The flu can go fuck itself in its nonexistent, viral ass. This shit will not beat me. While I run down the clock, I'm profiling more things to make me feel a bit better.
First off, neither GHCi nor Haskell mode comes with an interactive profiler. Or, as far as I can tell, any utilities to make batch profiling any easier. The way you profile Haskell programs is by installing the profiling extensions
apt-get install libghc-mtl-dev libghc-mtl-prof
compiling your program with the profiling flags on
ghc -prof -auto-all -o outFile yourFile.hs
and then running the result with some different profiling flags.
./outfile +RTS -p
That should create a file called outFile.prof in the directory you just ran it from, and that file will contain a well formatted couple of tables that will tell you where your space and time cost-centers are.
So... lets automate this.
(defun ha-custom-profile-buffer () (interactive) (find-file-other-window (ha-custom-profile-haskell-file (buffer-file-name)))) (defun ha-custom-profile-haskell-file (abs-filename) "Compiles the given file with profiling, runs it with the +RTS -p flags and returns the filename of the profiling output." (assert (string= "hs" (file-name-extension abs-filename))) (let* ((f-name (file-name-sans-extension abs-filename)) (tmp (make-temp-file f-name)) (tmp-name (file-name-nondirectory tmp)) (tmp-dir (file-name-directory tmp))) (message "Compiling...") (shell-command (format "ghc -prof -auto-all -o %s '%s'" tmp abs-filename)) (message "Profiling...") (shell-command (format "%s./%s +RTS -p" tmp-dir tmp-name)) (concat tmp-name ".prof")))
Those functions are both now part of my ha-custom mode. The big one takes a Haskell file, compiles it to a tempfile with the appropriate flags, runs the result with the other appropriate flags, and returns the name of the profiling output file. The little function takes the current buffer and runs it through the big one, then opens the result in a new window. That should make it a bit easier to actually do the profiling.
Actually Profiling Haskell
We started with pretty much the same thing as the Lisp code. And, I'll strip the printing elements again for the purposes of this exercise; we're not interested in how inefficient it is to actually produce a grid based on our model of the world.
module Main where import Data.List (group, sort, concatMap) import Data.Set lifeStep :: Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) lifeStep cells = fromList [head g | g <- grouped cells, viable g] where grouped = group . sort . concatMap neighbors . toList neighbors (x, y) = [(x+dx, y+dy) | dx <- [-1..1], dy <- [-1..1], (dx,dy) /= (0,0)] viable [_,_,_] = True viable [c,_] = c `member` cells viable _ = False runLife :: Int -> Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) runLife steps cells = rec (steps - 1) cells where rec 0 cells = cells rec s cells = rec (s - 1) $! lifeStep cells glider = fromList [(1, 0), (2, 1), (0, 2), (1, 2), (2, 2)] blinker = fromList [(1, 0), (1, 1), (1, 2)] gosperGliderGun = fromList [(24, 0), (22, 1), (24, 1), (12, 2), (13, 2), (20, 2), (21, 2), (34, 2), (35, 2), (11, 3), (15, 3), (20, 3), (21, 3), (34, 3), (35, 3), (0, 4), (1, 4), (10, 4), (16, 4), (20, 4), (21, 4), (0, 5), (1, 5), (10, 5), (14, 5), (16, 5), (17, 5), (22, 5), (24, 5), (10, 6), (16, 6), (24, 6), (11, 7), (15, 7), (12, 8), (13, 8)] main :: IO () main = putStrLn . show $ runLife 5000 gosperGliderGun
It's almost the same, actually, because we determine frequencies differently. Instead of doing a single traversal of the corpus, we do what looks like a much more expensive operation composing group onto sort onto concatMap neighbors. In a book, that would be called "foreshadowing".
A first run-through of M-x ha-custom-profile-buffer gives us
Fri Dec 14 21:48 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765U60 +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 30.15 secs (30153 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 24,382,856,840 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
lifeStep.grouped Main 57.4 53.6
lifeStep.neighbors Main 24.7 40.9
lifeStep Main 11.4 5.5
lifeStep.viable Main 6.5 0.0
individual inherited
COST CENTRE MODULE no. entries %time %alloc %time %alloc
MAIN MAIN 46 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
CAF Main 91 0 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
gosperGliderGun Main 97 1 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
main Main 92 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
runLife Main 93 1 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
runLife.rec Main 94 5000 0.0 0.0 100.0 100.0
lifeStep Main 95 4999 11.4 5.5 100.0 100.0
lifeStep.viable Main 99 10002308 6.5 0.0 6.5 0.0
lifeStep.grouped Main 96 4999 57.4 53.6 82.1 94.5
lifeStep.neighbors Main 98 2314620 24.7 40.9 24.7 40.9
CAF Data.Set 90 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CAF GHC.Conc.Signal 87 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CAF GHC.IO.Handle.FD 80 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CAF GHC.IO.Encoding 74 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
CAF GHC.IO.Encoding.Iconv 62 0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
We're actually only interested in that small table, so I'll omit the exhaustive one for the future. Basically, yes. grouped and neighbors are the resource-hogs here. Even still, this compares favorably against the Common Lisp infinite plane version; both in terms of program complexity and in terms of runtime. Not to mention that the initial CL version actually crashed at ~3000 iterations because it doesn't like tail recursion.
Anyhow, the first thing we're doing this time is limiting the size of the world.
inRange :: Ord a => a -> a -> a -> Bool inRange low n high = low < n && n < high lifeStep :: Int -> Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) lifeStep worldSize cells = fromList [head g | g <- grouped cells, viable g] where grouped = group . sort . concatMap neighbors . toList neighbors (x, y) = [(x+dx, y+dy) | dx <- [-1..1], dy <- [-1..1], (dx,dy) /= (0,0), inSize (dx+x) (dy+y)] inSize x y = inR x worldSize && inR y worldSize inR = inRange 0 viable [_,_,_] = True viable [c,_] = c `member` cells viable _ = False runLife :: Int -> Int -> Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) runLife worldSize steps cells = rec (steps - 1) cells where rec 0 cells = cells rec s cells = rec (s - 1) $! lifeStep worldSize cells main :: IO () main = putStrLn . show $ runLife 50 5000 gosperGliderGun
That's gonna do the same thing it did yesterday; prevent massive, processor-fucking overpopulation.
Fri Dec 14 22:03 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765GEE +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 1.61 secs (1608 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 1,132,473,192 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
lifeStep.grouped Main 46.5 41.2
lifeStep.neighbors Main 23.4 37.8
inRange Main 11.1 11.9
lifeStep Main 6.2 3.0
lifeStep.viable Main 6.1 0.0
lifeStep.inSize Main 3.6 6.0
lifeStep.inR Main 2.9 0.0
Granted, inRange is on the map as a cost center, but this shaved ~28 seconds off the final run time, I'm gonna call that fair enough. Given the numbers we were posting yesterday, I'm almost tempted to call this good enough. Lets see where it all goes, shall we? Step size of
50
Fri Dec 14 22:06 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765TOK +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 0.03 secs (29 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 18,129,192 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
lifeStep.grouped Main 55.2 42.0
lifeStep.neighbors Main 17.2 36.9
inRange Main 13.8 11.7
main Main 3.4 0.1
lifeStep Main 3.4 3.2
lifeStep.inSize Main 3.4 5.8
lifeStep.inR Main 3.4 0.0
We've seen 5000 already, so
50 000
Fri Dec 14 22:07 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765gYQ +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 15.94 secs (15942 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 11,262,873,192 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
lifeStep.grouped Main 45.3 41.2
lifeStep.neighbors Main 23.0 37.8
inRange Main 12.7 11.9
lifeStep Main 6.6 3.0
lifeStep.viable Main 5.9 0.0
lifeStep.inSize Main 3.8 6.0
lifeStep.inR Main 2.4 0.0
5 000 000
Fri Dec 14 22:37 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
big +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 1594.43 secs (1594429 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 1,125,606,873,896 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
lifeStep.grouped Main 45.4 41.2
lifeStep.neighbors Main 23.6 37.8
inRange Main 12.5 11.9
lifeStep Main 6.2 3.0
lifeStep.viable Main 5.8 0.0
lifeStep.inSize Main 3.6 6.0
lifeStep.inR Main 2.6 0.0
It's funny, after just clipping the board, we start getting much better numbers with unoptimized Haskell than we saw with unoptimized Common Lisp. That's not really much of a victory, since optimized lisp was handily beating the numbers we're putting down today, but it's also not the showdown I want to see. I want to know how optimized Haskell stacks up, and I want to know how Gridless Life stacks up to a gridded implementation. Back to Rosetta Code, I guess. Second verse same as the first; added a grid-appropriate gun[1] and stripped all but the final printing code.
import Data.Array.Unboxed import Data.List (unfoldr) type Grid = UArray (Int,Int) Bool -- The grid is indexed by (y, x). life :: Int -> Int -> Grid -> Grid {- Returns the given Grid advanced by one generation. -} life w h old = listArray b (map f (range b)) where b@((y1,x1),(y2,x2)) = bounds old f (y, x) = ( c && (n == 2 || n == 3) ) || ( not c && n == 3 ) where c = get x y n = count [get (x + x') (y + y') | x' <- [-1, 0, 1], y' <- [-1, 0, 1], not (x' == 0 && y' == 0)] get x y | x < x1 || x > x2 = False | y < y1 || y > y2 = False | otherwise = old ! (y, x) count :: [Bool] -> Int count = length . filter id grid :: [String] -> (Int, Int, Grid) grid l = (width, height, a) where (width, height) = (length $ head l, length l) a = listArray ((1, 1), (height, width)) $ concatMap f l f = map g g '.' = False g _ = True printGrid :: Int -> Grid -> IO () printGrid width = mapM_ f . split width . elems where f = putStrLn . map g g False = '.' g _ = '#' split :: Int -> [a] -> [[a]] split n = takeWhile (not . null) . unfoldr (Just . splitAt n) gosperGliderGun = grid ["........................#.........................", "......................#.#.........................", "............##......##............##..............", "...........#...#....##............##..............", "##........#.....#...##............................", "##........#...#.##....#.#.........................", "..........#.....#.......#.........................", "...........#...#..................................", "............##....................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", "..................................................", ".................................................."] printLife :: Int -> (Int, Int, Grid) -> IO () printLife n (w, h, g) = printGrid w . last . take n $ iterate (life w h) g main = printLife 50 gosperGliderGun
Ok, lets rev this sucker up.
50
Fri Dec 14 22:29 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life-grid21765tiW +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 1.32 secs (1319 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 891,555,608 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
life.get Main 59.9 50.4
life.f.n Main 30.5 41.7
life.f Main 3.9 3.0
count Main 3.5 0.8
life Main 2.0 3.9
5000
Fri Dec 14 22:32 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life-grid217656sc +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 133.77 secs (133771 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 90,810,516,640 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
life.get Main 59.1 50.5
life.f.n Main 31.3 41.8
count Main 3.5 0.8
life.f Main 3.4 3.0
life Main 2.4 3.9
That's ... almost sad enough not to be funny. Almost. Do note for the record that this is an order of magnitude up from the gridless version with the same inputs. And when you think about what's involved in each traversal of each corpus, it kind of becomes obvious why that is. The grids' corpus traversal always has 2500 stops. The gridless traversal is somewhere between 50 and 100 for a comparably populated board of the same size. 2500 is our worst case, and we'll probably never hit it.
I'm not even going to bother profiling the higher steps with this approach if 5000 took two minutes. I do still want to see how low we can go, and how we'd go about it.
The first thought I have is to try out that iterate approach, rather than recurring manually
runLife :: Int -> Int -> Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) runLife worldSize steps cells = last . take steps $ iterate (lifeStep worldSize) cells main :: IO () main = putStrLn . show $ runLife 50 50000 gosperGliderGun
Yes, it's more elegant. But will it blend?
Fri Dec 14 22:45 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765UId +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 0.01 secs (12 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 20,022,728 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
runLife Main 41.7 36.0
lifeStep.grouped Main 33.3 52.1
lifeStep Main 25.0 11.7
Hm.
I'm gonna go ahead and put that one down to a profiler error, especially since running the same program in interactive mode confers no such magical acceleration. This does kind of call the process into question somewhat though...
Oh, well, I'm meant to be exploring. Lets pull the same incremental stuff we did with CL yesterday. Firstly, we're already using Set here, so the member check is already as tight as it's going to get. Our last valid profiler ping told us that lifeStep.grouped is where the big costs are paid, so lets see if we can't reduce them somewhat.
import qualified Data.Map as Map (Map, lookup, insert, adjust, delete, fromList, toList) frequencies :: [(Int, Int)] -> Map.Map (Int, Int) Int frequencies list = rec list $ Map.fromList [] where inc = Map.adjust (+1) rec [] m = m rec (cell:rest) m = rec rest newM where newM = if Nothing == Map.lookup cell m then Map.insert cell 1 m else inc cell m lifeStep :: Int -> Set (Int, Int) -> Set (Int, Int) lifeStep worldSize cells = fromList [fst g | g <- grouped cells, viable g] where grouped = Data.List.filter viable . Map.toList . frequencies . concatMap neighbors . toList neighbors (x, y) = [(x+dx, y+dy) | dx <- [-1..1], dy <- [-1..1], (dx,dy) /= (0,0), inSize (dx+x) (dy+y)] inSize x y = inR x worldSize && inR y worldSize inR = inRange 0 viable (_,3) = True viable (c,2) = c `member` cells viable _ = False
We've added a Map of frequencies, rather than doing the naive group . sort thing. We've also had to tweak viable just a bit to accomodate.
Fri Dec 14 22:54 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life21765ucp +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 2.41 secs (2406 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 1,216,439,760 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
frequencies.rec.newM Main 41.2 17.4
lifeStep.neighbors Main 16.6 35.2
frequencies.inc Main 12.4 12.2
lifeStep.viable Main 9.4 4.7
inRange Main 8.1 11.1
lifeStep.grouped Main 3.4 8.2
lifeStep Main 3.4 2.8
lifeStep.inSize Main 2.3 5.6
lifeStep.inR Main 1.4 0.0
frequencies.rec Main 1.3 2.8
That's ... hm. Actually an increase of about a second. Maybe it does comparatively better on bigger data-sets?
main :: IO () main = putStrLn . show $ runLife 50 50000 gosperGliderGun
Fri Dec 14 22:57 2012 Time and Allocation Profiling Report (Final)
life217657mv +RTS -p -RTS
total time = 23.96 secs (23961 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)
total alloc = 12,100,319,760 bytes (excludes profiling overheads)
COST CENTRE MODULE %time %alloc
frequencies.rec.newM Main 39.7 17.4
lifeStep.neighbors Main 16.0 35.2
frequencies.inc Main 13.3 12.2
lifeStep.viable Main 9.5 4.7
inRange Main 8.6 11.1
lifeStep.grouped Main 3.6 8.2
lifeStep Main 3.4 2.8
lifeStep.inSize Main 2.6 5.6
lifeStep.inR Main 1.8 0.0
frequencies.rec Main 1.4 2.8
Nope. It actually does comparatively worse.
Hmmm.
I'm going to cut it here for now. I think I've done enough damage. I won't be putting the latest up[2] for obvious reasons. Yes, I peeked ahead, which is why I knew this particular optimization wouldn't work in Haskell early enough to foreshadow it, but I still wanted to formalize my thoughts about it.
It's hard not to learn something from playing with a languages' profiler. This experience tells me that I might have the wrong model in my head, or it might be that predicting where a traversal will happen is a lot more difficult in lazy languages, or, as I suspect from the latest profiler readouts, it might be that a Haskell Maps' lookup speed isn't constant time. The reason I suspect this is that some of our biggest cost centers are now frequencies.rec.newM (which does a Map.lookup each call) and frequencies.inc (which manipulates a particular element of a Map, so I assume a lookup is part of it).
I'm off to read up on Haskell data structures and test these hypotheses.
Oh. And heal up.
Footnotes
1 - [back] - (by the way, this makes clear that whatever the performance comparisons come down to, the gridless version has a more elegant notation)
2 - [back] - (though the limited-size version and the gridded competitor will be checked in)
"total time = 133.77 secs (133771 ticks @ 1000 us, 1 processor)"
ReplyDeleteI got 6.5s for this on my machine. How are you building?
Oh, I see. You put how you're building it at the top of the article. Try adding -O2 to that.
DeleteOr perhaps I missed the point and this was on purpose?
DeleteArbitrarily didn't use optimization flags, deliberately used the same command for each program. I guess since there's interest I'll go back through later and re-bench these with `-O` and `-O2` as well.
Delete-O2 makes a difference, but it's not as big on my machine as yours. The grid-based solution does 5000 in 17.72 seconds and 50000 in 177.71 seconds. The gridless version does margnially better too; 5000 goes down to 1.02 sec from 1.61 and 50000 goes down to 10.27 from 15.94. 5 000 000 claims to run in 102.46 seconds, but the extended report only lists 500 000 entries for `lifeStep`, so I assume the actual number would be closer to ~700 seconds.
DeleteAs i understand it, Haskell Map is implemented as Tree/Forrests, not hashmap, so lookup is not constant time. It's a blend of linear/log time depending on how wide the forrests are internally.
ReplyDeleteI figured as much. I'll try this again with `Data.Hashmap` instead as soon as I get the profiling libraries for it installed.
DeleteHmm. Data.HashMap doesn't seem to yield any sort of improvement over `Data.Map`, with or without -O flags. Do you know if there IS a constant-time lookup construct available somewhere in haskell? Implementing my own hash function isn't something I was expecting to do for this.
Deleteสล็อตออนไลน์ slotxo เว็บนี้เล่นสล็อตxo ได้ตลอด 24 ชั่วโมง
ReplyDeletehttps://www.slot4u.com/slotxo