Skip to content

perf: increase min buckets on very small types #615

New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Merged
merged 2 commits into from
Apr 16, 2025

Conversation

morrisonlevi
Copy link
Contributor

Note: I accidentally closed #524, this is just a continuation of that PR.

Consider HashSet<u8> on x86_64 with SSE with various bucket sizes and how many bytes the allocation ends up being:

buckets capacity allocated bytes
4 3 36
8 7 40
16 14 48
28 32 80

In general, doubling the number of buckets should roughly double the number of bytes used. However, for small bucket sizes for these small TableLayouts (4 -> 8, 8 -> 16), it doesn't happen. This is an edge case which happens because of padding of the control bytes and adding the Group::WIDTH. Taking the buckets from 4 to 16 (4x) only takes the allocated bytes from 36 to 48 (~1.3x).

This platform isn't the only one with edges. Here's aarch64 on an M1 for the same HashSet<u8>:

buckets capacity allocated bytes
4 3 20
8 7 24
16 14 40

Notice doubling from 4 to 8 buckets only lead to 4 more bytes (20 -> 24) instead of roughly doubling.

Generalized, buckets * table_layout.size needs to be at least as big as table_layout.ctrl_align. For the cases I listed above, we'd get these new minimum bucket sizes:

  • x86_64 with SSE: 16
  • aarch64: 8

This is a niche optimization. However, it also removes possible undefined behavior edge case in resize operations. In addition, it would be a useful property when utilizing over-sized allocations (see #523).

@Amanieu Amanieu added this pull request to the merge queue Apr 16, 2025
Merged via the queue into rust-lang:master with commit 6ecde4e Apr 16, 2025
26 checks passed
@morrisonlevi morrisonlevi deleted the min-buckets branch April 22, 2025 16:00
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants