Comment by forrestthewoods
1 day ago
It’s not wrong per se. I’m just very wary of nano-scale benchmarks. And I think in general you should advertise “velocity” not “time per”.
Perhaps it’s a long time inspiration from this post: https://randomascii.wordpress.com/2018/02/04/what-we-talk-ab...
I also just don’t know what to do with “1 ns per element”. The scale of 1 to 4 ns per element is remarkably imprecise. Discussing 1 to 250 million to 1 billion elements per second feels like a much wider range. Even if it’s mathematically identical.
Your graphs have a few odd spikes that weren’t deeply discussed. If it’s under 2ns per element who cares!
The logarithmic scale also made it really hard to interpret. Should have drawn clearer lines at L1/L2/L3/ram limits.
On skim I don’t think there’s anything wrong. But as presented it’s a little hard for me as an engineer to extract lessons or use this information for good (or evil).
There shouldn’t be a Linux vs Mac issue. Ignoring mmap this should be HW.
I dunno. Those are all just surface level reactions.
Haha, it seems you may have thought the person you were responding to is the post author :) but actually that would be me.
Agreed that the odd spikes don't matter, that's why I didn't bother discussing them; I was more interested in the data after the array got large enough that random access was actually slower. It looked like all those weird spikes were for arrays small enough to fit in cache anyways.
I agree that it could have been helpful if I'd drawn lines at L1/L2/L3/RAM limits, but I didn't do that because I don't think it's entirely clear where those lines should have been drawn. Specifically because there are two arrays. Should the line show just where the floating-point array is small enough to fit in cache, or where both arrays together are?
Not sure I quite follow what you're saying about mmap on Linux vs Mac; only one of the three sets of experiments used mmap, and the third was explicitly to try to tease out that effect. Especially for the first experiment, I agree that there should be no difference for arrays small enough to fit in RAM, since the whole file gets read into memory first.
> Agreed that the odd spikes don't matter, that's why I didn't bother discussing them
That was sarcasm =P Those spikes are very curious and the choice of presentation makes them seem like noise but there is something there that should be investigated further imho. In the graph it looks like noise. I mean it’s just 1ns. But a 2x throughput difference isn’t noise! Thats huge! Very curious.
> Not sure I quite follow what you're saying about mmap on Linux vs Mac
Your 4th conclusion is “On Linux, random order starts getting even slower for arrays over a gigabyte, becoming more than 50x slower than first-to-last order; in contrast, random order on the MacBook seems to just level out as long as everything fits in RAM.”. That doesn’t make sense. There shouldn’t be any OS difference here.
Gotcha, sorry for not picking up on the sarcasm. Yeah, I mean, I didn't really bother running the experiments many times for the smaller array sizes, so it could potentially be interesting to see if those artifacts persist when poked.
Could you clarify why there shouldn't be an OS difference? I was under the impression that it's the OS that handles how swap space is implemented (which was used by the first set of experiments), as well as how memory-mapped files are implemented (which was used by the second set of experiments). Am I mistaken about that?