From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely@redhat.com>
To: "Daniel Krügler" <daniel.kruegler@gmail.com>
Cc: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>,
"libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>,
gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [committed] libstdc++: Improve performance of chrono::utc_clock::now()
Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2022 09:47:10 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CACb0b4kTNdTR+zJQhWJeCtpUd7vRuqz--=h48ihaCT4L484Ljg@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAGNvRgB7txJeibbna0gJoBBJxGuVjh_VfLSULZrvvREtvHk_HA@mail.gmail.com>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3995 bytes --]
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.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-11-17 9:47 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-11-16 21:00 Jonathan Wakely
2022-11-17 6:29 ` Daniel Krügler
2022-11-17 9:07 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-11-17 9:25 ` Daniel Krügler
2022-11-17 9:47 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2022-11-17 9:48 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-11-17 9:56 ` Daniel Krügler
2022-11-17 10:01 ` Ville Voutilainen
2022-11-17 10:30 ` Jonathan Wakely
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='CACb0b4kTNdTR+zJQhWJeCtpUd7vRuqz--=h48ihaCT4L484Ljg@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=jwakely@redhat.com \
--cc=daniel.kruegler@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).