Memoryview Benchmarks 2
In the previous post, I explored how cython typed memoryviews can be used to speed up repeated array operations. It became clear that typed memoryviews are superior to the ndarray syntax for slicing, and as fast as raw pointers for single element access. In the comments, Mathieu brought up an interesting question: is the ndarray syntax as good as typed memoryviews if you're not doing slicing?
The answer turns out to be yes, unless the compiler tries to inline your function.
We'll use a slightly simpler benchmark script here for simplicity. We'll use inlined typed memoryviews for the inner function, and call this function within an outer loop:
import numpy as np cimport numpy as np cimport cython @cython.boundscheck(False) @cython.wraparound(False) cdef inline double inner_func(double[:, ::1] X): return X[0, 0] def loop_1(int N, switch=True): cdef double[:, ::1] X = np.zeros((100, 100)) cdef int i for i in range(N): # this should be inlined by the compiler inner_func(X)
The inner function is called
N times. We've used the "inline" keyword here:
it turns out this is optional with common compiler optimizations turned on.
gcc and other compilers are smart enough to figure out that this function
should be inlined, even if the cython code doesn't mark it as such. Timing
the function on one million loops gives us our comparison benchmark:
%timeit loop_1(1E6) 100000 loops, best of 3: 10.1 us per loop
Just over a millisecond to perform this loop one million times.
Because the compilers are generally so smart, we actually need to be a bit clever to make sure our function is not inlined. We'll do that through a switch statement in the loop call, which selects between two possible inner functions. This may seem a bit contrived, but it could come up in practice: for example, if we wanted to create a KDTree for nearest neighbor searches which can use one of several distance metrics within a single tree framework, we might be tempted to try a solution like this:
import numpy as np cimport numpy as np cimport cython ctypedef double (*inner_func_ptr)(double[:, ::1]) @cython.boundscheck(False) @cython.wraparound(False) cdef double inner_func_1(double[:, ::1] X): return X[0, 0] @cython.boundscheck(False) @cython.wraparound(False) cdef double inner_func_2(double[:, ::1] X): return X[0, 0] def loop_2(int N, switch=True): # use a switch to ensure that inlining can't happen: compilers # are usually smart enough to figure it out otherwise. cdef inner_func_ptr func if switch: func = inner_func_1 else: func = inner_func_2 cdef double[:, ::1] X = np.zeros((100, 100)) cdef int i for i in range(N): func(X)
By adding the switch function, it means the compiler cannot know at compile time which of the inner functions will be used in the loop, and they cannot be inlined. The timing results are as follows:
%timeit loop_2(1E6) 10 loops, best of 3: 22.9 ms per loop
Using a non-inlined function makes things significantly slower in this case! So, if you're repeatedly calling a small function, inlining can be very important for optimal execution times.
The Problem with ndarray
It turns out that beyond slicing, the problem with the ndarray type is that multi-dimensional arrays require relatively expensive buffer checks whenever a function is called. This causes similar code with ndarrays to be significantly slower:
import numpy as np cimport numpy as np cimport cython @cython.boundscheck(False) @cython.wraparound(False) cdef inline double inner_func(np.ndarray[double, ndim=2, mode='c'] X): return X[0, 0] def loop_3(int N, switch=True): cdef np.ndarray[double, ndim=2, mode='c'] X = np.zeros((100, 100)) cdef int i for i in range(N): inner_func(X)
Compiling this gives the following warning:
warning: Buffer unpacking not optimized away.
The result of this buffer unpacking in each loop is a much slower execution time:
%timeit loop_3(1E6) 1 loops, best of 3: 617 ms per loop
This is about 30 times slower than the non-inlined version of the memoryview, and 6000 times slower than the inlined memoryview above! Is there any way around this? Well, there are two options: raw pointers, or explicit inlining in the code (that is, copying and pasting your code). Both options will have speeds similar to that of the inlined memoryviews, but each solution is inconvenient in its own way.
So why wouldn't you use memoryviews? Well, several projects strive to remain compatible with python 2.4 (one example is scipy) and python 2.4 is not compatible with cython's typed memoryviews. Other projects seek to remain compatible with earlier cython versions which don't support the relatively new memoryview syntax. In these situations, one of the two partial solutions above probably need to be used. In practice, I have usually resorted to passing around raw pointers.
Here are the timings we found above:
- Inlined memoryviews: 0.1 ms
- Non-inlined memoryviews: 22.9 ms
- Inlined ndarray: 617 ms
So we see yet another reason that typed memoryviews are superior to the ndarray syntax: they not only have very speedy slicing, but also play well with the compiler's inlining optimization. Granted, these time differences will be insignificant if your inlined function does some non-negligible amount of computation, but there may be situations where this affects things.
Back to my problem
If you recall, I started all of this because I wanted to create a binary tree that can compute pairwise distances with arbitrary distance metrics. Where do these results put me? Not in a great position, it turns out. Abstracting out the distance function so that the same machinery can be used with different functions will lead to speed penalties from the inability to inline. C++ libraries accomplish this through compile-time conditionals (i.e. templates) but cython doesn't have this capability. Duplicating the tree framework with a new hard-coded (and thus inlinable) distance metric may be the only option. That, or wrapping a templated C++ implementation.
All of the above scripts are available as an ipython notebook: memview_bench_2.ipynb. For information on how to view this file, see the IPython page Alternatively, you can view this notebook (but not modify it) using the nbviewer here.