c++ - std :: Vektor-Performance-Regression beim Aktivieren von C ++ 11


0 Answers

c++ performance gcc c++11 vector

Ich habe eine interessante Leistungsregression in einem kleinen C ++ - Ausschnitt gefunden, wenn ich C ++ 11 aktiviere:

#include <vector>

struct Item
{
  int a;
  int b;
};

int main()
{
  const std::size_t num_items = 10000000;
  std::vector<Item> container;
  container.reserve(num_items);
  for (std::size_t i = 0; i < num_items; ++i) {
    container.push_back(Item());
  }
  return 0;
}

Mit g ++ (GCC) 4.8.2 20131219 (Vorabversion) und C ++ 03 bekomme ich:

milian:/tmp$ g++ -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        35.206824 task-clock                #    0.988 CPUs utilized            ( +-  1.23% )
                4 context-switches          #    0.116 K/sec                    ( +-  4.38% )
                0 cpu-migrations            #    0.006 K/sec                    ( +- 66.67% )
              849 page-faults               #    0.024 M/sec                    ( +-  6.02% )
       95,693,808 cycles                    #    2.718 GHz                      ( +-  1.14% ) [49.72%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
       95,282,359 instructions              #    1.00  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.65% ) [75.27%]
       30,104,021 branches                  #  855.062 M/sec                    ( +-  0.87% ) [77.46%]
            6,038 branch-misses             #    0.02% of all branches          ( +- 25.73% ) [75.53%]

      0.035648729 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  1.22% )

Wenn C ++ 11 aktiviert ist, verschlechtert sich die Leistung jedoch erheblich:

milian:/tmp$ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        86.485313 task-clock                #    0.994 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.50% )
                9 context-switches          #    0.104 K/sec                    ( +-  1.66% )
                2 cpu-migrations            #    0.017 K/sec                    ( +- 26.76% )
              798 page-faults               #    0.009 M/sec                    ( +-  8.54% )
      237,982,690 cycles                    #    2.752 GHz                      ( +-  0.41% ) [51.32%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
      135,730,319 instructions              #    0.57  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.32% ) [75.77%]
       30,880,156 branches                  #  357.057 M/sec                    ( +-  0.25% ) [75.76%]
            4,188 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches          ( +-  7.59% ) [74.08%]

    0.087016724 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.50% )

Kann jemand das erklären? Bisher war meine Erfahrung, dass die STL schneller wird, indem sie C ++ 11, insb. Dank der Semantik bewegen.

EDIT: Wie vorgeschlagen, mit container.emplace_back(); Stattdessen wird die Leistung mit der C ++ 03-Version gleichgesetzt. Wie kann die C ++ 03-Version dasselbe für push_back ?

milian:/tmp$ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        36.229348 task-clock                #    0.988 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.81% )
                4 context-switches          #    0.116 K/sec                    ( +-  3.17% )
                1 cpu-migrations            #    0.017 K/sec                    ( +- 36.85% )
              798 page-faults               #    0.022 M/sec                    ( +-  8.54% )
       94,488,818 cycles                    #    2.608 GHz                      ( +-  1.11% ) [50.44%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
       94,851,411 instructions              #    1.00  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.98% ) [75.22%]
       30,468,562 branches                  #  840.991 M/sec                    ( +-  1.07% ) [76.71%]
            2,723 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches          ( +-  9.84% ) [74.81%]

   0.036678068 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.80% )


Related