Re: libstdc++/41975

[Paolo Carlini <paolo dot carlini at oracle dot com>]

Hi,
> Here is an other step forward to fix this issue. In this step nodes 
> are now doubly linked to each other. It avoids some loops on buckets 
> but performance are still not ok. I have created a performance test, 
> see attached 41975.cc.
I think we can as well commit it. I can do it.
> Before the patch the result was:
>
> 41975.cc                        Container generation               
> 2r    1u    0s  8452192mem    0pf
> 41975.cc                        Container erase                   
> 21r   21u    0s -6400096mem    0pf
> 41975.cc                        Container iteration               
> 10r   10u    0s       32mem    0pf
>
> With the attached patch it is:
>
> 41975.cc                        Container generation               
> 3r    2u    0s 11652176mem    0pf
> 41975.cc                        Container erase                  185r  
> 182u    0s -9600080mem    0pf
> 41975.cc                        Container iteration                
> 0r    0u    0s       48mem    0pf
>
> Of course there are more memory manipulated. Regarding operations CPU 
> consumption iteration is much better but erase is much worst. I think 
> the problem is in the invocation of std::fill that cost a lot as soon 
> as we start having a lot of buckets to update. This is why I have 
> already started to work on a last evolution to avoid those calls.
Excellent. I'm afraid I still don't have much to say/help and given that 
I don't want to distract you anyway, but where does the additional 
complexity of erase come from? Could you describe in a few sentences the 
steps you go through at erase time?

I was also thinking that it would be great if you could add comments to 
the code, even if some have to be redone when you rework the code in the 
following drafts. And an introductory comment right before _Hashtable 
describing the data structures. Like, eg, the one in std::deque, very 
well done, IMO.

Tomorrow, besides committing the performance testcase, I will also add 
those missing count testcases. Just to be of some small help ;)

As soon as I'm done with a couple of pending things, I should be able to 
assist you a bit.

Thanks,
Paolo.