【发布时间】：2015-07-25 05:59:17
【问题描述】：
我只是偶然发现了一些东西。起初我认为这可能是分支错误预测的情况，例如 in this case，但我无法解释为什么分支错误预测会导致这种行为。
我用 Java 实现了两个版本的冒泡排序并做了一些性能测试：
import java.util.Random;
public class BubbleSortAnnomaly {
public static void main(String... args) {
final int ARRAY_SIZE = Integer.parseInt(args[0]);
final int LIMIT = Integer.parseInt(args[1]);
final int RUNS = Integer.parseInt(args[2]);
int[] a = new int[ARRAY_SIZE];
int[] b = new int[ARRAY_SIZE];
Random r = new Random();
for (int run = 0; RUNS > run; ++run) {
for (int i = 0; i < ARRAY_SIZE; i++) {
a[i] = r.nextInt(LIMIT);
b[i] = a[i];
}
System.out.print("Sorting with sortA: ");
long start = System.nanoTime();
int swaps = bubbleSortA(a);
System.out.println( (System.nanoTime() - start) + " ns. "
+ "It used " + swaps + " swaps.");
System.out.print("Sorting with sortB: ");
start = System.nanoTime();
swaps = bubbleSortB(b);
System.out.println( (System.nanoTime() - start) + " ns. "
+ "It used " + swaps + " swaps.");
}
}
public static int bubbleSortA(int[] a) {
int counter = 0;
for (int i = a.length - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (a[j] > a[j + 1]) {
swap(a, j, j + 1);
++counter;
}
}
}
return (counter);
}
public static int bubbleSortB(int[] a) {
int counter = 0;
for (int i = a.length - 1; i >= 0; --i) {
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j) {
if (a[j] >= a[j + 1]) {
swap(a, j, j + 1);
++counter;
}
}
}
return (counter);
}
private static void swap(int[] a, int j, int i) {
int h = a[i];
a[i] = a[j];
a[j] = h;
}
}
正如我们所见，这两种排序方法之间的唯一区别是> 与>=。当使用java BubbleSortAnnomaly 50000 10 10 运行程序时，显然会期望sortB 比sortA 慢，因为它必须执行更多swap(...)s。但是我在三台不同的机器上得到了以下（或类似的）输出：
Sorting with sortA: 4.214 seconds. It used 564960211 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.278 seconds. It used 1249750569 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.199 seconds. It used 563355818 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.254 seconds. It used 1249750348 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.189 seconds. It used 560825110 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.264 seconds. It used 1249749572 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.17 seconds. It used 561924561 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.256 seconds. It used 1249749766 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.198 seconds. It used 562613693 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.266 seconds. It used 1249749880 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.19 seconds. It used 561658723 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.281 seconds. It used 1249751070 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.193 seconds. It used 564986461 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.266 seconds. It used 1249749681 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.203 seconds. It used 562526980 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.27 seconds. It used 1249749609 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.176 seconds. It used 561070571 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.241 seconds. It used 1249749831 swaps.
Sorting with sortA: 4.191 seconds. It used 559883210 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 2.257 seconds. It used 1249749371 swaps.
当我将LIMIT 的参数设置为例如50000 (java BubbleSortAnnomaly 50000 50000 10) 时，我得到了预期的结果：
Sorting with sortA: 3.983 seconds. It used 625941897 swaps.
Sorting with sortB: 4.658 seconds. It used 789391382 swaps.
我将程序移植到 C++ 以确定此问题是否与 Java 相关。这是 C++ 代码。
#include <cstdlib>
#include <iostream>
#include <omp.h>
#ifndef ARRAY_SIZE
#define ARRAY_SIZE 50000
#endif
#ifndef LIMIT
#define LIMIT 10
#endif
#ifndef RUNS
#define RUNS 10
#endif
void swap(int * a, int i, int j)
{
int h = a[i];
a[i] = a[j];
a[j] = h;
}
int bubbleSortA(int * a)
{
const int LAST = ARRAY_SIZE - 1;
int counter = 0;
for (int i = LAST; 0 < i; --i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j)
{
int next = j + 1;
if (a[j] > a[next])
{
swap(a, j, next);
++counter;
}
}
}
return (counter);
}
int bubbleSortB(int * a)
{
const int LAST = ARRAY_SIZE - 1;
int counter = 0;
for (int i = LAST; 0 < i; --i)
{
for (int j = 0; j < i; ++j)
{
int next = j + 1;
if (a[j] >= a[next])
{
swap(a, j, next);
++counter;
}
}
}
return (counter);
}
int main()
{
int * a = (int *) malloc(ARRAY_SIZE * sizeof(int));
int * b = (int *) malloc(ARRAY_SIZE * sizeof(int));
for (int run = 0; RUNS > run; ++run)
{
for (int idx = 0; ARRAY_SIZE > idx; ++idx)
{
a[idx] = std::rand() % LIMIT;
b[idx] = a[idx];
}
std::cout << "Sorting with sortA: ";
double start = omp_get_wtime();
int swaps = bubbleSortA(a);
std::cout << (omp_get_wtime() - start) << " seconds. It used " << swaps
<< " swaps." << std::endl;
std::cout << "Sorting with sortB: ";
start = omp_get_wtime();
swaps = bubbleSortB(b);
std::cout << (omp_get_wtime() - start) << " seconds. It used " << swaps
<< " swaps." << std::endl;
}
free(a);
free(b);
return (0);
}
此程序显示相同的行为。有人能解释一下这里到底发生了什么吗？
先执行sortB，然后执行sortA不会改变结果。
【问题讨论】：
-
你是如何测量时间的？如果您只测量一种情况的时间，那么时间将很大程度上取决于随机序列，
>与>=的影响很小。要获得真正有意义的次数，您必须测量许多不同的序列和平均值 -
@tobi303 看代码。您可以通过第三个运行时参数（Java）或
-DRUNS=XXX（C++，编译器指令）在循环中运行它。并且结果是可重现的。 -
计算这两种情况下的交换次数会很有趣，以了解这与运行时有何关系。我的意思是，如果 A 较慢，这绝对不是因为交换次数，所以如果 A 更快，原因也不仅仅是交换次数，而是一些更微妙的影响
-
@Turing85：但是你重新运行测试了吗？
-
先调用
bubbleSortB()，然后调用bubbleSortA()，看看结果是否成立也很有趣。使用 Java，我经常怀疑内存分配和 gc 会导致意外结果。尽管在 C++ 中获得相同的结果表明这里正在发生更普遍的事情。
标签： java c++ performance optimization