Would specialize pragmas also have these performance improvements, or is
inline needed?
On Tue, Dec 16, 2014 at 4:45 PM, Richard Eisenberg <e...@cis.upenn.edu>
wrote:
>
> I've learned several very interesting things in this analysis.
>
> - Inlining polymorphic methods is very important. Here are some data
> points to back up that claim:
> * Original implementation using zipWithAndUnzipM: 8,472,613,440
> bytes allocated in the heap
> * Adding {-# INLINE #-} to the definition thereof: 6,639,253,488
> bytes allocated in the heap
> * Using `inline` at call site to force inlining: 6,281,539,792
> bytes allocated in the heap
>
> The middle step above allowed GHC to specialize zipWithAndUnzipM to my
> particular monad, but GHC didn't see fit to actually inline the function.
> Using `inline` forced it, to good effect. (I did not collect data on code
> sizes, but it wouldn't be hard to.)
>
> By comparison:
> * Hand-written recursion: 6,587,809,112 bytes allocated in the heap
> Interestingly, this is *not* the best result!
>
> Conclusion: We should probably add INLINE pragmas to Util and MonadUtils.
>
>
> - I then looked at rejiggering the algorithm to keep the common case fast.
> This had a side effect of changing the zipWithAndUnzipM to mapAndUnzipM,
> from Control.Monad. To my surprise, this brought disaster!
> * Using `inline` and mapAndUnzipM: 7,463,047,432 bytes allocated
> in the heap
> * Hand-written recursion: 5,848,602,848 bytes allocated
> in the heap
>
> That last number is better than the numbers above because of the algorithm
> streamlining. But, the inadequacy of mapAndUnzipM surprised me -- it
> already has an INLINE pragma in Control.Monad of course. Looking at
> -ddump-simpl, it seems that mapAndUnzipM was indeed getting inlined, but a
> call to `map` remained, perhaps causing extra allocation.
>
> Conclusion: We should examine the implementation of mapAndUnzipM (and
> similar functions) in Control.Monad. Is it as fast as possible?
>
>
>
> In the end, I was unable to bring the allocation numbers down to where
> they were before my work. This is because the flattener now deals in roles.
> Most of its behavior is the same between nominal and representational
> roles, so it seems silly (though very possible) to specialize the code to
> nominal to keep that path fast. Instead, I identified one key spot and made
> that go fast.
>
> Thus, there is a 7% bump to memory usage on very-type-family-heavy code,
> compared to before my commit on Friday. (On more ordinary code, there is no
> noticeable change.)
>
> Validating my patch locally now; will push when that's done.
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
>
> On Dec 16, 2014, at 10:41 AM, Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
>
> > Hi,
> >
> >
> > Am Dienstag, den 16.12.2014, 09:59 -0500 schrieb Richard Eisenberg:
> >> On Dec 16, 2014, at 4:01 AM, Joachim Breitner <m...@joachim-breitner.de>
> wrote:
> >>
> >>> another guess (without looking at the code, sorry): Are they in the
> same
> >>> module? I.e., can GHC specialize the code to your particular Monad?
> >
> >> No, they're not in the same module. I could also try moving the
> >> zipWithAndUnzipM function to the same module, and even specializing it
> >> by hand to the right monad.
> >
> > I did mean zipWithAndUnzipM, so maybe yes: Try that.
> >
> > (I find it hard to believe that any polymorphic monadic code should
> > perform well, with those many calls to an unknown (>>=) with a function
> > parameter, but maybe I’m too pessimistic here.)
> >
> >
> >> Could that be preventing the fusing?
> >
> > There is not going to be any fusing here, at least not list fusion; that
> > would require your code to be written in terms of functions with fusion
> > rules.
> >
> > Greetings,
> > Joachim
> >
> > --
> > Joachim “nomeata” Breitner
> > m...@joachim-breitner.de • http://www.joachim-breitner.de/
> > Jabber: nome...@joachim-breitner.de • GPG-Key: 0xF0FBF51F
> > Debian Developer: nome...@debian.org
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > ghc-devs mailing list
> > ghc-devs@haskell.org
> > http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
> _______________________________________________
> ghc-devs mailing list
> ghc-devs@haskell.org
> http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
>
_______________________________________________
ghc-devs mailing list
ghc-devs@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs
