Review Request: speed up of rxx_allocator
Floris Ruijter
flo.ruijt at hotmail.com
Thu Feb 24 01:38:52 UTC 2011
-----------------------------------------------------------
This is an automatically generated e-mail. To reply, visit:
http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100730/
-----------------------------------------------------------
(Updated Feb. 24, 2011, 1:38 a.m.)
Review request for KDevelop.
Changes
-------
by moving the #include lines i forgot to add one in this commit here it is.
Summary
-------
rxx_allocator was according to my measurements done with kcachegrind, valgrind, duchainify and iostream. The allocator had three basic defects:
1) all allocated memory was deallocated whilst we need a lot of rxx_allocators (1 per file i presume?), so these blocks can be reused
2) it cleared the memory on a per block basis, but if not all of the block is used, then that is a waste of effort
3) it used realloc to manage the list of blocks, this isn't too bad but could cause a move of the list which is totaly unnecessary
i solved the problems mostly by making the blocks act as linked list nodes: a next pointer + a really long char array. deallocated blocks are kept in a static linked list, whilst actual rxx_allocators have their own(personal some would say)linked list of blocks. access to the deallocated blocks list is synchronized through a static QMutex.
the access could be threadsafe by using a thread local linked list of deallocated items too, but i don't think that'd be practical, the global static list is probably more effective (eventhough it requires locking)
Diffs (updated)
-----
languages/cpp/codecompletion/item.cpp b25d1ae
languages/cpp/cppparsejob.cpp f4819f2
languages/cpp/parser/ast.h 0281c6b
languages/cpp/parser/control.h 0b06248
languages/cpp/parser/listnode.h d1eda36
languages/cpp/parser/parser.cpp 281ad8d
languages/cpp/parser/rxx_allocator.h f0159e9
languages/cpp/parser/tests/test_parser.cpp de5f804
Diff: http://git.reviewboard.kde.org/r/100730/diff
Testing
-------
as mentioned i ran a file which only included iostream through duchainify which i callgrinded.
old: new:
pool::allocate ~450 000 000 ~7 000 000
all time spend in libkdev4cppparser:
~585 000 000 ~140 000 000
the pool::allocate numbers are both the 'inclusive' numbers
looking at the data for the amount of new calls one can see that the cost per call are pretty much the same but that the old implementation called it about 50x more.
Thanks,
Floris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kdevelop-devel/attachments/20110224/278a1dee/attachment.html>
More information about the KDevelop-devel
mailing list