Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by luriel | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

luriel

How long ago was that? The gc compilers have seen lots of improvement recently, and more will be merged soon.

Also, if the problem is so pathological, it might be worth filling an issue.

View on HN

Go 1.0.2, which is the newest stable release. I will see if I have some extra time to file a report.

Slightly off topic (but relevant to my comment above), do you know why this:

    func TraverseInline() {
      var ints := make([]int, N)
      for i := range ints {
        sum += i
      }
    }

should be slower than:

    func TraverseArray(ints []int) int {
      sum := 0
      for i := range ints {
        sum += i
      }
      return sum
    }

    func TraverseWithFunc() {
      var ints := make([]int, N)
      sum := TraverseArray(ints)
    }

Seeing a huge difference here. With an array of 300000000 ints, TraverseInline() takes about 750ms, whereas TraverseWithFunc() takes 394ms. With gccgo (GCC 4.7.1), the different is much slighter, but there's still a difference: 196ms compared to 172ms. (These are best-case figures, I'm doing lots of loops.) Go is compiled, not JIT, so I don't see why a function should offer better performance.

I'm not seeing any difference between the two functions using the 1.0.2 x64 gc compiler. Here's the code I used (slightly modified to compile): http://play.golang.org/p/gcf0BOGncQ

For more complex functions, you could try profiling using the runtime/pprof package. More info here: http://blog.golang.org/2011/06/profiling-go-programs.html

If you want to dig deeper and are not averse to assembly, you can pass -gcflags -S to 'go build' and see the compiler output. Here's what I got for the above code:

  --- prog list "TraverseInline" ---
  0000 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:10) TEXT    TraverseInline+0(SB),$40-8
  0001 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVQ    $type.[]int+0(SB),(SP)
  0002 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVQ    $300000000,8(SP)
  0003 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVQ    $300000000,16(SP)
  0004 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) CALL    ,runtime.makeslice+0(SB)
  0005 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVQ    24(SP),BX
  0006 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVL    32(SP),SI
  0007 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:11) MOVL    36(SP),BX
  0008 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:12) MOVL    $0,DX
  0009 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) MOVL    $0,AX
  0010 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) JMP     ,12
  0011 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) INCL    ,AX
  0012 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) CMPL    AX,SI
  0013 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) JGE     ,16
  0014 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:14) ADDL    AX,DX
  0015 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:13) JMP     ,11
  0016 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:16) MOVL    DX,.noname+0(FP)
  0017 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:16) RET     ,

  --- prog list "TraverseArray" ---
  0018 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:19) TEXT    TraverseArray+0(SB),$0-24
  0019 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:20) MOVL    $0,DX
  0020 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) MOVL    $0,AX
  0021 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) MOVL    ints+8(FP),SI
  0022 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) JMP     ,24
  0023 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) INCL    ,AX
  0024 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) CMPL    AX,SI
  0025 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) JGE     ,28
  0026 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:22) ADDL    AX,DX
  0027 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:21) JMP     ,23
  0028 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:24) MOVL    DX,.noname+16(FP)
  0029 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:24) RET     ,

  --- prog list "TraverseWithFunc" ---
  0030 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:27) TEXT    TraverseWithFunc+0(SB),$40-8
  0031 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVQ    $type.[]int+0(SB),(SP)
  0032 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVQ    $300000000,8(SP)
  0033 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVQ    $300000000,16(SP)
  0034 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) CALL    ,runtime.makeslice+0(SB)
  0035 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVQ    24(SP),DX
  0036 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVL    32(SP),CX
  0037 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:28) MOVL    36(SP),AX
  0038 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) LEAQ    (SP),BX
  0039 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) MOVQ    DX,(BX)
  0040 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) MOVL    CX,8(BX)
  0041 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) MOVL    AX,12(BX)
  0042 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) CALL    ,TraverseArray+0(SB)
  0043 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:29) MOVL    16(SP),AX
  0044 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:30) MOVL    AX,.noname+0(FP)
  0045 (/tmp/tmp.rkM3kSJ6Hd/trav.go:30) RET     ,

Here is my test, with test output for gc and gccgo:

https://gist.github.com/3053930

The numbers are from Go 1.0 as that's what is available on Ubuntu Precise, my test box. (Getting similar numbers with 1.0.2 on a different box where I don't have gccgo.)

I realized that the first loop was using "i < len(ints)" as a loop test, which turns out to be more expensive than I thought, and the compiler doesn't optimize it into a constant (which would be expecting too much, I guess). After rewriting the test, the function call case is only slightly faster, although it is still significantly faster with gccgo.

Unrelated to your question, but your code doesn't traverse array. All it does is:

      for i := 0; i < len(ints); i++ {
        sum += i
      }

Sorry, that was a typo. The actual test program I use is correct. It was obviously supposed to be:

    sum += ints[i]

Not relevant to the performance test but you can do this

for index, value := range mySlice { }

and you get the index and the value, or you can do

for _, value := range mySlice { }

If you only need the value.

I don't have any immediate insight for the difference in performance you're seeing (my hunch is that it's to do with where and how memory is being allocated), but I would suggest you ask about it on the Go-Nuts mailing list: https://groups.google.com/forum/?fromgroups#!forum/golang-nu...

The Go authors should be very receptive and informative on such an issue.

Not sure why the difference in performance between function and non-function, particularly considering this looks inline-able.

2 theories on why gcc is doing better. Maybe its unrolling the loop, and avoids a bunch of jumps. Alternatively, it could be using SSE, but this theory is a much less likely, because I would expect it to be 4 times faster not twice as fast. gc doesn't use SSE instructions yet.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com