-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 350
Allocate the FBuffer struct on the stack #657
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
Merged
Merged
Conversation
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Ref: ruby#655 The actual buffer is still on the heap, but this saves a pair of malloc/free. This helps a lot on micro-benchmarks Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 531.598k i/100ms JSON reuse 417.666k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.735M (± 1.3%) i/s (174.35 ns/i) - 28.706M in 5.005900s JSON reuse 4.604M (± 1.4%) i/s (217.18 ns/i) - 23.389M in 5.080779s Comparison: Oj: 5735475.6 i/s JSON reuse: 4604380.3 i/s - 1.25x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` Bench: ```ruby require 'benchmark/ips' require 'oj' require 'json' json_encoder = JSON::State.new(JSON.dump_default_options) test_data = [1, "string", { a: 1, b: 2 }, [3, 4, 5]] Oj.default_options = Oj.default_options.merge(mode: :compat) Benchmark.ips do |x| x.config(time: 5, warmup: 2) x.report("Oj") do Oj.dump(test_data) end x.report("JSON reuse") do json_encoder.generate(test_data) end x.compare!(order: :baseline) end ```
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to casperisfine/json
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
Ref: ruby#655 Followup: ruby#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ```
byroot
added a commit
to casperisfine/json
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
Ref: ruby#655 Followup: ruby#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ```
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to casperisfine/json
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
Ref: ruby#655 Followup: ruby#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ```
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to casperisfine/json
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 29, 2024
Ref: ruby#655 Followup: ruby#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ```
casperisfine
pushed a commit
to casperisfine/json
that referenced
this pull request
Oct 30, 2024
Ref: ruby#655 Followup: ruby#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ```
4 tasks
hsbt
pushed a commit
to hsbt/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2024
Ref: ruby/json#655 Followup: ruby/json#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision ruby/json@be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision ruby/json@be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ``` ruby/json@fe607f4806
hsbt
pushed a commit
to ruby/ruby
that referenced
this pull request
Nov 1, 2024
Ref: ruby/json#655 Followup: ruby/json#657 Assuming the generator might be used for fairly small documents we can start with a reasonable buffer size of the stack, and if we outgrow it, we can spill on the heap. In a way this is optimizing for micro-benchmarks, but there are valid use case for fiarly small JSON document in actual real world scenarios, so trashing the GC less in such case make sense. Before: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision ruby/json@be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 518.700k i/100ms JSON reuse 483.370k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.722M (± 1.8%) i/s (174.76 ns/i) - 29.047M in 5.077823s JSON reuse 5.278M (± 1.5%) i/s (189.46 ns/i) - 26.585M in 5.038172s Comparison: Oj: 5722283.8 i/s JSON reuse: 5278061.7 i/s - 1.08x slower ``` After: ``` ruby 3.3.4 (2024-07-09 revision ruby/json@be1089c8ec) +YJIT [arm64-darwin23] Warming up -------------------------------------- Oj 517.837k i/100ms JSON reuse 548.871k i/100ms Calculating ------------------------------------- Oj 5.693M (± 1.6%) i/s (175.65 ns/i) - 28.481M in 5.004056s JSON reuse 5.855M (± 1.2%) i/s (170.80 ns/i) - 29.639M in 5.063004s Comparison: Oj: 5692985.6 i/s JSON reuse: 5854857.9 i/s - 1.03x faster ``` ruby/json@fe607f4806
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
Ref: #655
The actual buffer is still on the heap, but this saves a pair of malloc/free.
This helps a lot on micro-benchmarks
Before:
After:
Bench: