From: Jonathan Wakely <jwakely.gcc@gmail.com>
To: Lewis Hyatt <lhyatt@gmail.com>
Cc: "libstdc++" <libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: ostream::operator<<() and sputn()
Date: Wed, 14 Jul 2021 22:30:48 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAH6eHdQ1X8DYrEmjSqxTqWWkd5Ev2a12+PhM7TEUi-fCmA3i3A@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20210714212609.GA78610@ldh-imac.local>
On Wed, 14 Jul 2021 at 22:26, Lewis Hyatt via Libstdc++
<libstdc++@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>
> Hello-
>
> I noticed that libstdc++'s implementation of ostream::operator<<() prefers
> to call sputn() on the underlying streambuf for all char, char*, and string
> output operations, including single characters, rather than manipulate the
> buffer directly. I am curious why it works this way, it feels perhaps
> suboptimal to me because sputn() is mandated to call the virtual function
> xsputn() on every call, while e.g. sputc() simply manipulates the buffer and
> only needs a virtual call when the buffer is full. I always thought that the
> buffer abstraction and the resulting avoidance of virtual calls for the
> majority of operations was the main point of streambuf's design, and that
> sputn() was meant for cases when the output would be large enough to
> overflow the buffer anyway, if it may be possible to skip the buffer and
> flush directly instead?
>
> It seems to me that for most typical use cases, xsputn() is still going to
> want to use the buffer if the output fits into it; libstdc++ does this in
> basic_filebuf, for example. So then it would seem to be beneficial to try
> the buffer prior to making the virtual function call, instead of after --
> especially because the typical char instantiation of __ostream_insert that
> makes this call for operator<<() is hidden inside the .so, and is not
> inlined or eligible for devirtualization optimizations.
>
> FWIW, here is a small test case.
>
> ---------
> #include <ostream>
> #include <iostream>
> #include <fstream>
> #include <sstream>
> #include <chrono>
> #include <random>
> using namespace std;
>
> int main() {
> constexpr size_t N = 500000000;
> string s(N, 'x');
>
> ofstream of{"/dev/null"};
> ostringstream os;
> ostream* streams[] = {&of, &os};
> mt19937 rng{random_device{}()};
>
> const auto timed_run = [&](const char* label, auto&& callback) {
> const auto t1 = chrono::steady_clock::now();
> for(char c: s) callback(*streams[rng() % 2], c);
> const auto t2 = chrono::steady_clock::now();
> cout << label << " took: "
> << chrono::duration<double>(t2-t1).count()
> << " seconds" << endl;
> };
>
> timed_run("insert with put()", [](ostream& o, char c) {o.put(c);});
> timed_run("insert with op<< ", [](ostream& o, char c) {o << c;});
> }
> ---------
>
> This is what I get with the current trunk:
> ---------
> insert with put() took: 6.12152 seconds
> insert with op<< took: 13.4437 seconds
> ---------
>
> And this is what I get with the attached patch:
> ---------
> insert with put() took: 6.08313 seconds
> insert with op<< took: 8.24565 seconds
> ---------
>
> So the overhead of calling operator<< vs calling put() was reduced by more
> than 3X.
>
> The prototype patch calls an internal alternate to sputn(), which tries the
> buffer prior to calling xsputn().
This won't work if a user provides an explicit specialization of
basic_streambuf<char, MyTraits>. std::basic_ostream<char, MyTraits>
will still try to call your new function, but it won't be present in
the user's specialization, so will fail to compile. The basic_ostream
primary template can only use the standard API of basic_streambuf. The
std::basic_ostream<char> specialization can use non-standard members
of std::basic_streambuf<char> because we know users can't specialize
that.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-07-14 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-07-14 21:26 Lewis Hyatt
2021-07-14 21:30 ` Jonathan Wakely [this message]
2021-07-14 21:45 ` Lewis Hyatt
2021-07-15 17:11 ` François Dumont
2022-01-10 16:07 ` Jonathan Wakely
2022-01-10 23:18 ` Lewis Hyatt
2022-01-11 1:09 ` Jonathan Wakely
2021-07-14 21:54 ` Dietmar Kühl
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=CAH6eHdQ1X8DYrEmjSqxTqWWkd5Ev2a12+PhM7TEUi-fCmA3i3A@mail.gmail.com \
--to=jwakely.gcc@gmail.com \
--cc=lhyatt@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).