From: Huanghui Nie <nnnjkk@gmail.com>
To: libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, gcc@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: paolo.carlini@oracle.com, drepper@gmail.com,
Benjamin De Kosnik <bkoz@gnu.org>,
jwakely@redhat.com
Subject: [PATCH] libstdc++: hashtable: No need to update before begin node in _M_remove_bucket_begin
Date: Wed, 17 Jan 2024 16:11:08 +0800 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAOv15-X8JM241pyM4ar+Xr5BVduk+C4q8CLM8m-RqQD56PCLdA@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4246 bytes --]
Hi.
When I implemented a hash table with reference to the C++ STL, I found that
when the hash table in the C++ STL deletes elements, if the first element
deleted is the begin element, the before begin node is repeatedly assigned.
This creates unnecessary performance overhead.
First, let’s see the code implementation:
In _M_remove_bucket_begin, _M_before_begin._M_nxt is assigned when
&_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt]. That also means
_M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt is assigned under some conditions.
_M_remove_bucket_begin is called by _M_erase and _M_extract_node:
1. Case _M_erase a range: _M_remove_bucket_begin is called in a for loop
when __is_bucket_begin is true. And if __is_bucket_begin is true and
&_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt], __prev_n must be &_M_before_begin.
__prev_n->_M_nxt is always assigned in _M_erase. That means
_M_before_begin._M_nxt is always assigned, if _M_remove_bucket_begin is
called and &_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt]. So there’s no need to
assign _M_before_begin._M_nxt in _M_remove_bucket_begin.
2. Other cases: _M_remove_bucket_begin is called when __prev_n ==
_M_buckets[__bkt]. And __prev_n->_M_nxt is always assigned in _M_erase and
_M_before_begin. That means _M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt is always assigned.
So there's no need to assign _M_buckets[__bkt]->_M_nxt in
_M_remove_bucket_begin.
In summary, there’s no need to check &_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt]
and assign _M_before_begin._M_nxt in _M_remove_bucket_begin.
Then let’s see the responsibility of each method:
The hash table in the C++ STL is composed of hash buckets and a node list.
The update of the node list is responsible for _M_erase and _M_extract_node
method. _M_remove_bucket_begin method only needs to update the hash
buckets. The update of _M_before_begin belongs to the update of the node
list. So _M_remove_bucket_begin doesn’t need to update _M_before_begin.
Existing tests listed below cover this change:
23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/copy.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/copy_assign.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/move.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/move_assign.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/allocator/swap.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/erase/1.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/erase/24061-set.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/modifiers/extract.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/operations/count.cc
23_containers/unordered_set/requirements/exception/basic.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/copy_assign.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/move.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/move_assign.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/allocator/swap.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/erase/1.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/erase/24061-map.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/modifiers/extract.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/modifiers/move_assign.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/operations/count.cc
23_containers/unordered_map/requirements/exception/basic.cc
Regression tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu. Is it OK to commit?
---
ChangeLog:
libstdc++: hashtable: No need to update before begin node in
_M_remove_bucket_begin
2024-01-16 Huanghui Nie <nnnjkk@gmail.com>
gcc/
* libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
---
diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
index b48610036fa..6056639e663 100644
--- a/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
+++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/bits/hashtable.h
@@ -872,13 +872,10 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
if (!__next_n || __next_bkt != __bkt)
{
// Bucket is now empty
- // First update next bucket if any
+ // Update next bucket if any
if (__next_n)
_M_buckets[__next_bkt] = _M_buckets[__bkt];
- // Second update before begin node if necessary
- if (&_M_before_begin == _M_buckets[__bkt])
- _M_before_begin._M_nxt = __next_n;
_M_buckets[__bkt] = nullptr;
}
}
next reply other threads:[~2024-01-17 8:11 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-01-17 8:11 Huanghui Nie [this message]
2024-01-17 20:04 ` François Dumont
2024-01-18 9:26 ` Huanghui Nie
2024-01-22 6:14 ` François Dumont
-- strict thread matches above, loose matches on Subject: below --
2024-01-17 4:19 Huanghui Nie
2024-01-17 4:39 ` Sam James
2024-01-17 8:12 ` Huanghui Nie
2024-01-17 8:18 ` Jonathan Wakely
2024-01-17 10:30 ` Huanghui Nie
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=CAOv15-X8JM241pyM4ar+Xr5BVduk+C4q8CLM8m-RqQD56PCLdA@mail.gmail.com \
--to=nnnjkk@gmail.com \
--cc=bkoz@gnu.org \
--cc=drepper@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=gcc@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=paolo.carlini@oracle.com \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).