jmh表示M1比M2快,但M1代表M2

Question

我写了一个JMH基准,涉及两种方法:M1和M2.M1引用M2但由于某种原因,JMH声称M1比M2快.

这是基准源代码:

import java.util.concurrent.TimeUnit;
import static org.bitbucket.cowwoc.requirements.Requirements.assertThat;
import static org.bitbucket.cowwoc.requirements.Requirements.requireThat;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Benchmark;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.BenchmarkMode;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.Mode;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.OutputTimeUnit;
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.Runner;
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.RunnerException;
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.options.Options;
import org.openjdk.jmh.runner.options.OptionsBuilder;

@BenchmarkMode(Mode.AverageTime)
@OutputTimeUnit(TimeUnit.NANOSECONDS)
public class MyBenchmark {

    @Benchmark
    public void assertMethod() {
        assertThat("value", "name").isNotNull().isNotEmpty();
    }

    @Benchmark
    public void requireMethod() {
        requireThat("value", "name").isNotNull().isNotEmpty();
    }

    public static void main(String[] args) throws RunnerException {
        Options opt = new OptionsBuilder()
                .include(MyBenchmark.class.getSimpleName())
                .forks(1)
                .build();

        new Runner(opt).run();
    }
}

在上面的例子中,M1是assertThat(),M2是requireThat().意思,在引擎盖下assertThat()调用requireThat().

以下是基准输出:

# JMH 1.13 (released 8 days ago)
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_102, VM 25.102-b14
# VM invoker: C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.8.0_102\jre\bin\java.exe
# VM options: -ea
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Average time, time/op
# Benchmark: com.mycompany.jmh.MyBenchmark.assertMethod

# Run progress: 0.00% complete, ETA 00:01:20
# Fork: 1 of 1
# Warmup Iteration   1: 8.268 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   2: 6.082 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   3: 4.846 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   4: 4.854 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   5: 4.834 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   6: 4.831 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   7: 4.815 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   8: 4.839 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   9: 4.825 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  10: 4.812 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  11: 4.806 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  12: 4.805 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  13: 4.802 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  14: 4.813 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  15: 4.805 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  16: 4.818 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  17: 4.815 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  18: 4.817 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  19: 4.812 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  20: 4.810 ns/op
Iteration   1: 4.805 ns/op
Iteration   2: 4.816 ns/op
Iteration   3: 4.813 ns/op
Iteration   4: 4.938 ns/op
Iteration   5: 5.061 ns/op
Iteration   6: 5.129 ns/op
Iteration   7: 4.828 ns/op
Iteration   8: 4.837 ns/op
Iteration   9: 4.819 ns/op
Iteration  10: 4.815 ns/op
Iteration  11: 4.872 ns/op
Iteration  12: 4.806 ns/op
Iteration  13: 4.811 ns/op
Iteration  14: 4.827 ns/op
Iteration  15: 4.837 ns/op
Iteration  16: 4.842 ns/op
Iteration  17: 4.812 ns/op
Iteration  18: 4.809 ns/op
Iteration  19: 4.806 ns/op
Iteration  20: 4.815 ns/op


Result "assertMethod":
  4.855 ?(99.9%) 0.077 ns/op [Average]
  (min, avg, max) = (4.805, 4.855, 5.129), stdev = 0.088
  CI (99.9%): [4.778, 4.932] (assumes normal distribution)


# JMH 1.13 (released 8 days ago)
# VM version: JDK 1.8.0_102, VM 25.102-b14
# VM invoker: C:\Program Files\Java\jdk1.8.0_102\jre\bin\java.exe
# VM options: -ea
# Warmup: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Measurement: 20 iterations, 1 s each
# Timeout: 10 min per iteration
# Threads: 1 thread, will synchronize iterations
# Benchmark mode: Average time, time/op
# Benchmark: com.mycompany.jmh.MyBenchmark.requireMethod

# Run progress: 50.00% complete, ETA 00:00:40
# Fork: 1 of 1
# Warmup Iteration   1: 7.193 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   2: 4.835 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   3: 5.039 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   4: 5.053 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   5: 5.077 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   6: 5.102 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   7: 5.088 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   8: 5.109 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration   9: 5.096 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  10: 5.096 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  11: 5.091 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  12: 5.089 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  13: 5.099 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  14: 5.097 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  15: 5.090 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  16: 5.096 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  17: 5.088 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  18: 5.086 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  19: 5.087 ns/op
# Warmup Iteration  20: 5.097 ns/op
Iteration   1: 5.097 ns/op
Iteration   2: 5.088 ns/op
Iteration   3: 5.092 ns/op
Iteration   4: 5.097 ns/op
Iteration   5: 5.082 ns/op
Iteration   6: 5.089 ns/op
Iteration   7: 5.086 ns/op
Iteration   8: 5.084 ns/op
Iteration   9: 5.090 ns/op
Iteration  10: 5.086 ns/op
Iteration  11: 5.084 ns/op
Iteration  12: 5.088 ns/op
Iteration  13: 5.091 ns/op
Iteration  14: 5.092 ns/op
Iteration  15: 5.085 ns/op
Iteration  16: 5.096 ns/op
Iteration  17: 5.078 ns/op
Iteration  18: 5.125 ns/op
Iteration  19: 5.089 ns/op
Iteration  20: 5.091 ns/op


Result "requireMethod":
  5.091 ?(99.9%) 0.008 ns/op [Average]
  (min, avg, max) = (5.078, 5.091, 5.125), stdev = 0.010
  CI (99.9%): [5.082, 5.099] (assumes normal distribution)


# Run complete. Total time: 00:01:21

Benchmark                       Mode  Cnt  Score   Error  Units
MyBenchmark.assertMethod        avgt   20  4.855 ? 0.077  ns/op
MyBenchmark.requireMethod       avgt   20  5.091 ? 0.008  ns/op

要在本地重现:

1. 创建包含上述基准的Maven项目.

2. 添加以下依赖项:

   <dependency>
       <groupId>org.bitbucket.cowwoc</groupId>
       <artifactId>requirements</artifactId>
       <version>2.0.0</version>
   </dependency>
   

3. 或者,从https://bitbucket.org/cowwoc/requirements/下载该库.

我有以下问题:

1. 你能在结束时重现这个结果吗？
2. 什么,如果有的话,基准测试有问题？

更新:根据Aleksey Shipilev的建议,我将更新的基准源代码,基准输出,jmh-test输出和xperfasm输出发布到https://bitbucket.org/cowwoc/requirements/downloads.由于问题的30k字符限制,我无法将这些发布到Stackoverflow.

更新2:我终于获得了一致,有意义的结果.

Benchmark                  Mode  Cnt   Score   Error  Units
MyBenchmark.assertMethod   avgt   60  22.552 ± 0.020  ns/op
MyBenchmark.requireMethod  avgt   60  22.411 ± 0.114  ns/op

通过consistent,我的意思是我在运行中获得几乎相同的值.

通过meaningful,我的意思assertMethod()是比慢requireMethod().

我做了以下更改:

• 锁定CPU时钟(Windows电源选项中最小/最大CPU设置为99%)
• 添加了JVM选项 -XX:-TieredCompilation -XX:-ProfileInterpreter

有没有人能够在不增加运行时间的情况下实现这些结果？

更新3:禁用内联会产生相同的结果,而不会出现明显的性能下降.我在这里发布了更详细的答案.

Answer 1

在这种特殊情况下assertMethod,确实编译得比requireMethod寄存器分配问题更好.

基准测试看起来是正确的,我可以始终如一地重现您的结果.
为了分析问题,我做了简化的基准测试:

package bench;

import com.google.common.collect.ImmutableMap;
import org.openjdk.jmh.annotations.*;

@State(Scope.Benchmark)
public class Requirements {
    private static boolean enabled = true;

    private String name = "name";
    private String value = "value";

    @Benchmark
    public Object assertMethod() {
        if (enabled)
            return requireThat(value, name);
        return null;
    }

    @Benchmark
    public Object requireMethod() {
        return requireThat(value, name);
    }

    public static Object requireThat(String parameter, String name) {
        if (name.trim().isEmpty())
            throw new IllegalArgumentException();
        return new StringRequirementsImpl(parameter, name, new Configuration());
    }

    static class Configuration {
        private Object context = ImmutableMap.of();
    }

    static class StringRequirementsImpl {
        private String parameter;
        private String name;
        private Configuration config;
        private ObjectRequirementsImpl asObject;

        StringRequirementsImpl(String parameter, String name, Configuration config) {
            this.parameter = parameter;
            this.name = name;
            this.config = config;
            this.asObject = new ObjectRequirementsImpl(parameter, name, config);
        }
    }

    static class ObjectRequirementsImpl {
        private Object parameter;
        private String name;
        private Configuration config;

        ObjectRequirementsImpl(Object parameter, String name, Configuration config) {
            this.parameter = parameter;
            this.name = name;
            this.config = config;
        }
    }
}

首先,我已经验证-XX:+PrintInlining了整个基准测试是一个很大的方法.显然,这个编译单元有很多节点,并且没有足够的CPU寄存器来保存所有中间变量.也就是说,编译器需要将其中一些溢出.

• 在调用之前,assertMethod 4个寄存器溢出到堆栈trim().
• 在调用之后,requireMethod 7个寄存器稍后会溢出new Configuration().

-XX:+PrintAssembly 输出:

  assertMethod             |  requireMethod
  -------------------------|------------------------
  mov    %r11d,0x5c(%rsp)  |  mov    %rcx,0x20(%rsp)
  mov    %r10d,0x58(%rsp)  |  mov    %r11,0x48(%rsp)
  mov    %rbp,0x50(%rsp)   |  mov    %r10,0x30(%rsp)
  mov    %rbx,0x48(%rsp)   |  mov    %rbp,0x50(%rsp)
                           |  mov    %r9d,0x58(%rsp)
                           |  mov    %edi,0x5c(%rsp)
                           |  mov    %r8,0x60(%rsp) 

除了if (enabled)check 之外,这几乎是两个编译方法之间的唯一区别.因此,性能差异可以通过更多溢出到内存的变量来解释.

为什么较小的方法编译得不那么理想呢？那么,已知寄存器分配问题是NP完全的.由于理想情况下无法在合理的时间内解决,编译器通常依赖于某些启发式方法.在一个很大的方法中,像额外的微小的东西if可能会显着改变寄存器分配算法的结果.

但是你不必担心这一点.我们看到的效果并不意味着requireMethod总是编译得更糟.在其他用例中,由于内联,编译图将完全不同.无论如何,1纳秒的差异对于实际应用性能来说并不算什么.