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

v1.11-rc1: Using copy! or .= with Memory is slower than [:] = and Vector #55079

Closed
RoyCCWang opened this issue Jul 8, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #55082
Closed

v1.11-rc1: Using copy! or .= with Memory is slower than [:] = and Vector #55079

RoyCCWang opened this issue Jul 8, 2024 · 2 comments · Fixed by #55082
Labels
arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] performance Must go faster

Comments

@RoyCCWang
Copy link

I experienced a two time slow-down with copy! and .=, but not [:]. I suspect this might have something to do with the discussion here: https://discourse.julialang.org/t/increase-in-allocations-with-julia-v1-11-beta/112838/2

I put the following code in a script, debug.jl, and did include("debug.jl") in a fresh REPL session. I've included the lowered code print out.

using BenchmarkTools, Random, LinearAlgebra

const T = Float64
const N = 5000^2

BLAS.set_num_threads(14)
@show BLAS.get_num_threads()
# @show Hwloc.num_physical_cores()

function test_Vector(::Type{T}, N::Integer) where T
    a = randn(T, N)

    b = zeros(T, N)
    c = zeros(T, N)
    d = zeros(T, N)
    
    println("Test Vector:")
    @btime copy!($b, $a)
    @btime $c[:] = $a
    @btime $d .= $a
    return nothing
end

function test_Memory(::Type{T}, N::Integer) where T
    a = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    randn!(a)
    
    b = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    c = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    d = Memory{T}(undef, N)

    println("Test Memory")
    @btime copy!($b, $a)
    @btime $c[:] = $a
    @btime $d .= $a
    return nothing
end

function print_lowered_Memory(::Type{T}, N::Integer) where T

    a = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    randn!(a)

    b = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    c = Memory{T}(undef, N)
    d = Memory{T}(undef, N)

    println("Lowered: copy! ")
    @show @code_lowered copy!(b, a)
   
    println("Lowered: [:]")
    @show @code_lowered c[:] = a
   
    println("Lowered: .= ")
    function myfunc!(d, a)
        return d .= a
    end
    @show @code_lowered myfunc!(d, a)
    println()

    return nothing
end


function print_lowered_Vector(::Type{T}, N::Integer) where T

    a = Vector{T}(undef, N)
    randn!(a)

    b = Vector{T}(undef, N)
    c = Vector{T}(undef, N)
    d = Vector{T}(undef, N)

    println("Lowered: copy! ")
    @show @code_lowered copy!(b, a)
    
    println("Lowered: [:]")
    @show @code_lowered c[:] = a
    
    println("Lowered: .= ")
    function myfunc!(d, a)
        return d .= a
    end
    @show @code_lowered myfunc!(d, a)
    println()

    return nothing
end

# Timing:
println("Vector:")
test_Vector(T, N)

println("Memory:")
test_Memory(T, N)
println()

# Print lowered code:
println("Vector:")
print_lowered_Vector(T, N)

println("Memory:")
print_lowered_Memory(T, N)

@show versioninfo()
nothing

On my machine with a fresh Julia REPL session, the output is:

julia> include("debug.jl")
BLAS.get_num_threads() = 14
Vector:
Test Vector:
  14.829 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
  14.484 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
  14.406 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
Memory:
Test Memory
  23.982 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
  14.938 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)
  24.168 ms (0 allocations: 0 bytes)

Vector:
Lowered: copy! 
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:75 =# @code_lowered(copy!(b, a)) = CodeInfo(
1 ─ %1  = Base.:(==)
│   %2  = Base.firstindex(dst)
│   %3  = Base.firstindex(src)
│   %4  = (%1)(%2, %3)
└──       goto #3 if not %4
2 ─       goto #4
3 ─ %7  = Base.throw
│   %8  = Base.ArgumentError("vectors must have the same offset for copy! (consider using `copyto!`)")
└──       (%7)(%8)
4 ┄ %10 = Base.:!=
│   %11 = Base.length(dst)
│   %12 = Base.length(src)
│   %13 = (%10)(%11, %12)
└──       goto #6 if not %13
5 ─ %15 = Base.resize!
│   %16 = Base.length(src)
└──       (%15)(dst, %16)
6 ┄ %18 = Base.copyto!(dst, src)
└──       return %18
)
Lowered: [:]
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:78 =# @code_lowered(c[:] = a) = CodeInfo(
1 ─       nothing
│         lI = Base.length(A)
│   %3  = $(Expr(:boundscheck))
└──       goto #3 if not %3
2 ─ %5  = lI
└──       Base.setindex_shape_check(X, %5)
3 ┄ %7  = lI
│   %8  = %7 > 0
└──       goto #5 if not %8
4 ─ %10 = lI
└──       Base.unsafe_copyto!(A, 1, X, 1, %10)
5 ┄ %12 = A
└──       return %12
)
Lowered: .= 
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:84 =# @code_lowered(myfunc!(d, a)) = CodeInfo(
1 ─ %1 = Base.broadcasted(Base.identity, a)
│   %2 = Base.materialize!(d, %1)
└──      return %2
)

Memory:
Lowered: copy! 
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:49 =# @code_lowered(copy!(b, a)) = CodeInfo(
1 ─ %1  = Base.:(==)
│   %2  = Base.firstindex(dst)
│   %3  = Base.firstindex(src)
│   %4  = (%1)(%2, %3)
└──       goto #3 if not %4
2 ─       goto #4
3 ─ %7  = Base.throw
│   %8  = Base.ArgumentError("vectors must have the same offset for copy! (consider using `copyto!`)")
└──       (%7)(%8)
4 ┄ %10 = Base.:!=
│   %11 = Base.length(dst)
│   %12 = Base.length(src)
│   %13 = (%10)(%11, %12)
└──       goto #6 if not %13
5 ─ %15 = Base.resize!
│   %16 = Base.length(src)
└──       (%15)(dst, %16)
6 ┄ %18 = Base.copyto!(dst, src)
└──       return %18
)
Lowered: [:]
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:52 =# @code_lowered(c[:] = a) = CodeInfo(
1 ─       nothing
│         lI = Base.length(A)
│   %3  = $(Expr(:boundscheck))
└──       goto #3 if not %3
2 ─ %5  = lI
└──       Base.setindex_shape_check(X, %5)
3 ┄ %7  = lI
│   %8  = %7 > 0
└──       goto #5 if not %8
4 ─ %10 = lI
└──       Base.unsafe_copyto!(A, 1, X, 1, %10)
5 ┄ %12 = A
└──       return %12
)
Lowered: .= 
#= /home/roy/Documents/repos/explore/examples/debug.jl:58 =# @code_lowered(myfunc!(d, a)) = CodeInfo(
1 ─ %1 = Base.broadcasted(Base.identity, a)
│   %2 = Base.materialize!(d, %1)
└──      return %2
)

Julia Version 1.11.0-rc1
Commit 3a35aec36d1 (2024-06-25 10:23 UTC)
Build Info:
  Official https://julialang.org/ release
Platform Info:
  OS: Linux (x86_64-linux-gnu)
  CPU: 16 × AMD Ryzen 7 1700 Eight-Core Processor
  WORD_SIZE: 64
  LLVM: libLLVM-16.0.6 (ORCJIT, znver1)
Threads: 1 default, 0 interactive, 1 GC (on 16 virtual cores)
versioninfo() = nothing

On my machine, there is no difference in the above print out for the lowered code between the Vector and Memory versions of copy!, .=, and [:] =. It seems the Base.unsafe_copyto! from the lowered [:] = with Memory doesn't suffer from the performance hit.

@jakobnissen
Copy link
Contributor

The issue here (for both the broadcasted version and copy!) is that copyto!(::Memory, ::Memory) hits the slow generic fallback.
Two broader issues on this:

  • First, this is a good example why we need something like Add a concept of memory-backed contiguous collection in Base #54581. Ideally, this issue will be solved by building up some proper abstraction around memory and implementing functions like copyto! in terms of those.
  • Less generally and more specifically, Memory just has a lot of missing optimisation that Vector has, precisely because this is not handled in a prinicipled manner, and Memory hasn't been around long enough for all the small ad-hoc optimisations that Vector has gotten.

@RoyCCWang
Copy link
Author

Thanks for the explanation, @jakobnissen. I hope #54581 comes to fruition in some form eventually. I'll check out MemViews.jl.

LilithHafner pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 9, 2024
Previously, this method hit the slow generic AbstractArray fallback.

Closes #55079

This is an ad-hoc bandaid that really ought to be fixed by resolving
#54581.
KristofferC pushed a commit that referenced this issue Jul 12, 2024
Previously, this method hit the slow generic AbstractArray fallback.

Closes #55079

This is an ad-hoc bandaid that really ought to be fixed by resolving
#54581.

(cherry picked from commit ec90012)
@nsajko nsajko added performance Must go faster arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] labels Jul 16, 2024
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
arrays [a, r, r, a, y, s] performance Must go faster
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

3 participants