Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Random data generation may significantly bias current benchmarks #21

Open
UserAB1236872 opened this issue Jun 22, 2014 · 1 comment
Open

Comments

@UserAB1236872
Copy link
Member

I took out the random data from one benchmark function and the speed drastically improved (~40 ns/op faster), despite the random data being behind StopTimer calls.

I put in the random data to prevent the compiler from making optimization with constant data and biasing results (since they're really simple functions). However, I made the following simple change to VecSub:

func init() {
        rand.Seed(time.Now().UnixNano())
}

var v1 = Vec4{rand.Float32(), rand.Float32(), rand.Float32(), rand.Float32()}
var v2 = Vec4{rand.Float32(), rand.Float32(), rand.Float32(), rand.Float32()}

func BenchmarkVec4Sub(b *testing.B) {
    for i := 0; i < b.N; i   {
        v1.Sub(v2)
    }
}

Because the compiler shouldn't be able to do any constant optimization for that (since it's based off the seed at runtime). And got ~12.6 ns/op, which is about as good as a SIMD package I benchmarked (~11.9 ns/op). This is down from previous benchmarks of the form

func BenchmarkVec4Sub(b *testing.B) {
        b.StopTimer()
    r := rand.New(rand.NewSource(int64(time.Now().Nanosecond())))

    for i := 0; i < b.N; i   {
        b.StopTimer()
        v1 := Vec4{r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32()}
        v2 := Vec4{r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32()}
        b.StartTimer()

        v1.Sub(v2)
    }
}

Which were clocking ~50.9 ns/op. And also took an age to run. Further, introducing random data in the same form as our current benchmarks to the SIMD package's benchmarks catapaulted it up to the ~40-50ns/op range -- implying there's almost certainly no magical Go compiler trickery going on biasing our benchmarks to an unfairly low number.

This is actually very good news. I'm filing this because I don't have time for the next little bit if someone else wants to do this. I think all Matrix, Vector, and Quaternion benchmarks use random data now. It's not a horifically difficult thing to change, just tedious.

On the other hand, I'm not sure why b.StopTimer is being so finnicky, but it may just be meant for benchmarks at ns/op levels that aren't so low (~40ns/op is nothing compared to something like a graph search).

@dmitshur
Copy link
Member

    for i := 0; i < b.N; i   {
        b.StopTimer()
        v1 := Vec4{r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32()}
        v2 := Vec4{r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32(), r.Float32()}
        b.StartTimer()

        v1.Sub(v2)
    }

Yeah, I'm not surprised that doesn't work as intended. StopTimer() and StartTimer() are likely too high-grained and meant to be used before/after the tight b.N loop, not inside.

Nice find and good news though!

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants