Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

High Performance Haskell


Published on

Haskell can perform as well as C sometimes even better. We present a case study of unicode normalization to show how we optimized Haskell code to get close to C performance. We also present some optimization techniques like inlining, specialization and strictness annotations. Finally, we present how the benchmarking tools like gauge, criterion or bench-show can be used to detect performance regressions and comparisons.

Published in: Software
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

High Performance Haskell

  1. 1. Composewell Technologies High Performance Haskell Harendra Kumar 15 Dec 2018
  2. 2. Composewell Technologies Harendra Kumar ‣More than a decade of systems programming in C ‣Writing Haskell for last three years ‣Currently focusing on streamly, an ambitious project that aims to make programming practical systems in Haskell a joy and ensure C like high performance.
  3. 3. Composewell Technologies Haskell Performance ‣Can easily be off by 10x or 100x from the best ‣Refactoring can easily affect performance ‣You cannot be confident unless you measure ‣Best practices can easily get you in the ballpark ‣Squeezing the last drop may be harder ‣With some effort, can get close to C or even better
  4. 4. A Case Study
  5. 5. Composewell Technologies Unicode Normalization A case study ‣Challenge: can we do unicode normalization equal to or faster than the best C++ library (icu)?
  6. 6. Composewell Technologies The Problem ‣A unicode character may have multiple forms (composed/decomposed). ‣ Åström (U+00C5 U+0073 U+0074 U+0072 U+00F6 U+006D) ‣ Åström (U+0041 U+030A U+0073 U+0074 U+0072 U+006F U+0308 U+006D) ‣To compare strings we need to bring them to a common same normal form (e.g. NFC/NFD).
  7. 7. Composewell Technologies Normalized Form Decomposed (NFD) ‣Sequence of chars: ‣Starter,Starter,Combining1,Combining2…Starter,Combining1… ‣Lookup character: ‣has decomposition? ‣replace with its components ‣Lookup combining class: ‣0 => Starter, Non-zero => combining ‣Reorder multiple combining chars as per combining class
  8. 8. Composewell Technologies Unicode Character Database ‣Lookup maps: ‣Decomposition map, ~2000 entries ‣Combining class map ~1000 entries ‣Algorithmic decomposition of Hangul characters
  9. 9. Composewell Technologies Naive, Elegant Code ‣Normalization in ~50 lines of core code ‣Use IntMap for database lookup ‣Use Haskell lists for processing ‣Idiomatic code
  10. 10. Composewell Technologies Naive Implementation Performance (C++/Haskell)
  11. 11. Composewell Technologies Use Pattern Match for Lookup
  12. 12. Composewell Technologies IntMap vs Pattern Match
  13. 13. Composewell Technologies Fast Path Decomposition Lookup
  14. 14. Composewell Technologies Decomposition ‣Decomposition is recursive ‣Use simple recursion instead of iterate, zip with tail idioms to decompose recursively.
  15. 15. Composewell Technologies Fast Path Reordering ‣Original code: ‣split into groups, sortBy combining class (CC) ‣“SCCSCC” => [(S,0), (C,10), (C,11)], [(S,0), (C,5), (C,6)] ‣Optimized code: use custom sorting for the cases when the sort group size is 1 or 2, fallback to regular list sort for the rest. ‣Use bitmap for a quick combining or non-combining check, non-combining is a common case.
  16. 16. Composewell Technologies Monolithic Decompose and Reorder ‣ Original code: reorder . decompose ‣ Optimized code: decomposeAndReorder reorderBuffer ‣ In the common case the buffer has just one char and it gets flushed when we get the next char. ‣ We need to sort the buffer only when there are more than one combining chars in the buffer. ‣ Use custom sorting for 2 char sorting case. ‣ Do not use string append for reorder buffer, manually deconstruct and reconstruct the list for short common cases. (10% improvement)
  17. 17. Composewell Technologies Hangul Jamo Normalization ‣Use algorithmic decomposition as prescribed by the unicode standard, instead of simple lookup based approach. ‣NOINLINE Hangul Jamo case - this is not fast path ‣Use quot/rem instead of div/mod ‣user quotRem instead of quot/rem ‣Use unsafeChr instead of chr ‣Use strict values in list buffers ‣Use tuples instead of lists for returning short buffers ‣Localize recursion to non-hangul case
  18. 18. Composewell Technologies Where are we? (C++/Haskell/C)
  19. 19. Composewell Technologies Can we do better? ‣Remember we are still using plain Haskell strings! Let’s do some minimal experiments to test the limits: stringOp = map (chr . (+ 1) . ord) — 17 ms textOp = (chr . (+ 1) . ord) — 11 ms textOp = T.unstream . — 4.0 ms ICU English Normalization — 2.7 ms Fixed Text unstream code - NOINLINE realloc code — 1.3 ms
  20. 20. Composewell Technologies Let’s Apply This ‣Use Text with stream/unstream instead of strings ‣Conditional branch readjustments, for fast path. ‣Inlining ‣INLINE the isCombining check (+16%) ‣Add NOINLINE to slow path code ‣-funbox-strict-fields
  21. 21. Composewell Technologies Optimize Reorder Buffer ‣Instead of a list, use a custom data type optimized for fast path cases: data Buffer = Empty | One {-# UNPACK #-} !Char | Many [Char] ‣Use a mutable reorder buffer ‣ + 5%
  22. 22. Composewell Technologies Where are we now? (C++/Haskell)
  23. 23. Composewell Technologies Use llvm backend (+10%)
  24. 24. Composewell Technologies We can do better ‣We can use non-decomposable starter lookup for fast path. It will cut common case lookups by half. ‣We have not tried hash lookup ‣ICU C++ library uses unicode quick check properties for optimization, we can also do the same to further optimize at algorithmic level. ‣Code generation by GHC can possibly be improved. I raised a couple of tickets about it.
  25. 25. Composewell Technologies Lessons ‣Using Haskell we can write concise code with acceptable performance quickly. ‣The code can be optimized to perform as well as C ‣Most of the optimization we did were algorithmic and logic related rather than language related issues. Mostly custom handling of fast path. ‣The most common, language related optimizations are INLINE annotations. Others are mostly last drop squeezing kind.
  26. 26. Performance Optimization
  27. 27. Composewell Technologies Ground Rules ‣ MEASURE, define proper benchmarks ‣ ANALYZE, benchmarks may be wrong ‣ OPTIMIZE ‣ Algorithmic optimization first ‣ Biggest gain first ‣ Optimize where it matters (fast path) ‣ DEBUG ‣ Narrow down by incremental elimination ‣ Narrow down by incremental addition ‣ RATCHET, don’t lose the hard work spent in discovering issues
  28. 28. Composewell Technologies The three musketeers 1. INLINE 2. SPECIALIZE 3. STRICTIFY
  29. 29. INLINE
  30. 30. Composewell Technologies Inlining ‣Instead of making a function call, expand the definition of a function at the call site.
  31. 31. Composewell Technologies Inlining (Definition Site) ‣For inlining or specialization to occur in another module the original RHS of a function must be recorded in the interface file (.hi). ‣By default GHC may or may not choose to keep the original RHS in the interface file. ‣INLINABLE => direct the compiler to record the original RHS of the function in interface file (.hi) ‣INLINE => Like INLINABLE, but also direct the compiler to actually inline the function at all call sites. ‣-fexpose-all-unfoldings is a way to mark everything INLINABLE
  32. 32. Composewell Technologies Inlining (Call Site) ‣Prerequisite: function’s original RHS must be available in the interface file. ‣If the function was marked INLINE at the definition site, then unconditionally inline it. ‣If the function was not marked INLINE, then the function inline can be used to ask the compiler to inline it unconditionally. ‣Otherwise, GHC decides whether to inline or not. See - funfolding-* and -fmax-inline-* options to control.
  33. 33. Composewell Technologies When inlining cannot occur ‣Function is not fully applied ‣The function is passed as an argument to a function which itself is not inlined. ‣Function is self recursive ‣For mutually recursive functions GHC tries not to use a function with INLINE pragma as a loop breaker.
  34. 34. Composewell Technologies When an INLINE is missing func :: String -> Stream IO Int -> Benchmark func name f = bench name $ nfIO $ S.mapM_ (_ -> return ()) f • Without an INLINE on func 50 ms, with INLINE 500us, 100x faster. • Without marking func inline, f cannot be inlined and cannot fuse with mapM_. So we need an INLINE on both func as well as f. • Code depending on fusion is specially sensitive to inlining, because fusion depends on inlining. • CPS code is more robust against inlining. Direct style code may perform much worse compared to CPS when an INLINE goes missing. However, it can be much faster than CPS with proper inlining.
  35. 35. Composewell Technologies NOINLINE for better performance! • Lot of people think it is counterintuitive, even the GHC manual says you should never need this, but it is pretty common to get modest perf gains by using NOINLINE. • Putting slow path branch out of the way in a separate function marked NOINLINE helps the fast path branch to be executed more efficiently. • We can use noinline as well to avoid inlining a particular call.
  36. 36. SPECIALIZE (polymorphic code)
  37. 37. Composewell Technologies Specializing ‣Instead of calling a polymorphic version of a function, make a copy, specialized to less polymorphic types. {-# SPECIALIZE consM :: IO a -> Stream IO a -> Stream IO a #-} consM :: Monad m => m a -> Stream m a -> Stream m a consM = consMSerial
  38. 38. Composewell Technologies Specializing (Definition Site) ‣INLINABLE => direct the compiler to record the original RHS of the function in interface file (.hi). The function can then be specialized where it is imported using SPECIALIZE. ‣SPECIALIZE => direct the compiler to specialize a function at the given type and use that version wherever applicable. ‣SPECIALIZE instance => direct the compiler to specialize a type class instance at the given type.
  39. 39. Composewell Technologies Specializing (Call Site) ‣Prerequisite: function’s original RHS must be available in the interface file. INLINE or INLINABLE can be used to ensure that. ‣SPECIALIZE => direct the compiler to specialize an imported function at the given type for this module. ‣For all local functions or imported functions that have their RHS available in the interface file, GHC may automatically specialize them. See -fspecialise-aggressively too.
  40. 40. Composewell Technologies Call Pattern Specialization (Recursive Functions) ‣GHC option -fspec-constr specializes a recursive function for different constructor cases of its argument. ‣Use SPEC and a strict argument to a function to direct the compiler to perform spec-constr aggressively.
  41. 41. Composewell Technologies When specialization cannot occur ‣Function is not fully applied (unsaturated calls) ‣Function calls other functions which cannot be specialized. ‣Function uses polymorphic recursion ‣-Wmissed-specialisations and -Wall-missed- specialisations GHC options can be useful.
  42. 42. STRICTIFY (Buffers)
  43. 43. Composewell Technologies Strictness • Do not keep lazy expressions in memory that are anyway to be reduced ultimately, reduce them as soon as possible. • It may be inefficient, may consume more memory and more importantly make GC expensive. • As a general rule be lazy for construction and transformation and be strict for reduction. Laziness helps when you are processing something, strictness helps when you are storing or buffering. • Use strict accumulator for strict left folds. • Use strict record fields for records used for buffered storage.
  44. 44. Composewell Technologies Strictify and Unbox • BangPatterns can be used to mark function arguments or constructor fields strict, i.e. reduced when applied. • Strict function application $! • Use UNPACK pragma to keep constructor fields unboxed. • -funbox-strict-fields is often useful
  45. 45. Measurement Focus on tests in C, benchmarks in Haskell
  46. 46. Composewell Technologies Benchmarking Tools • gauge vs criterion • Faced several benchmarking issues during streamly and streaming-benchmarks development • Made significant improvements to gauge to address the issues. • Wrote the bench-show package for robust analysis, comparison and presentation of benchmarks
  47. 47. Composewell Technologies Benchmarking Pitfalls • Benchmarking code need to be optimized exactly the way you would optimize the code being benchmarked. • A missing INLINE in benchmarking code could cause a huge difference invalidating the results. • Benchmarking relies on rnf implementation, if that itself is slow (e.g. not marked INLINE) then we may get false results. We encountered this problem at least once. • Multiple benchmarks can interfere with each other in ways you may not be able to detect easily.
  48. 48. Composewell Technologies Benchmarking Pitfalls • You may be measuring the cost of doing nothing, even with nfIO. We generate a random number in IO and pass it to the computation being benchmarked to avoid the issue. • When measuring with nf f arg, remember we are measuring f and not arg. arg may get evaluated once and reused.
  49. 49. Composewell Technologies Gauge Improvements • Run each benchmark in isolation, in a separate process. This is brute force way to ensure that there is no interference from other benchmarks. Correct maxrss measurement requires this. • Several correctness fixes to measure stats accurately. • Use getrusage to report many other stats like maxrss, page faults and context switches. maxrss is especially useful to get peak memory consumption data. • Added a —quick mode to run benchmarks quickly (10x faster)
  50. 50. Composewell Technologies Gauge Improvements • Provides raw data for each iteration in a CSV file, for external analysis. This is used by bench-show. • Better control over measurement process from the CLI • nfAppIO and whnfAppIO for more reliable measurements. Contributed by rubenpieters.
  51. 51. Analyzing and Comparing Performance (bench-show)
  52. 52. Composewell Technologies Benchmarking Business • streamly is a high performance monadic streaming framework generalizing lists to monads with inherent concurrency support. • When a single INLINE can degrade performance by 100x how do we guarantee performance? • Measure everything. We have hundreds of benchmarks, each and every op is benchmarked. • With such a large number of benchmarks, how do we analyze the benchmarking output?
  53. 53. Composewell Technologies Enter bench-show • Analyses the results using 3 statistical estimators - linear regression, median and mean • Finds the difference between two runs and reports the min of 3 estimators • Computes the percentage regression or improvement • Sorts and reports by the highest regression, time as well as space. • We can automatically report regressions on each commit, by using a threshold.
  54. 54. Composewell Technologies Reporting Regressions (% Diff)
  55. 55. Composewell Technologies Reporting Regressions (Absolute Delta)
  56. 56. Composewell Technologies Comparing Packages • bench-show can group benchmarks arbitrarily and compare the groups. • streaming-benchmarks package uses this to compare various streaming libraries.
  57. 57. Composewell Technologies Monadic Streaming
  58. 58. Composewell Technologies Pure Streaming (Time)
  59. 59. Composewell Technologies Pure Streaming (Space)
  60. 60. Composewell Technologies References • • • • •
  61. 61. Thank You @hk_hooda