- **C++**
(*http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/f39-c.html*)

- - **Optimal buffer growth**
(*http://www.velocityreviews.com/forums/t621045-optimal-buffer-growth.html*)

Optimal buffer growthHi,
I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the optmial buffer growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to find this book but I can't remember its title. Can someone help me with this? |

Re: Optimal buffer growthOn Jun 18, 2:45 pm, "Angel Tsankov" <fn42...@fmi.uni-sofia.bg> wrote:
> Hi, > > I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the optmial buffer > growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to find this book but I can't > remember its title. Can someone help me with this? I think you are thinking Andrew Koenig. Search for the thread titled "vector growth factor of 1.5" at groups.google.com for a discussion of it. Ali |

Re: Optimal buffer growthAngel Tsankov wrote:
> I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the optmial buffer > growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to find this book but I can't > remember its title. Can someone help me with this? What do you mean by "optimal"? It's a space-time tradeoff. If you increase the multiplication factor, you decrease the expected number of move or copy operations but you increase the expected memory overhead. Assuming that the capacity multiplies by a factor of d > 1 at each reallocation, I get (using Benford's law): a) The expected ratio size() / capacity() is: d - 1 --------- (for d = 2, approx = 0.72) d ln(d) b) Filling the vector by a series of push_back() operations will involve on average 1 ------- (for d = 2, approx = 1.44) ln(d) moves per object arising from reallocating the vector (i.e., not including initial copy construction of the object into the vector). For d = 1.6, that would be an expected memory usage of 80% and each object would be reallocated 2.13 times on average. Best Kai-Uwe Bux |

Re: Optimal buffer growth>> Hi,
>> >> I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the optmial buffer >> growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to find this book but I can't >> remember its title. Can someone help me with this? > > I think you are thinking Andrew Koenig. > > Search for the thread titled "vector growth factor of 1.5" at > groups.google.com for a discussion of it. Thanks a lot for the reference; I'll take a look. However, I still need to find out that book... |

Re: Optimal buffer growthOn Jun 19, 1:16 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx.net> wrote:
> Angel Tsankov wrote: > > I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the > > optmial buffer growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to > > find this book but I can't remember its title. Can someone > > help me with this? > What do you mean by "optimal"? It's a space-time tradeoff. If > you increase the multiplication factor, you decrease the > expected number of move or copy operations but you increase > the expected memory overhead. The issue was that if the factor is larger than (1+sqrt(5))/2 (roughly 1.618), the memory freed after a reallocation could never be reused by the vector; if you double the size at each allocation, the total memory freed until that point will always be less than the size requested for the new allocation. If the factor is smaller, you can hope that sooner or later, the underlying allocator will be able to merge previously filled blocks, and fulfill the request from them. -- James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com Conseils en informatique orientée objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 |

Re: Optimal buffer growthJames Kanze wrote:
> On Jun 19, 1:16 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx.net> wrote: >> Angel Tsankov wrote: >> > I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the >> > optmial buffer growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to >> > find this book but I can't remember its title. Can someone >> > help me with this? > >> What do you mean by "optimal"? It's a space-time tradeoff. If >> you increase the multiplication factor, you decrease the >> expected number of move or copy operations but you increase >> the expected memory overhead. > > The issue was that if the factor is larger than (1+sqrt(5))/2 > (roughly 1.618), the memory freed after a reallocation could > never be reused by the vector; if you double the size at each > allocation, the total memory freed until that point will always > be less than the size requested for the new allocation. If the > factor is smaller, you can hope that sooner or later, the > underlying allocator will be able to merge previously filled > blocks, and fulfill the request from them. Cool, the golden ratio strikes again. I have to wonder, though, whether this has a measurable impact (a) on modern architectures where memory is organized in pages or (b) in typical programs where one probably has more than one dynamic data structure growing at a time anyway. Best Kai-Uwe Bux |

Re: Optimal buffer growthOn Jun 19, 3:14 pm, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx.net> wrote:
> James Kanze wrote: > > On Jun 19, 1:16 am, Kai-Uwe Bux <jkherci...@gmx.net> wrote: > >> Angel Tsankov wrote: > >> > I remember reading in a book (or in an article) that the > >> > optmial buffer growth factor is about 1.6. Now I need to > >> > find this book but I can't remember its title. Can someone > >> > help me with this? > >> What do you mean by "optimal"? It's a space-time tradeoff. If > >> you increase the multiplication factor, you decrease the > >> expected number of move or copy operations but you increase > >> the expected memory overhead. > > The issue was that if the factor is larger than (1+sqrt(5))/2 > > (roughly 1.618), the memory freed after a reallocation could > > never be reused by the vector; if you double the size at each > > allocation, the total memory freed until that point will always > > be less than the size requested for the new allocation. If the > > factor is smaller, you can hope that sooner or later, the > > underlying allocator will be able to merge previously filled > > blocks, and fulfill the request from them. > Cool, the golden ratio strikes again. > I have to wonder, though, whether this has a measurable impact > (a) on modern architectures where memory is organized in pages > or (b) in typical programs where one probably has more than > one dynamic data structure growing at a time anyway. I don't really know. Nominally, with any of the "classical" allocation algorithms, if you have one vector which just grows and grows, it eventually migrates to the end of the free space arena (because it becomes bigger than any of the holes), and this factor could possibly affect just how large you could make it grow. Except, of course, that you'll likely bring the machine to its knees through paging before that. And that there are enough additional factors involved that it's not certain that the rule really changes anything. Just out of curiousity, during my lunch hour, I wrote a simple allocator and tested the principles. Using some simple multipliers, I get the following output: For 1.10: max size = 389582583 (39.0%) For 1.20: max size = 389586745 (39.0%) For 1.30: max size = 513088587 (51.3%) For 1.40: max size = 477760691 (47.8%) For 1.50: max size = 419279977 (41.9%) For 1.60: max size = 432051256 (43.2%) For 1.70: max size = 360273482 (36.0%) For 1.80: max size = 307547665 (30.8%) For 1.90: max size = 328691801 (32.9%) For 2.00: max size = 268435456 (26.8%) Change just about any of the parmeters, however, and you get something different: using an initial size of 500 (rather than 128) results in: For 1.10: max size = 374691238 (37.5%) For 1.20: max size = 519586870 (52.0%) For 1.30: max size = 420105341 (42.0%) For 1.40: max size = 488743519 (48.9%) For 1.50: max size = 323374783 (32.3%) For 1.60: max size = 259493561 (25.9%) For 1.70: max size = 288397093 (28.8%) For 1.80: max size = 371637543 (37.2%) For 1.90: max size = 357024500 (35.7%) For 2.00: max size = 262144000 (26.2%) Change the size of the arena from 1000000000 to 500000000, and you get: For 1.10: max size = 219909214 (44.0%) For 1.20: max size = 225455293 (45.1%) For 1.30: max size = 233540550 (46.7%) For 1.40: max size = 174111040 (34.8%) For 1.50: max size = 279519985 (55.9%) For 1.60: max size = 168770022 (33.8%) For 1.70: max size = 124662105 (24.9%) For 1.80: max size = 170859814 (34.2%) For 1.90: max size = 172995685 (34.6%) For 2.00: max size = 134217728 (26.8%) For the moment, I'm not sure what one can really conclude:-). Anyhow, for those interested, here's the code. It uses my library, but only a few simple things from it, which can easily be replaced. Also, it's entirely possible that I've got an error somewhere in it (it was written very quickly), which could explain the randomness of the results as well. -------------- fill.cc ---------------- #include <cstdlib> #include <iostream> #include <iomanip> #include <new> #include "gb/FFmt.hh" #include "gb/CommandLine.hh" #include "gb/NumericOption.hh" Gabi::BoundNumericOption arenaSize( 'a', 1000000000 ) ; Gabi::BoundNumericOption startSize( 's', 128 ) ; Gabi::BoundNumericOption intervalCount( 'i', 10 ) ; class Pool { public: explicit Pool( size_t size = arenaSize ) ; ~Pool() ; void* allocate( size_t n ) ; void free( void* p ) ; private: struct BlockHeader { BlockHeader* next ; bool isFree ; } ; void* base ; BlockHeader* first ; inline void* add( void* p, size_t n ) { return static_cast< char* >( p ) + n ; } inline size_t diff( void* p1, void* p2 ) { return static_cast< char* >( p2 ) - static_cast< char* >( p1 ) ; } } ; void testPool( double ratio ) { Pool p ; size_t s = startSize ; void* v = p.allocate( s ) ; while ( v != NULL ) { size_t s2 = (size_t)( ratio * s ) ; void* v2 = p.allocate( s2 ) ; p.free( v ) ; v = v2 ; if ( v != NULL ) { s = s2 ; } } std::cout << "For " << Gabi::FFmt( 4, 2 ) << ratio << ": max size = " << std::setw( 9 ) << s << " (" << Gabi::FFmt( 4, 1 ) << 100.0 * s / arenaSize << "%)" << std::endl ; } int main( int argc, char** argv ) { Gabi::CommandLine::instance().parse( argc, argv ) ; for ( int i = 1 ; i <= intervalCount ; ++ i ) { testPool( 1.0 + i / static_cast< double >( intervalCount.value() ) ) ; } return 0 ; } Pool::Pool( size_t size ) { base = std::malloc( size ) ; if ( base == NULL ) { throw std::bad_alloc() ; } first = static_cast< BlockHeader* >( base ) ; BlockHeader* last = static_cast< BlockHeader* >( add( first, size - sizeof( BlockHeader ) ) ) ; first->next = last ; first->isFree = true ; last->next = NULL ; last->isFree = false ; } Pool::~Pool() { std::free( base ) ; } void* Pool::allocate( size_t n ) { n += sizeof( BlockHeader ) ; n = (n + 7) & (static_cast< size_t >( -1 ) << 3) ; BlockHeader* result = NULL ; BlockHeader* b = first ; while ( result == NULL && b != NULL ) { if ( b->isFree ) { while ( b->next->isFree ) { b->next = b->next->next ; } if ( diff( b, b->next ) > n ) { result = b ; } } b = b->next ; } if ( result != NULL ) { if ( diff( result, result->next ) > n + sizeof( BlockHeader ) ) { BlockHeader* newNext = static_cast< BlockHeader* >( add( result, n ) ) ; newNext->next = result->next ; newNext->isFree = true ; result->next = newNext ; } result->isFree = false ; ++ result ; } return result ; } void Pool::free( void* p ) { if ( p != NULL ) { BlockHeader* b = static_cast< BlockHeader* >( p ) - 1 ; b->isFree = true ; } } ---------------- ------- ---------------- -- James Kanze (GABI Software) email:james.kanze@gmail.com Conseils en informatique orientée objet/ Beratung in objektorientierter Datenverarbeitung 9 place Sémard, 78210 St.-Cyr-l'École, France, +33 (0)1 30 23 00 34 |

All times are GMT. The time now is 04:18 PM. |

Powered by vBulletin®. Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.

SEO by vBSEO ©2010, Crawlability, Inc.