On Thu, Apr 02, 2020 at 08:40:35PM +0200, René Scharfe wrote:
> > And I didn't even have to pre-size the table. This really makes me
> > wonder if there's some silly inefficiency in khash which we could be
> > addressing. Or maybe open-addressing really does lose to chaining here,
> > but I think we keep the load factor low enough that it should be a win.
>
> Or we're just unlucky. I tried to find the difference between khash
> with and without presizing using callgrind, but came up empty. It did
> reveal that fast-import spends 70% of its cycles in a million memset()
> calls issued (indirectly) by git_deflate_init() which in turn is called
> by store_object() which is called from parse_and_store_blob(), though.
I think that 70% is outsized in this case because we're dumping millions
of 4-byte blobs. In a real repo you'd have larger blobs, as well as
actual trees and commits pulling them together.
> Why is the won second when handling 1M objects not showing in its
> output? I suspect it's because it uses its custom allocator to gather
> its data. So I ran the test with jemalloc2 preloaded:
>
> nr_objects master khash khash+preload
> 2^20 0m5.812s 0m5.600s 0m5.604s
> 2^21 0m12.913s 0m10.884s 0m10.357s
> 2^22 0m31.257s 0m21.461s 0m21.031s
> 2^23 1m20.904s 0m40.181s 0m42.607s
> 2^24 3m59.201s 1m21.104s 1m23.814s
>
> My measurements are noisy, but my point is simply that with a different
> allocator you'd not even have seen any slowdown when switching to khash.
Yeah, that makes sense. I still prefer the hashmap solution for its lack
of pointer hackery, given that it seems to perform as well or better.
I'll send a cleaned-up patch in a moment.
> > struct object_entry {
> > struct pack_idx_entry idx;
> > - struct object_entry *next;
> > + struct hashmap_entry ent;
>
> That uses 16 bytes more memory per entry on x64 than khash would.
> That's 256MB for 2^24 objects -- not ideal, but bearable, I guess.
Isn't it 8? We're dropping the old pointer and replacing it with the
"next" pointer in hashmap_entry, plus our 4-byte hash code (which likely
gets padded to 8).
I think it's probably OK in practice.
> > +static int object_entry_hashcmp(const void *map_data,
> > + const struct hashmap_entry *eptr,
> > + const struct hashmap_entry *entry_or_key,
> > + const void *keydata)
> > +{
> > + const struct object_id *oid = keydata;
> > + const struct object_entry *e1, *e2;
> > +
> > + e1 = container_of(eptr, const struct object_entry, ent);
>
> That's nicer that the pointer alchemy in the khash conversion for sure.
>
> But why const? Can const change the layout of a structure? Scary.
No, I don't think it can. I mostly copied the "const" from the other
container_of() hashmap sites. I don't think it matters in practice,
because we're assigning the result to a const pointer anyway. But it
seems a little cleaner not to momentarily cast away the constness even
inside the macro.
-Peff
