Re: [committed] libstdc++: Improve performance of chrono::utc_clock::now()

[Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>]

[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 4289 bytes --]

On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 09:47, Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com> wrote:

>
>
> On Thu, 17 Nov 2022 at 09:25, Daniel Krügler <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Am Do., 17. Nov. 2022 um 10:07 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely
>> <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>:
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On Thu, 17 Nov 2022, 06:30 Daniel Krügler via Libstdc++, <
>> libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Am Mi., 16. Nov. 2022 um 22:00 Uhr schrieb Jonathan Wakely via
>> >> Libstdc++ <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>:
>> >> >
>> >> > Tested x86_64-linux. Pushed to trunk.
>> >> >
>> >> > -- >8 --
>> >> >
>> >> > We can use an array instead of a std::vector, and we can avoid the
>> >> > binary search for the common case of a time point after the most
>> recent
>> >> > leap second. On one system where I tested this, utc_clock::now() now
>> >> > takes about 16ns instead of 31ns.
>> >> >
>> >> > libstdc++-v3/ChangeLog:
>> >> >
>> >> >         * include/std/chrono (get_leap_second_info): Optimize.
>> >> > ---
>> >> >  libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono | 31 ++++++++++++++++++++++++-------
>> >> >  1 file changed, 24 insertions(+), 7 deletions(-)
>> >> >
>> >> > diff --git a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>> b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>> >> > index 90b73f8198e..2468023f6c5 100644
>> >> > --- a/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>> >> > +++ b/libstdc++-v3/include/std/chrono
>> >> > @@ -2747,9 +2747,7 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>> >> >        {
>> >> >         if constexpr (is_same_v<_Duration, seconds>)
>> >> >           {
>> >> > -           // TODO move this function into the library and get
>> leaps from tzdb.
>> >> > -           vector<seconds::rep> __leaps
>> >> > -           {
>> >> > +           const seconds::rep __leaps[] {
>> >> >                 78796800, // 1 Jul 1972
>> >> >                 94694400, // 1 Jan 1973
>> >> >                126230400, // 1 Jan 1974
>> >> > @@ -2778,12 +2776,31 @@ _GLIBCXX_BEGIN_NAMESPACE_VERSION
>> >> >               1435708800, // 1 Jul 2015
>> >> >               1483228800, // 1 Jan 2017
>> >> >             };
>> >> > +           // The list above is known to be valid until 2023-06-28
>> 00:00:00 UTC
>> >> > +           const seconds::rep __expires = 1687910400;
>> >> > +           const seconds::rep __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count();
>> >> >
>> >> > -           auto __s = __ut.time_since_epoch().count();
>> >> > -           auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__leaps.begin(),
>> __leaps.end(), __s);
>> >> > +           const seconds::rep* __first = std::begin(__leaps);
>> >> > +           const seconds::rep* __last = std::end(__leaps);
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           if (__s > __expires)
>> >> > +             {
>> >> > +               // TODO: use updated leap_seconds from tzdb
>> >> > +#if 0
>> >> > +               auto __db = get_tzdb_list().begin();
>> >> > +               __first = __db->leap_seconds.data();
>> >> > +               __last = __first + __db->leap_seconds.size();
>> >> > +#endif
>> >> > +             }
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           // Don't bother searching the list if we're after the
>> last one.
>> >> > +           if (__s > __last[-1])
>> >> > +             return { false, seconds(__last - __first) };
>> >> > +
>> >> > +           auto __pos = std::upper_bound(__first, __last, __s);
>> >> >             return {
>> >> > -             __pos != __leaps.begin() && __pos[-1] == __s,
>> >> > -             seconds{__pos - __leaps.begin()}
>> >> > +             __pos != begin(__leaps) && __pos[-1] == __s,
>> >>
>> >> The inconsistency between usage of std::begin versus begin here seems
>> >> odd and I'm wondering why instead of "begin(__leaps)" the above
>> >> introduced "__first" variable is not used instead.
>> >
>> >
>> > Because this code is going to be changed again soon, this is a partial
>> merge from a local branch with the TODO fixed. Yes, it's inconsistent, but
>> it works correctly and it's not my priority right now :-)
>>
>> What about the suggestion to use the already existing "__first"
>> variable instead of the begin call?
>>
>
> It's an array, the begin call is free.
>

Do you really want me to stop working on the missing time zone support to
test and commit that change?