Fix several bugs around the 'byteString' family of Builders #671
Conversation
| -- Ensure that the common case is not recursive and therefore yields | ||
| -- better code. | ||
| | op' <= ope = do copyBytes op ip isize |
| op' = op `plusPtr` isize | ||
| ip = unsafeForeignPtrToPtr ifp | ||
| ipe = ip `plusPtr` isize | ||
| k br = do touchForeignPtr ifp -- input consumed: OK to release here |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's not safe to put the touchForeignPtr in the continuation like this because the call site may consume one copied chunk and then hang without ever invoking that continuation.
| @@ -850,19 +850,17 @@ byteStringCopy = \bs -> builder $ byteStringCopyStep bs | |||
|
|
|||
| {-# INLINE byteStringCopyStep #-} | |||
| byteStringCopyStep :: S.StrictByteString -> BuildStep a -> BuildStep a | |||
| byteStringCopyStep (S.BS ifp isize) !k0 br0@(BufferRange op ope) | |||
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Builders are not allowed to do anything with their continuation arguments until they are done writing, including forcing them. (This one now has some test cases.)
Data/ByteString/Builder/Internal.hs
Outdated
| touchForeignPtr ifp | ||
| k0 (BufferRange op' ope) | ||
| | otherwise = wrappedBytesCopyStep (BufferRange ip ipe) k br0 | ||
| -- What's the reasoning here, more concretely? |
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Are you going to elaborate on this?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It's hard for me to elaborate. I thought about it for a while but still have no idea in what sense a non-recursive hot path was supposed to be "better" at the time this was written.
- For small statically-known lengths, nowadays, we might benefit from specialized
copyBytescode generation.- But
copyBytesjust lowered to an opaque foreign call when this comment was written. - This special code generation is not great until ghc#24519 is fixed.
- Anyway, it'd be nice to somehow incur this extra branch only for literals if this is our reasoning.
- But
- Recursive stuff is much less likely to inline automatically.
- The fact that we need inlining of
b1to happen to make aBuilderconcatenationb1 <> b2fast is pretty ugly.- I think on my machine the reboxing of args and the unknown call incur around 15ns of overhead per builder. There can also be a bit more overhead if the continuation has to allocate a PAP.
- At the time the
Buildercore stuff was written, it was found that unboxing theBuilderargs actually made things slower, for obscure RTS fast-call-pattern reasons. (I think it was about equal when I tried it a year or two ago.)
- If this is really that important, inlining of the whole loop could be forced with an inner-
goand anINLINEpragma. And that entire loop isn't bigger than this one unrolled iteration!
- The fact that we need inlining of
I suppose in light of the lack of clear reasoning I'm fine with deleting this comment and unifying byteStringCopyStep with wrappedBytesCopyStep.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
I would also have to look at benchmarks, but we don't have any that really test this stuff right now. That changes in #569, but actually a change I wanted to make in that PR is blocked on this patch.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
It turns out I was wrong. There is a relevant benchmark already, foldMap byteStringCopy, and getting rid of the byteStringCopyStep/wrappedBytesCopyStep distinction slows that benchmark down by about 30% for some very obscure reasons. I'll push a comment describing these reasons in a few minutes.
This whole business with the continuation-threading causing practically unpredictable performance issues with Builders has gotten very tiresome. Perhaps I will revisit #194 relatively soon.
This makes explicit the reasoning for in what sense "ensur[ing] that the common case is not recursive" is expected to possibly "yield[] better code."
* Fix several bugs around the 'byteString' family of Builders * Add Note [byteStringCopyStep and wrappedBytesCopyStep] This makes explicit the reasoning for in what sense "ensur[ing] that the common case is not recursive" is expected to possibly "yield[] better code." # Conflicts: # tests/Properties/ByteString.hs
* Fix several bugs around the 'byteString' family of Builders * Add Note [byteStringCopyStep and wrappedBytesCopyStep] This makes explicit the reasoning for in what sense "ensur[ing] that the common case is not recursive" is expected to possibly "yield[] better code."
No description provided.