加入收藏 | 设为首页 | 会员中心 | 我要投稿 李大同 (https://www.lidatong.com.cn/)- 科技、建站、经验、云计算、5G、大数据,站长网!
当前位置: 首页 > 编程开发 > Java > 正文

java – ** BUSTED **如何使用sun.misc.Unsafe加快字节[]查找速

发布时间:2020-12-15 03:05:41 所属栏目:Java 来源:网络整理
导读:我正在尝试使用Unsafe迭代内存而不是遍历byte []中的值.使用unsafe分配内存块.内存足以容纳65536个字节值. 我在尝试这个: char aChar = some characterif ((byte) 0 == (unsafe.getByte(base_address + aChar) mask)){ // do something} 代替: char aChar
我正在尝试使用Unsafe迭代内存而不是遍历byte []中的值.使用unsafe分配内存块.内存足以容纳65536个字节值.

我在尝试这个:

char aChar = some character

if ((byte) 0 == (unsafe.getByte(base_address + aChar) & mask)){
 // do something
}

代替:

char aChar = some character

if ((byte) 0 == ( lookup[aChar] & mask )){
 // do something
}

我认为Unsafe可以比使用常规数组访问更快地访问内存,并对每个索引执行索引检查…

只是一厢情愿地认为jvm会有一个特殊的操作(不安全),它会以某种方式使常规数组访问和迭代更快.在我看来,jvm在正常的byte []迭代中运行良好,并且可以使用普通的,纯粹的,纯粹的java代码快速完成它们.

@millimoose击中众所周知的“钉在头上”

“不安全可能对许多事情有用,但这种微观优化程度不是其中之一.” – 毫米“

在非常严格的有限情况下使用Unsafe会更快:

>(仅64位jvm)对于单个65535字节[]查找更快,每次测试只完成一次.在这种情况下,64_bit jvm上的UnsafeLookup_8B快24%.如果测试重复进行,每次测试都进行两次,那么正常方法现在比不安全快30%.在冷jvm上的纯解释模式中,Unsafe到目前为止更快 – 但仅仅是第一次并且仅用于小阵列大小.在32位标准Oracle JVM 7.x上,正常情况比使用unsafe快三倍.

使用Unsafe(在我的测试中)速度较慢:

> Oracle java 64位和32位虚拟机都比较慢
>无论操作系统和机器架构如何(32位和64位)都会更慢
>即使调用了serverjvm选项,也会慢一些
>在32位jvm(64位甚至更慢?)下面的代码中,不安全从9%或更多(1_GB数组和UnsafeLookup_8B(最快的一个)慢))
>在64位jvm中,下面的代码中,不安全性从234%或更高(1_MB数组和UnsafeLookup_1B(最快的一个)慢.

这有什么理由吗?**

当我运行下面发布的代码yellowB(检查1GB字节[])时,法线仍然是最快的:

C:Userswilf>java -Xms1600m -Xprof -jar "S:wilftestingdisttesting.jar"
initialize data...
initialize data done!

use normalLookup()...
Not found '0'
time : 1967737 us.

use unsafeLookup_1B()...
Not found '0'
time : 2923367 us.

use unsafeLookup_8B()...
Not found '0'
time : 2495663 us.

Flat profile of 26.35 secs (2018 total ticks): main

  Interpreted + native   Method
  0.0%     1  +     0    test.StackOverflow.main
  0.0%     1  +     0    Total interpreted

     Compiled + native   Method
 67.8%  1369  +     0    test.StackOverflow.main
 11.7%   236  +     0    test.StackOverflow.unsafeLookup_8B
 11.2%   227  +     0    test.StackOverflow.unsafeLookup_1B
  9.1%   184  +     0    test.StackOverflow.normalLookup
 99.9%  2016  +     0    Total compiled

         Stub + native   Method
  0.0%     0  +     1    sun.misc.Unsafe.getLong
  0.0%     0  +     1    Total stub


Flat profile of 0.00 secs (1 total ticks): DestroyJavaVM

  Thread-local ticks:
100.0%     1             Blocked (of total)


Global summary of 26.39 seconds:
100.0%  2023             Received ticks


C:Userswilf>java -version
java version "1.7.0_07"
Java(TM) SE Runtime Environment (build 1.7.0_07-b11)
Java HotSpot(TM) Client VM (build 23.3-b01,mixed mode,sharing)

CPU为:Intel Core 2 Duo E4600 @ 2.4GHZ 4.00GB(可用3.25GB)
操作系统:Windows 7(32)

使用Windows 7_64,32位java在4核AMD64上运行测试:

initialize data...
initialize data done!

use normalLookup()...
Not found '0'
time : 1631142 us.

use unsafeLookup_1B()...
Not found '0'
time : 2365214 us.

use unsafeLookup_8B()...
Not found '0'
time : 1783320 us.

使用Windows 7_64,64位java在4 Core AMD64上运行测试:

use normalLookup()...
Not found '0'
time : 655146 us.

use unsafeLookup_1B()...
Not found '0'
time : 904783 us.

use unsafeLookup_8B()...
Not found '0'
time : 764427 us.

Flat profile of 6.34 secs (13 total ticks): main

  Interpreted + native   Method
 23.1%     3  +     0    java.io.PrintStream.println
 23.1%     3  +     0    test.StackOverflow.unsafeLookup_8B
 15.4%     2  +     0    test.StackOverflow.main
  7.7%     1  +     0    java.io.DataInputStream.<init>
 69.2%     9  +     0    Total interpreted

     Compiled + native   Method
  7.7%     0  +     1    test.StackOverflow.unsafeLookup_1B
  7.7%     0  +     1    test.StackOverflow.main
  7.7%     0  +     1    test.StackOverflow.normalLookup
  7.7%     0  +     1    test.StackOverflow.unsafeLookup_8B
 30.8%     0  +     4    Total compiled


Flat profile of 0.00 secs (1 total ticks): DestroyJavaVM

  Thread-local ticks:
100.0%     1             Blocked (of total)


Global summary of 6.35 seconds:
100.0%    14             Received ticks
 42.9%     6             Compilation

解决方法

我认为你发布的两个函数基本相同,因为它们只读取1个字节然后将其转换为int并进行进一步的比较.

每次读取4字节int或8字节更有效.我写了两个函数来做同样的事情:比较两个字节[]的内容,看看它们是否相同:

功能1:

public static boolean hadoopEquals(byte[] b1,byte[] b2)
  {
    if(b1 == b2)
    {
      return true;
    }
    if(b1.length != b2.length)
    {
      return false;
    }
    // Bring WritableComparator code local

    for(int i = 0;i < b1.length; ++i)
    {
     int a = (b1[i] & 0xff);
     int b = (b2[i] & 0xff);
     if (a != b) 
     {
       return false;
     }
    }
    return true;
  }

功能2:

public static boolean goodEquals(byte[] b1,byte[] b2)
  {   
    if(b1 == b2)
    {
      return true;
    }
    if(b1.length != b2.length)
    {
      return false;
    }
    int baSEOffset = UnSafe.arrayBaSEOffset(byte[].class);

    int numLongs = (int)Math.ceil(b1.length / 8.0);

    for(int i = 0;i < numLongs; ++i)
    {
      long currentOffset = baSEOffset + (i * 8);
      long l1 = UnSafe.getLong(b1,currentOffset);
      long l2 = UnSafe.getLong(b2,currentOffset);
      if(0L != (l1 ^ l2))
      {
        return false;
      }
    }
    return true;    
  }

我在笔记本电脑上运行了这两个功能(corei7 2630QM,8GB DDR3,64bit win 7,64bit Hotspot JVM),比较两个400MB byte [],结果如下:

功能1:~670ms

功能2:~80ms

2更快.

所以我的建议是每次读取8字节并使用XOR运算符(^):

long l1 = UnSafe.getLong(byteArray,offset);  //8 byte
if(0L == l1 ^ 0xFF)  //if the lowest byte == 0?
/* do something */
if(0L == l1 ^ 0xFF00)  //if the 2nd lowest byte == 0?
/* do something */
/* go on... */

================================================== ==========================

嗨威尔夫,
我使用你的代码创建一个测试类,如下所示,这个类比较了查找字节数组中第一个0的3个函数之间的速度:

package test;

import java.lang.reflect.Field;

import sun.misc.Unsafe;

/**
 * Test the speed in looking up the 1st 0 in a byte array
 * Set -Xms the same as -Xms to avoid Heap reallocation
 * 
 * @author yellowb
 *
 */
public class StackOverflow
{
    public static Unsafe UnSafe;

    public static Unsafe getUnsafe() throws SecurityException,NoSuchFieldException,IllegalArgumentException,IllegalAccessException
    {
        Field theUnsafe = Unsafe.class.getDeclaredField("theUnsafe");
        theUnsafe.setAccessible(true);
        Unsafe unsafe = (Unsafe) theUnsafe.get(null);
        return unsafe;
    }

    /**
     * use 'byte[index]' form to read 1 byte every time
     * @param buf
     */
    public static void normalLookup(byte[] buf)
    {
        for (int i = 0; i < buf.length; ++i)
        {
            if ((byte) 0 == buf[i])
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + i);
                return;
            }
        }
        System.out.println("Not found '0'");
    }

    /**
     * use Unsafe.getByte to read 1 byte every time directly from the memory
     * @param buf
     */
    public static void unsafeLookup_1B(byte[] buf)
    {
        int baSEOffset = UnSafe.arrayBaSEOffset(byte[].class);
        for (int i = 0; i < buf.length; ++i)
        {
            byte b = UnSafe.getByte(buf,(long) (baSEOffset + i));
            if (0 == ((int) b & 0xFF))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + i);
                return;
            }

        }
        System.out.println("Not found '0'");
    }

    /**
     * use Unsafe.getLong to read 8 byte every time directly from the memory
     * @param buf
     */
    public static void unsafeLookup_8B(byte[] buf)
    {
        int baSEOffset = UnSafe.arrayBaSEOffset(byte[].class);

        //The first (numLongs * 8) bytes will be read by Unsafe.getLong in below loop
        int numLongs = buf.length / 8;
        long currentOffset = 0L;
        for (int i = 0; i < numLongs; ++i)
        {
            currentOffset = baSEOffset + (i * 8);  //the step is 8 bytes
            long l = UnSafe.getLong(buf,currentOffset);
            //Compare each byte(in the 8-Byte long) to 0
            //PS:x86 cpu is little-endian mode
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF00L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 1));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF0000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 2));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF000000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 3));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF00000000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 4));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF0000000000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 5));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF000000000000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 6));
                return;
            }
            if (0L == (l & 0xFF00000000000000L))
            {
                System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (i * 8 + 7));
                return;
            }
        }

        //If some rest bytes exists
        int rest = buf.length % 8;
        if(0 != rest)
        {
            currentOffset = currentOffset + 8;
            //Because the length of rest bytes < 8,we have to read them one by one
            for(; currentOffset < (baSEOffset + buf.length); ++currentOffset)
            {
                byte b = UnSafe.getByte(buf,(long)currentOffset);
                if (0 == ((int) b & 0xFF))
                {
                    System.out.println("The 1st '0' is at position : " + (currentOffset - baSEOffset));
                    return;
                }
            }
        }
        System.out.println("Not found '0'");
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) throws SecurityException,IllegalAccessException
    {
        UnSafe = getUnsafe();

        int len = 1024 * 1024 * 1024;  //1G
        long startTime = 0L;
        long endTime = 0L;

        System.out.println("initialize data...");
        byte[] byteArray1 = new byte[len];
        for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i)
        {
            byteArray1[i] = (byte) (i % 128 + 1);  //No byte will equal to 0
        }
        //If you want to set one byte to 0,uncomment the below statement
//      byteArray1[2500] = (byte)0;
        System.out.println("initialize data done!");

        System.out.println("use normalLookup()...");
        startTime = System.nanoTime();
        normalLookup(byteArray1);
        endTime = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("time : " + ((endTime - startTime) / 1000) + " us.");

        System.out.println("use unsafeLookup_1B()...");
        startTime = System.nanoTime();
        unsafeLookup_1B(byteArray1);
        endTime = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("time : " + ((endTime - startTime) / 1000) + " us.");

        System.out.println("use unsafeLookup_8B()...");
        startTime = System.nanoTime();
        unsafeLookup_8B(byteArray1);
        endTime = System.nanoTime();
        System.out.println("time : " + ((endTime - startTime) / 1000) + " us.");
    }
}

输出是:

initialize data...
initialize data done!
use normalLookup()...
Not found '0'
time : 1271781 us.
use unsafeLookup_1B()...
Not found '0'
time : 716898 us.
use unsafeLookup_8B()...
Not found '0'
time : 591689 us.

结果表明,每次使用Unsafe.getByte()读取1个字节比定期迭代byte []要快得多.读取8个字节的长度是最快的.

(编辑:李大同)

【声明】本站内容均来自网络,其相关言论仅代表作者个人观点,不代表本站立场。若无意侵犯到您的权利,请及时与联系站长删除相关内容!

    推荐文章
      热点阅读