[Haskell-cafe] Program optimisation
andrewcoppin at btinternet.com
Fri Apr 20 14:01:32 EDT 2007
I have *no idea* if this is an appropriate place to put this, but here
I have a (presumably) common problem. I have a nice Haskell program.
It's compute-bounded, and I'd like to make it go faster. To that end,
I've been trying to optimise it.
Without going into great detail, the program basically revolves around
processing a list and dumping the results into a file. Notable things
about this structure: it's *big*, and I only need to *map* over it.
Anyway, here's what I did...
I wrote a simplified, cut down version of the program so I would have a
fixed test case. I compiled it with GHC 6.6 and ran it. It takes 40
seconds to complete.
Next, I read the GHC manual. Apparently there's a command-line switch
"-O2" which makes GHC try harder to optimise the program. (I had
stupidly assumed it always tries to make good code...) The result? The
program now does the same job in 30 seconds. That's quite a big speedup
just for typing 3 characters! (Gee... I wonder what it does differently?
I did notice that the compilation time went from 5 seconds up to 20
seconds. And the *.exe got smaller.)
Next I played with profiling. If I'm reading this correctly, the "-s"
profile is telling me that my program spends 72% CPU time doing GC. o_O
Er... that's really suboptimal. Also - and this is really weird - the
"-p" profile tells me that 82% of the program's time is spent in the
quant8 function. The source code for this function is precisely
quant8 :: Double -> Word8
quant8 x = floor $ x * 0xFF
Why that should take 82% CPU when the program is also doing heavy-metal
complex number arithmetic and trig functions I have no idea!
(Since I took those measurements, I have come up with a theory. When I
ask for all these computations to be done... Haskell doesn't actually
*do* them. It just stores them up until "needed". It just occurred to me
that quant8 is the *last* thing I ask it to do before the code hits a
strict ByteString... So is the profiler just misappropriating all the
work to quant8 when it's really elsewhere?)
OK, so to recap: currently my program takes 30 seconds to run. Next, I
changed the 2D lists (i.e., [[x]]) into 1D lists (that is, [x]). The new
runtime? 30 seconds.
Right, that seems to be no-op. Next I replaced lists with immutable
boxed arrays. New runtime: 33 seconds.
Ooops. Now, I would have thought an array would make the GC's life
*much* easier by replacing tens of thousands of cons cells with one nice
big array. But, apparently, no. The profiler output says GC is almost
identical. Hmm... weird!
Next, I switched to IO-mutable boxed arrays. (With in-place updates.)
New runtime: 35 seconds.
Da hell...? The more I optimise this program, the slower it goes! :'(
Finally, in a fit of desperation, I changed it to *unboxed* arrays. For
some reason, you can't have an unboxed array of complex numbers. So I
had to make *two* unboxed arrays of doubles, and manually split/join
myself. Similar problems happened elsewhere too. Suffice it to say, my
program is now vomit-inducingly ugly. It doesn't even *function*
correctly any more! (There's a byte alignment issue somewhere... I can't
track it down.) New runtime: 15 seconds.
I say again: 15 seconds.
Changing to an unboxed array has *doubled* the speed. Not only that, the
GC report now shows GC as using 7% CPU time, and peak RAM usage has been
reduced from 25 MB to 4 MB. The memory graph is now utterly flat,
whereas even with IO-mutable arrays with in-place update, it was still
fluctuating all over the place.
I will mention that the ByteString module was the only thing I would
find in all of Haskell for doing binary I/O. The final (fast) program
uses an IOUArray Int Word8 to do the binary I/O instead. (What's the
difference BTW? Is there one? Other than the name anyway.) Perhaps part
of the speed was in avoiding an array type conversion? I don't know.
Certainly this is the messiest part, and the part where I suspect my bug
Finally, in the fast version, quant8 uses way less CPU (more like 50%),
and the complex number math uses much more. Really goes look like the
profiler being counterintuitive to me...
Personally, I find it quite worrying that I had to manually mutilate my
program to unbox everything when the compiler is supposed to be able to
do such things automatically. Does GHC "know" about the array types? Or
are they just a bunch of FFI calls that some 3rd party wrote? When I
talk to other people about Haskell, they all say "immutable sucks; that
must be SO slow!" and I tell them "yeah, but the compiler can strip
almost all of it out automatically". Well, my experience with this
program suggests very differently.
I do wonder if the program went faster just because unboxed arrays are
strict. I couldn't think of any way to make a boxed array be strict. (I
tried for ages!)
Next task: Attempt to make the program use both cores on my dual-core
monster machine for even more speed...
A short program synopsys:
module Main where
init_frame :: [[Complex Double]]
next_frame :: [[Complex Double]] -> [[Complex Double]]
process :: [[Complex Double]] -> [[Colour]]
save_file :: FilePath -> [[Colour]] -> IO ()
main = do
work 0 init_frame
work n xss = do
save_file ("Frame" ++ show n) (process xss)
if n < 500
then work (n+1) (next_frame xss)
else return ()
More information about the Haskell-Cafe