector) instructions on new CPUs. The optimizations are going to be CPU-specific and will make use of applicable instruction set extensions.
The classic textbook example for this is matrix multiplication, where great speedups can be achieved by simply reordering the sequence of memory accesses (among other tricks). Another example is FFT. Unfortunately, I am not allowed to choose either of these.
Anyone have any ideas, or an algorithm/method that could use a boost?
I am only interested in algorithms where a per-thread speedup is conceivable. Parallelizing problems by multi-threading them is fine, but not the scope of this lecture.
Edit 1: I am taking the course, not teaching it. In the past years, there were quite a few projects that succeeded in surpassing the current best implementations in terms of performance.
Edit 2: This paper lists (from page 11 onwards) seven classes of important numerical methods and some associated algorithms that use them. At least some of the mentioned algorithms are candidates, it is however difficult to see which.
Edit 3: Thank you everyone for your great suggestions! We proposed to implement the exposure fusion algorithm (paper from 2007) and our proposal was accepted. The algorithm creates HDR-like images and consists mainly of small kernel convolutions followed by weighted multiresolution blending (on the Laplacian pyramid) of the source images. Interesting for us is the fact that the algorithm is already implemented in the widely used Enfuse tool, which is now at version 4.1. So we will be able to validate and compare our results with the original and also potentially contribute to the development of the tool itself. I will update this post in the future with the results if I can.
The simplest possible example:
accumulation of a sum. unrolling using multiple accumulators and vectorization allow a speedup of (ADD latency)*(SIMD vector width) on typical pipelined architectures (if the data is in cache; because there's no data reuse, it typically won't help if you're reading from memory), which can easily be an order of magnitude. Cute thing to note: this also decreases the average error of the result! The same techniques apply to any similar reduction operation.
A few classics from image/signal processing:
convolution with small kernels (especially small 2d convolves like a 3x3 or 5x5 kernel). In some sense this is cheating, because convolution is matrix multiplication, and is intimately related to the FFT, but in reality the nitty-gritty algorithmic techniques of high-performance small kernel convolutions are quite different from either.
erode and dilate.
what image people call a "gamma correction"; this is really evaluation of an exponential function (maybe with a piecewise linear segment near zero). Here you can take advantage of the fact that image data is often entirely in a nice bounded range like [0,1] and sub-ulp accuracy is rarely needed to use much cheaper function approximations (low-order piecewise minimax polynomials are common).
Stephen Canon's image processing examples would each make for instructive projects. Taking a different tack, though, you might look at certain amenable geometry problems:
Closest pair of points in moderately high dimension---say 50000 or so points in 16 or so dimensions. This may have too much in common with matrix multiplication for your purposes. (Take the dimension too much higher and dimensionality reduction silliness starts mattering; much lower and spatial data structures dominate. Brute force, or something simple using a brute-force kernel, is what I would want to use for this.)
Variation: For each point, find the closest neighbour.
Variation: Red points and blue points; find the closest red point to each blue point.
Welzl's smallest containing circle algorithm is fairly straightforward to implement, and the really costly step (check for points outside the current circle) is amenable to vectorisation. (I suspect you can kill it in two dimensions with just a little effort.)
Be warned that computational geometry stuff is usually more annoying to implement than it looks at first; don't just grab a random paper without understanding what degenerate cases exist and how careful your programming needs to be.
Have a look at other linear algebra problems, too. They're also hugely important. Dense Cholesky factorisation is a natural thing to look at here (much more so than LU factorisation) since you don't need to mess around with pivoting to make it work.
There is a free benchmark called c-ray.
It is a small ray-tracer for spheres designed to be a benchmark for floating-point performance.
A few random stackshots show that it spends nearly all its time in a function called ray_sphere that determines if a ray intersects a sphere and if so, where.
They also show some opportunities for larger speedup, such as:
It does a linear search through all the spheres in the scene to try to find the nearest intersection. That represents a possible area for speedup, by doing a quick test to see if a sphere is farther away than the best seen so far, before doing all the 3-d geometry math.
It does not try to exploit similarity from one pixel to the next. This could gain a huge speedup.
So if all you want to look at is chip-level performance, it could be a decent example.
However, it also shows how there can be much bigger opportunities.
I'm looking for algorithms to find a "best" set of parameter values. The function in question has a lot of local minima and changes very quickly. To make matters even worse, testing a set of parameters is very slow - on the order of 1 minute - and I can't compute the gradient directly.
Are there any well-known algorithms for this kind of optimization?
I've had moderate success with just trying random values. I'm wondering if I can improve the performance by making the random parameter chooser have a lower chance of picking parameters close to ones that had produced bad results in the past. Is there a name for this approach so that I can search for specific advice?
More info:
Parameters are continuous
There are on the order of 5-10 parameters. Certainly not more than 10.
How many parameters are there -- eg, how many dimensions in the search space? Are they continuous or discrete - eg, real numbers, or integers, or just a few possible values?
Approaches that I've seen used for these kind of problems have a similar overall structure - take a large number of sample points, and adjust them all towards regions that have "good" answers somehow. Since you have a lot of points, their relative differences serve as a makeshift gradient.
Simulated
Annealing: The classic approach. Take a bunch of points, probabalistically move some to a neighbouring point chosen at at random depending on how much better it is.
Particle
Swarm Optimization: Take a "swarm" of particles with velocities in the search space, probabalistically randomly move a particle; if it's an improvement, let the whole swarm know.
Genetic Algorithms: This is a little different. Rather than using the neighbours information like above, you take the best results each time and "cross-breed" them hoping to get the best characteristics of each.
The wikipedia links have pseudocode for the first two; GA methods have so much variety that it's hard to list just one algorithm, but you can follow links from there. Note that there are implementations for all of the above out there that you can use or take as a starting point.
Note that all of these -- and really any approach to this large-dimensional search algorithm - are heuristics, which mean they have parameters which have to be tuned to your particular problem. Which can be tedious.
By the way, the fact that the function evaluation is so expensive can be made to work for you a bit; since all the above methods involve lots of independant function evaluations, that piece of the algorithm can be trivially parallelized with OpenMP or something similar to make use of as many cores as you have on your machine.
Your situation seems to be similar to that of the poster of Software to Tune/Calibrate Properties for Heuristic Algorithms, and I would give you the same advice I gave there: consider a Metropolis-Hastings like approach with multiple walkers and a simulated annealing of the step sizes.
The difficulty in using a Monte Carlo methods in your case is the expensive evaluation of each candidate. How expensive, compared to the time you have at hand? If you need a good answer in a few minutes this isn't going to be fast enough. If you can leave it running over night, it'll work reasonably well.
Given a complicated search space, I'd recommend a random initial distributed. You final answer may simply be the best individual result recorded during the whole run, or the mean position of the walker with the best result.
Don't be put off that I was discussing maximizing there and you want to minimize: the figure of merit can be negated or inverted.
I've tried Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm Optimization. (As a reminder, I couldn't use gradient descent because the gradient cannot be computed).
I've also tried an algorithm that does the following:
Pick a random point and a random direction
Evaluate the function
Keep moving along the random direction for as long as the result keeps improving, speeding up on every successful iteration.
When the result stops improving, step back and instead attempt to move into an orthogonal direction by the same distance.
This "orthogonal direction" was generated by creating a random orthogonal matrix (adapted this code) with the necessary number of dimensions.
If moving in the orthogonal direction improved the result, the algorithm just continued with that direction. If none of the directions improved the result, the jump distance was halved and a new set of orthogonal directions would be attempted. Eventually the algorithm concluded it must be in a local minimum, remembered it and restarted the whole lot at a new random point.
This approach performed considerably better than Simulated Annealing and Particle Swarm: it required fewer evaluations of the (very slow) function to achieve a result of the same quality.
Of course my implementations of S.A. and P.S.O. could well be flawed - these are tricky algorithms with a lot of room for tweaking parameters. But I just thought I'd mention what ended up working best for me.
I can't really help you with finding an algorithm for your specific problem.
However in regards to the random choosing of parameters I think what you are looking for are genetic algorithms. Genetic algorithms are generally based on choosing some random input, selecting those, which are the best fit (so far) for the problem, and randomly mutating/combining them to generate a next generation for which again the best are selected.
If the function is more or less continous (that is small mutations of good inputs generally won't generate bad inputs (small being a somewhat generic)), this would work reasonably well for your problem.
There is no generalized way to answer your question. There are lots of books/papers on the subject matter, but you'll have to choose your path according to your needs, which are not clearly spoken here.
Some things to know, however - 1min/test is way too much for any algorithm to handle. I guess that in your case, you must really do one of the following:
get 100 computers to cut your parameter testing time to some reasonable time
really try to work out your parameters by hand and mind. There must be some redundancy and at least some sanity check so you can test your case in <1min
for possible result sets, try to figure out some 'operations' that modify it slightly instead of just randomizing it. For example, in TSP some basic operator is lambda, that swaps two nodes and thus creates new route. Your can be shifting some number up/down for some value.
then, find yourself some nice algorithm, your starting point can be somewhere here. The book is invaluable resource for anyone who starts with problem-solving.
I did a little GP (note:very little) work in college and have been playing around with it recently. My question is in regards to the intial run settings (population size, number of generations, min/max depth of trees, min/max depth of initial trees, percentages to use for different reproduction operations, etc.). What is the normal practice for setting these parameters? What papers/sites do people use as a good guide?
You'll find that this depends very much on your problem domain - in particular the nature of the fitness function, your implementation DSL etc.
Some personal experience:
Large population sizes seem to work
better when you have a noisy fitness
function, I think this is because the growth
of sub-groups in the population over successive generations acts
to give more sampling of
the fitness function. I typically use
100 for less noisy/deterministic functions, 1000+
for noisy.
For number of generations it is best to measure improvements in the
fitness function and stop when it
meets your target criteria. I normally run a few hundred generations and see what kind of answers are coming out, if it is showing no improvement then you probably have an issue elsewhere.
Tree depth requirements are really dependent on your DSL. I sometimes try to do an
implementation without explicit
limits but penalise or eliminate
programs that run too long (which is probably
what you really care about....). I've also found total node counts of ~1000 to be quite useful hard limits.
Percentages for different mutation / recombination operators don't seem
to matter all that much. As long as
you have a comprehensive set of mutations, any reasonably balanced
distribution will usually work. I think the reason for this is that you are basically doing a search for favourable improvements so the main objective is just to make sure the trial improvements are reasonably well distributed across all the possibilities.
Why don't you try using a genetic algorithm to optimise these parameters for you? :)
Any problem in computer science can be
solved with another layer of
indirection (except for too many
layers of indirection.)
-David J. Wheeler
When I started looking into Genetic Algorithms I had the same question.
I wanted to collect data variating parameters on a very simple problem and link given operators and parameters values (such as mutation rates, etc) to given results in function of population size etc.
Once I started getting into GA a bit more I then realized that given the enormous number of variables this is a huge task, and generalization is extremely difficult.
talking from my (limited) experience, if you decide to simplify the problem and use a fixed way to implement crossover, selection, and just play with population size and mutation rate (implemented in a given way) trying to come up with general results you'll soon realize that too many variables are still into play because at the end of the day the number of generations after which statistically you will get a decent result (whatever way you wanna define decent) still obviously depend primarily on the problem you're solving and consequently on the genome size (representing the same problem in different ways will obviously lead to different results in terms of effect of given GA parameters!).
It is certainly possible to draft a set of guidelines - as the (rare but good) literature proves - but you will be able to generalize the results effectively in statistical terms only when the problem at hand can be encoded in the exact same way and the fitness is evaluated in a somehow an equivalent way (which more often than not means you're ealing with a very similar problem).
Take a look at Koza's voluminous tomes on these matters.
There are very different schools of thought even within the GP community -
Some regard populations in the (low) thousands as sufficient whereas Koza and others often don't deem if worthy to start a GP run with less than a million individuals in the GP population ;-)
As mentioned before it depends on your personal taste and experiences, resources and probably the GP system used!
Cheers,
Jan
In a game I'm making, I've got two points, pt1 and pt2, and I want to work out the angle between them. I've already worked out the distance, in an earlier calculation. The obvious way would be to arctan the horizontal distance over the vertical distance (tan(theta) = opp/adj).
I'm wondering though, as I've already calculated the distance, would it be quicker to use arcsine/arccosine with the distance and dx or dy?
Also, might I be better off pre-calculating in a table?
I suspect there's a risk of premature optimization here. Also, be careful about your geometry. Your opposite/adjacent approach is a property of right angle triangles, is that what you actually have?
I'm assuming your points are planar, and so for the general case you have them implicitly representing two vectors form the origin (call these v1 v2), so your angle is
theta=arccos(dot(v1,v2)/(|v1||v2|)) where |.| is vector length.
Making this faster (assuming the need) will depend on a lot of things. Do you know the vector lengths, or have to compute them? How fast can you do a dot product in your architecture. How fast is acos? At some point tricks like table lookup (probably interpolated) might help but that will cost you accuracy.
It's all trade-offs though, there really isn't a general answer to your question.
[edit: added commentary]
I'd like to re-emphasize that often playing "x is fastest" is a bit of a mugs game with modern cpus and compilers anyway. You won't know until you measure it and grovel the generated code. When you hit the point that you really care about it at this level for a (hopefully small) piece of code, you can find out in detail what your system is doing. But it's painstaking. Maybe a table is good. But maybe you've got fast vector computations and a small cache. etc. etc. etc. It all amounts to "it depends". Sorry 'bout that. On the other hand, if you haven't reached the point that you really care so much about this bit of code... you probably shouldn't be thinking about it at this level at all. Make it right. Make it clean (which means abstraction as well as code). Then worry about the overhead.
Aside from all of the wise comments regarding premature optimization, let's just assume this is the hotspot and do a frigg'n benchmark:
Times are in nanoseconds, scaled to normalize 'acos' between the systems.
'acos' simply assumes unit radius i.e. acos(adj), whereas 'acos+div' means acos(adj/hyp).
System 1 is a 2.4GHz i5 running Mac OS X 10.6.4 (gcc 4.2.1)
System 2 is a 2.83GHz Core2 Quad running Red Hat 7 Linux 2.6.28 (gcc 4.1.2)
System 3 is a 1.66GHz Atom N280 running Ubuntu 10.04 2.6.32 (gcc 4.4.3)
System 4 is a 2.40GHz Pentium 4 running Ubuntu 10.04 2.6.32 (gcc 4.4.3)
Summary: Relative performance is all over the map. Sometimes atan2 is faster, sometimes its slower. Very strangely, on some systems doing acos with a division is faster than doing it without. Test on your own system :-/
If you're going to be doing this many times, pre-calculate in a table. Performance will be much better this way.
Tons of good answers here.
By the way, if you use Math.atan2, you get a full 2π of angles out of it.
I would just do it, then run it flat out. If you don't like the speed, and if samples show that you're actually in that code most of the time and not someplace else,
try replacing it with table lookup. If you don't need precision closer than 1 degree, you could use a pretty small table and interpolation.
Also, you may want to memoize the function. Why recompute something you already did recently?
Added: If you use a table, it only has to cover angles from 0-45 degrees (and it can be hard-coded). You can get everything else by symmetry.
From a pure speed standpoint, a precalculated table and a closest-match lookup would be best. It involves some overhead, of course, depending on how fine-grained you need the angle to be, but it's more than worth it if you're doing this calculation a lot (or in a tight loop), as those are going to be expensive calculations.
Get it right first !
And then profile and optimize. Table lookup is a good candidate for sure, but be sure to have your calculation right before doing anything fancy
If you're interested in big-O notation, all the methods you might use are O(1).
If you're interested in what works fastest, test it. Write a wrapper function, one that calls your preferred method but can be easily changed, and test with that. Make sure that your application spends a noticeable amount of time doing this, so you aren't wasting your own time. Try whatever ways occur to you. Ideally, run it on more than one different CPU.
I've become very leery of predicting what will take more or less time on modern processors. Lookup tables used to be the answer if you needed speed, but you don't know a priori the effects on caching or how long it's going to take to normalize and look up versus how long it's going to take to do a trig function on a particular CPU.
Given that this is for a game, you probably care about speed. A lookup table is definitely the fastest but you trade accuracy for speed with this method. So how accurate must you be to meet requirements? Only you can answer that. Before you trade accuracy, determine first if you have a speed problem. All of the trigonometric functions are calculated using numerical methods (research numerical analysis to learn more). Some trig functions are have more expensive methods than others because they rely on series that converge more slowly and who knows, your computer may have different implementations for these functions than another computer. At any rate, you can find out for yourself how expensive these functions are by writing some small programs that loop through as many iterations as you desire, with increments of your choosing, all the while timing the outcomes. Then you can pick the fastest method.
While others are very right to mention that you are almost certainly falling into the pit of premature optimization, when they say that trigonometric functions are O(1) they're not telling the whole story.
Most trigonometric function implementations are actually O(N) in the value of the input function. This is because the trig functions are most efficiently calculated on a small interval like [0, 2π) (or, for the best implementations, even smaller parts of this interval, but that one suffices to explain things). So the algorithm looks something like this, in pseudo-Python:
def Cosine_0to2Pi(x):
#a series approximation of some kind, or CORDIC, or perhaps a table
#this function requires 0 <= x < 2Pi
def MyCosine(x):
if x < 0:
x = -x
while x >= TwoPi:
x -= TwoPi
return Cosine_0to2Pi(x)
Even microcoded CPU instructions like the x87's FSINCOS end up doing something like this internally. So trig functions, because they are periodic, usually take O(N) time to do the argument reduction. There are two caveats, however:
If you have to calculate a ton of values off the principal domain of the trig functions, your math is probably not very well thought out.
Big-O notation hides a constant factor. Argument reduction has a very small constant factor, because it's simple to do. Thus the O(1) part is going to dominate the O(N) part for just about every input.