From: Matthew Wilson (stlsoft_at_[hidden])
Date: 2003-11-15 20:10:21
"Joe Gottman" <jgottman_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> "Matthew Wilson" <stlsoft_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > Hi Boosters
> > I'm just doing some research on reference-counting, and contrasting
> > self-counting types with externally counted types, the latter effected
> > the rather excellent shared pointer technique.
> > [As a side question, is it true that Nicolai Josuttis was the inventor
> > the technique?]
> > Naturally, one of the shared pointer's I've used is boost::shared_ptr.
> > measurements have demonstrated some surprising performance
> > for shared_ptr in particular, and I want to solicit the opinion of the
> > expert's here before I make any bold claims, as some results are just
> > surprising for me to trust them.
> > There are five types tested.
> > 1. A self-counting type, using an ancient Synesis (my company) template
> > ref-counting bolt-in class
> > 2. A self-counting type, using a custom-written (for this test) template
> > ref-counting bolt-in class
> > 3. Externally counting, using boost::shared_ptr
> > 4. Externally counting, using a custom-written (for this test) shared
> > pointer type
> > 5. Externally counting, using a custom-written (for this test) shared
> > pointer type, which has a custom allocator for the shared count members
> results snipped. Shared_ptr did not do well.
> > Naturally, the very big question is: what's happening to
> > In thread times, it performs 2-3 times worse than in single threaded
> > scenarios (irrespective of whether they are built for single or multiple
> > threads). However, in total time, it performs extremely poorly, up to
> > times slower than some of the others! Clearly, there is some serious
> > contention involved.
> > There are three possibilities I have thought of:
> > (i) It performs very poorly in multi-threaded sharing scenarios. If this
> > the case, can any people more expert in Boost than me proffer an
> > as to precisely the problem, and is any such person motivated to try and
> > address the issue?
> > (ii) The particular sharing scenario is well away from any real-world
> > scenario in which boost::shared_ptr is likely to be used. If this is the
> > case, why do four different implementations, representing two very
> > reference-counting strategies, all maintain a consistent relative
> > performance? What are the scenarios for which boost::shared_ptr is
> > optimised?
> > (iii) There are environment settings for which boost::shared_ptr will
> > perform much better. If that's so, can someone help me out with
> > of what defines to make? Why are these settings not the default.
> > I'd be very interested in your thoughts.
> > Many thanks in advance.
> Have you tried getting the latest shared_ptr.hpp and
> detail/shared_count.hpp from the CVS files? The version of shared_ptr in
> release 1.30.2 has a lot of extra overhead due to weak_ptr support.
> time a shared_ptr is copied there is an extra comparison and increment
> later an extra decrement). The version in the CVS avoids almost all of
> extra work.
I've not. That sounds worth trying.
<blush>How would one go about getting the CVS version</blush>
Boost list run by bdawes at acm.org, gregod at cs.rpi.edu, cpdaniel at pacbell.net, john at johnmaddock.co.uk