Related
I am writing a WPF application that processes an image data stream from an IR camera. The application uses a class library for processing steps such as rescaling or colorizing, which I am also writing myself. An image processing step looks something like this:
ProcessFrame(double[,] frame)
{
int width = frame.GetLength(1);
int height = frame.GetLength(0);
byte[,] result = new byte[height, width];
Parallel.For(0, height, row =>
{
for(var col = 0; col < width; ++col)
ManipulatePixel(frame[row, col]);
});
}
Frames are processed by a task that runs in the background. The issue is, that depending on how costly the specific processing algorithm is ( ManipulatePixel() ), the application can't keep up with the camera's frame rate any more. However, I have noticed that despite me using parallel for loops, the application simply won't use all of the CPU that is available - task manager performance tab shows about 60-80% CPU usage.
I have used the same processing algorithms in C++ before, using the concurrency::parallel_for loops from the parallel patterns library. The C++ code uses all of the CPU it can get, as I would expect, and I also tried PInvoking a C++ DLL from my C# code, doing the same algorithm that runs slowly in the C# library - it also uses all the CPU power available, CPU usage is right at 100% virtually the whole time and there is no trouble at all keeping up with the camera.
Outsourcing the code into a C++ DLL and then marshalling it back into C# is an extra hassle I'd of course rather avoid. How do I make my C# code actually make use of all the CPU potential? I have tried increasing process priority like this:
using (Process process = Process.GetCurrentProcess())
process.PriorityClass = ProcessPriorityClass.RealTime;
Which has an effect, but only a very small one. I also tried setting the degree of parallelism for the Parallel.For() loops like this:
ParallelOptions parallelOptions = new ParallelOptions();
parallelOptions.MaxDegreeOfParallelism = Environment.ProcessorCount;
and then passing that to the Parallel.For() loop, this had no effect at all but I suppose that's not surprising since the default settings should already be optimized. I also tried setting this in the application configuration:
<runtime>
<Thread_UseAllCpuGroups enabled="true"></Thread_UseAllCpuGroups>
<GCCpuGroup enabled="true"></GCCpuGroup>
<gcServer enabled="true"></gcServer>
</runtime>
but this actually makes it run even slower.
EDIT:
The ProcessFrame code block I quoted originally was actually not quite correct. What I was doing at the time was:
ProcessFrame(double[,] frame)
{
byte[,] result = new byte[frame.GetLength(0), frame.GetLength(1)];
Parallel.For(0, frame.GetLength(0), row =>
{
for(var col = 0; col < frame.GetLength(1); ++col)
ManipulatePixel(frame[row, col]);
});
}
Sorry for this, I was paraphrasing code at the time and I didn't realize that this is an actual pitfall, that produces different results. I have since changed the code to what I originally wrote (i.e. the width and height variables set at the beginning of the function, and the array's length properties only queried once each instead of in the for loop's conditional statements). Thank you #Seabizkit, your second comment inspired me to try this. The change in fact already makes the code run noticeably faster - I didn't realize this because C++ doesn't know 2D arrays so I had to pass the pixel dimensions as separate arguments anyway. Whether it is fast enough as it is I cannot say yet however.
Also thank you for the other answers, they contain a lot of things I don't know yet but it's great to know what I have to look for. I'll update once I reached a satisfactory result.
I would need to have all of your code and be able to run it locally in order to diagnose the problem because your posting is devoid of details (I would need to see inside your ManipulatePixel function, as well as the code that calls ProcessFrame). but here's some general tips that apply in your case.
2D arrays in .NET are significantly slower than 1D arrays and staggered arrays, even in .NET Core today - this is a longstanding bug.
See here:
https://github.com/dotnet/coreclr/issues/4059
Why are multi-dimensional arrays in .NET slower than normal arrays?
Multi-dimensional array vs. One-dimensional
So consider changing your code to use either a jagged array (which also helps with memory locality/proximity caching, as each thread would have its own private buffer) or a 1D array with your own code being responsible for bounds-checking.
Or better-yet: use stackalloc to manage the buffer's lifetime and pass that by-pointer (unsafe ahoy!) to your thread delegate.
Sharing memory buffers between threads makes it harder for the system to optimize safe memory accesses.
Avoid allocating a new buffer for each frame encountered - if a frame has a limited lifespan then consider using reusable buffers using a buffer-pool.
Consider using the SIMD and AVX features in .NET. While modern C/C++ compilers are smart enough to compile code to use those instructions, the .NET JIT isn't so hot - but you can make explicit calls into SMID/AVX instructions using the SIMD-enabled types (you'll need to use .NET Core 2.0 or later for the best accelerated functionality)
Also, avoid copying individual bytes or scalar values inside a for loop in C#, instead consider using Buffer.BlockCopy for bulk copy operations (as these can use hardware memory copy features).
Regarding your observation of "80% CPU usage" - if you have a loop in a program then that will cause 100% CPU usage within the time-slices provided by the operating-system - if you don't see 100% usage then your code then:
Your code is actually running faster than real-time (this is a good thing!) - (unless you're certain your program can't keep-up with the input?)
Your codes' thread (or threads) is blocked by something, such as a blocking IO call or a misplaced Thread.Sleep. Use tools like ETW to see what your process is doing when you think it should be CPU-bound.
Ensure you aren't using any lock (Monitor) calls or using other thread or memory synchronization primitives.
Efficiency matters ( it is not true-[PARALLEL], but may, yet need not, benefit from a "just"-[CONCURRENT] work
The BEST, yet a rather hard way, if ultimate performance is a MUST :
in-line an assembly, optimised as per cache-line sizes in the CPU hierarchy and keep indexing that follows the actual memory-layout of the 2D data { column-wise | row-wise }. Given there is no 2D-kernel-transformation mentioned, your process does not need to "touch" any topological-neighbours, the indexing can step in whatever order "across" both of the ranges of the 2D-domain and the ManipulatePixel() may get more efficient on transforming rather blocks-of pixels, instead of bearing all overheads for calling a process just for each isolated atomicised-1px ( ILP + cache-efficiency are on your side ).
Given your target production-platform CPU-family, best use (block-SIMD)-vectorised instructions available from AVX2, best AVX512 code. As you most probably know, may use C/C++ using AVX-intrinsics for performance optimisations with assembly-inspection and finally "copy" the best resulting assembly for your C# assembly-inlining. Nothing will run faster. Tricks with CPU-core affinity mapping and eviction/reservation are indeed a last resort, yet may help for indeed an almost hard-real-time production settings ( though, hard R/T systems are seldom to get developed in an ecosystem with non-deterministic behaviour )
A CHEAP, few-seconds step :
Test and benchmark the run-time per batch of frames of a reversed composition of moving the more-"expensive"-part, the Parallel.For(...{...}) inside the for(var col = 0; col < width; ++col){...} to see the change of the costs of instantiations of the Parallel.For() instrumentation.
Next, if going this cheap way, think about re-factoring the ManipulatePixel() to at least use a block of data, aligned with data-storage layout and being a multiple of cache-line length ( for cache-hits ~ 0.5 ~ 5 [ns] improved costs-of-memory accesses, being ~ 100 ~ 380 [ns] otherwise - here, a will to distribute a work (the worse per 1px) across all NUMA-CPU-cores will result in paying way more time, due to extended access-latencies for cross-NUMA-(non-local) memory addresses and besides never re-using an expensively cached block-of-fetched-data, you knowingly pay excessive costs from cross-NUMA-(non-local) memory fetches ( from which you "use" just 1px and "throw" away all the rest of the cached-block ( as those pixels will get re-fetched and manipulated in some other CPU-core in some other time ~ a triple-waste of time ~ sorry to have mentioned that explicitly, but when shaving each possible [ns] this cannot happen in production pipeline ) )
Anyway, let me wish you perseverance and good luck on your steps forwards to gain the needed efficiency back onto your side.
Here's what I ended up doing, mostly based on Dai's answer:
made sure to query image pixel dimensions once at the beginning of the processing functions, not within the for loop's conditional statement. With parallel loops, it would seem this creates competitive access of those properties from multriple threads which noticeably slows things down.
removed allocation of output buffers within the processing functions. They now return void and accept the output buffer as an argument. The caller creates one buffer for each image processing step (filtering, scaling, colorizing) only, which doesn't change in size but gets overwritten with each frame.
removed an extra data processing step where raw image data in the format ushort (what the camera originally spits out) was converted to double (actual temperature values). Instead, processing is applied to the raw data directly. Conversion to actual temperatures will be dealt with later, as necessary.
I also tried, without success, to use 1D arrays instead of 2D but there is actually no difference in performance. I don't know if it's because the bug Dai mentioned was fixed in the meantime, but I couldn't confirm 2D arrays to be any slower than 1D arrays.
Probably also worth mentioning, the ManipulatePixel() function in my original post was actually more of a placeholder rather than a real call to another function. Here's a more proper example of what I am doing to a frame, including the changes I made:
private static void Rescale(ushort[,] originalImg, byte[,] scaledImg, in (ushort, ushort) limits)
{
Debug.Assert(originalImg != null);
Debug.Assert(originalImg.Length != 0);
Debug.Assert(scaledImg != null);
Debug.Assert(scaledImg.Length == originalImg.Length);
ushort min = limits.Item1;
ushort max = limits.Item2;
int width = originalImg.GetLength(1);
int height = originalImg.GetLength(0);
Parallel.For(0, height, row =>
{
for (var col = 0; col < width; ++col)
{
ushort value = originalImg[row, col];
if (value < min)
scaledImg[row, col] = 0;
else if (value > max)
scaledImg[row, col] = 255;
else
scaledImg[row, col] = (byte)(255.0 * (value - min) / (max - min));
}
});
}
This is just one step and some others are much more complex but the approach would be similar.
Some of the things mentioned like SIMD/AVX or the answer of user3666197 unfortunately are well beyond my abilities right now so I couldn't test that out.
It's still relatively easy to put enough processing load into the stream to tank the frame rate but for my application the performance should be enough now. Thanks to everyone who provided input, I'll mark Dai's answer as accepted because I found it the most helpful.
I want to merge two arrays with sorted values into one. Since both source arrays are stored as succeeding parts of a large array, I wonder, if you know a way to merge them into the large storage. Meaning inplace merge.
All methods I found, need some external storage. They often require sqrt(n) temp arrays. Is there an efficient way without it?
I m using C#. Other languages welcome also. Thanks in advance!
AFAIK, merging two (even sorted) arrays does not work inplace without considerably increasing the necessary number of comparisons and moves of elements. See: merge sort. However, blocked variants exist, which are able to sort a list of length n by utilizing a temporary arrays of lenght sqrt(n) - as you wrote - by still keeping the number of operations considerably low.. Its not bad - but its also not "nothing" and obviously the best you can get.
For practical situations and if you can afford it, you better use a temporary array to merge your lists.
If the values are stored as succeeding parts of a larger array, you just want to sort the array, then remove consecutive values which are equal.
void SortAndDedupe(Array<T> a)
{
// Do an efficient in-place sort
a.Sort();
// Now deduplicate
int lwm = 0; // low water mark
int hwm = 1; // High water mark
while(hwm < a.length)
{
// If the lwm and hwm elements are the same, it is a duplicate entry.
if(a[lwm] == a[hwm])
{
hwm++;
}else{
// Not a duplicate entry - move the lwm up
// and copy down the hwm element over the gap.
lwm++;
if(lwm < hwm){
a[lwm] = a[hwm];
}
hwm++;
}
}
// New length is lwm
// number of elements removed is (hwm-lwm-1)
}
Before you conclude that this will be too slow, implement it and profile it. That should take about ten minutes.
Edit: This can of course be improved by using a different sort rather than the built-in sort, e.g. Quicksort, Heapsort or Smoothsort, depending on which gives better performance in practice. Note that hardware architecture issues mean that the practical performance comparisons may very well be very different from the results of big O analysis.
Really you need to profile it with different sort algorithms on your actual hardware/OS platform.
Note: I am not attempting in this answer to give an academic answer, I am trying to give a practical one, on the assumption you are trying to solve a real problem.
Dont care about external storage. sqrt(n) or even larger should not harm your performance. You will just have to make sure, the storage is pooled. Especially for large data. Especially for merging them in loops. Otherwise, the GC will get stressed and eat up a considerable part of your CPU time / memory bandwidth.
Yes, I am using a profiler (ANTS). But at the micro-level it cannot tell you how to fix your problem. And I'm at a microoptimization stage right now. For example, I was profiling this:
for (int x = 0; x < Width; x++)
{
for (int y = 0; y < Height; y++)
{
packedCells.Add(Data[x, y].HasCar);
packedCells.Add(Data[x, y].RoadState);
packedCells.Add(Data[x, y].Population);
}
}
ANTS showed that the y-loop-line was taking a lot of time. I thought it was because it has to constantly call the Height getter. So I created a local int height = Height; before the loops, and made the inner loop check for y < height. That actually made the performance worse! ANTS now told me the x-loop-line was a problem. Huh? That's supposed to be insignificant, it's the outer loop!
Eventually I had a revelation - maybe using a property for the outer-loop-bound and a local for the inner-loop-bound made CLR jump often between a "locals" cache and a "this-pointer" cache (I'm used to thinking in terms of CPU cache). So I made a local for Width as well, and that fixed it.
From there, it was clear that I should make a local for Data as well - even though Data was not even a property (it was a field). And indeed that bought me some more performance.
Bafflingly, though, reordering the x and y loops (to improve cache usage) made zero difference, even though the array is huge (3000x3000).
Now, I want to learn why the stuff I did improved the performance. What book do you suggest I read?
CLR via C# by Jeffrey Richter.
It is such a great book that someone stolen it in my library together with C# in depth.
The CLR is not involved at all here, this should all be translated to straight machine code without calls into the CLR. The JIT compiler is responsible for generating that machine code, it has an optimizer that tries to come up with the most efficient code. It has limitations, it cannot spend a large amount of time on it.
One of the important things it does is figuring out what local variables should be stored in the CPU registers. That's something that changed when you put the Height property in a local variable. It possibly decided to store that variable in a register. But now there's one less available to store another variable. Like the x or y variable, one that's critical for speed. Yes, that will slow it down.
You got a bad diagnostic about the outer loop. That could possibly be caused by the JIT optimizer re-arranging the loop code, giving the profiler a harder time mapping the machine code back to the corresponding C# statement.
Similarly, the optimizer might have decided that you were using the array inefficiently and switched the indexing order back. Not so sure it actually does that, but not impossible.
Anyhoo, the only way you can get some insight here is by looking at the generated machine code. There are many decent books about x86 assembly code, although they might be a bit hard to find these days. Your starting point is Debug + Windows + Disassembly.
Keep in mind however that even the machine code is not a very good predictor of how efficient code is going to run. Modern CPU cores are enormously complicated and the machine code is no longer representative for what actually happens inside the core. The only tried and true way is what you've already been doing: trial and error.
Albin - no. Honestly I didn't think that running outside a profiler would change the performance difference, so I didn't bother. You think I should have? Has that been a problem for you before? (I am compiling with optimizations on though)
Running under a debugger changes the performance: when it's being run under a debugger, the just-in-time compiler automatically disables optimizations (to make it easier to debug)!
If you must, use the debugger to attach to an already-running already-JITted process.
One thing you should know about working with Arrays is that the CLR will always make sure that array-indices are not out-of-bounds. It has an optimization for 1-dimensional arrays but not for 2+ dimensions.
Knowing this, you may want to benchmark MyCell Data[][] instead of MyCell Data[,]
Hm, I don't think that the loop enrolling is the real problem.
1. I'd try to avoid accessing the array Data three times per inner loop.
2. I'd also recommend, to re-think the three Add statements: you are apparently accessing a collection three times to add trivial some data. Make it only one access per iteration and add a data type containing three entries:
for (int y = 0; ... {
tTemp = Data[x, y];
packedCells.Add(new {
tTemp.HasCar, tTemp.RoadState, tTemp.Population
});
}
Another look reveals, that you are basically vectorizing a matrix by copying it into an array (or some other sequential collection)... Is that necessary at all? Why don't you just define a specialized indexer which simulates that linear access? Even better, if you only need to enumerate the entries (in that example you do, no random access required), why don't you use an adequate LINQ expression?
Point 1) Educated guesses are not the way to do performance tuning. In this case I can guess about as well as most, but guessing is the wrong way to do it.
Point 2) Profilers need to be well understood before you know what they're actually telling you. Here's a discussion of the issues. For example, what many profilers do is tell you "where the program spends its time", i.e. where the program counter spends its time, so they are almost absolutely blind to time requested by function calls, which is what your inner loop seems to consist of.
I do a lot of performance tuning, and here is what I do. I cycle between two activities:
Overall time measurement. This doesn't require special tools. I'm not trying to measure individual routines.
"Bottleneck" location. This does not require running the code at any kind of speed, because I'm not measuring. What I'm doing is locating lines of code that are responsible for a significant percent of time. I know which lines they are because they are on the stack for that percent, and stack samples easily find them.
Once I find a "bottleneck" and fix it, I go back to the first step, measure what percent of time I saved, and do it all again on the next "bottleneck", typically from 2 to 6 times. I am helped by the "magnification effect", in which a fixed problem magnifies the percentage used by remaining problems. It works for both macro and micro optimization.
(Sorry if I can't write "bottleneck" without quotes, because I don't think I've ever found a performance problem that resembled the neck of a bottle. Rather they were all simply doing things that didn't really need to be done.)
Since the comment might be overseen, I repeat myself: it is quite cumbersome to optimize code which is per se overfluous. You do not really need to explicitely linearize your matrix at all, see the comment above: Define a linearizing adapter which implements IEnumerable<MyCell> and feed it into the formatter.
I am getting a warning when I try to add another answer, so I am going to recycle this one.. :) After reading Steve's comments and thinking about it for a while, I suggest the following:
If serializing a multi-dimensional array is too slow (haven't tryied, I just believe you...) don't use it at all! It appears, that your matrix is not sparse and has fixed dimensions. So define the structure holding your cells as simple linear array with indexer:
[Serializable()]
class CellMatrix {
Cell [] mCells;
public int Rows { get; }
public int Columns { get; }
public Cell this (int i, int j) {
get {
return mCells[i + Rows * j];
}
// setter...
}
// constructor taking rows/cols...
}
A thing like this should serialize as fast as native Array does... I don't recommend hard coding the layout of Cell in order to save few bytes there...
Cheers,
Paul
Possible Duplicates:
While vs. Do While
When should I use do-while instead of while loops?
I've been programming for a while now (2 years work + 4.5 years degree + 1 year pre-college), and I've never used a do-while loop short of being forced to in the Introduction to Programming course. I have a growing feeling that I'm doing programming wrong if I never run into something so fundamental.
Could it be that I just haven't run into the correct circumstances?
What are some examples where it would be necessary to use a do-while instead of a while?
(My schooling was almost all in C/C++ and my work is in C#, so if there is another language where it absolutely makes sense because do-whiles work differently, then these questions don't really apply.)
To clarify...I know the difference between a while and a do-while. While checks the exit condition and then performs tasks. do-while performs tasks and then checks exit condition.
If you always want the loop to execute at least once. It's not common, but I do use it from time to time. One case where you might want to use it is trying to access a resource that could require a retry, e.g.
do
{
try to access resource...
put up message box with retry option
} while (user says retry);
do-while is better if the compiler isn't competent at optimization. do-while has only a single conditional jump, as opposed to for and while which have a conditional jump and an unconditional jump. For CPUs which are pipelined and don't do branch prediction, this can make a big difference in the performance of a tight loop.
Also, since most compilers are smart enough to perform this optimization, all loops found in decompiled code will usually be do-while (if the decompiler even bothers to reconstruct loops from backward local gotos at all).
I have used this in a TryDeleteDirectory function. It was something like this
do
{
try
{
DisableReadOnly(directory);
directory.Delete(true);
}
catch (Exception)
{
retryDeleteDirectoryCount++;
}
} while (Directory.Exists(fullPath) && retryDeleteDirectoryCount < 4);
Do while is useful for when you want to execute something at least once. As for a good example for using do while vs. while, lets say you want to make the following: A calculator.
You could approach this by using a loop and checking after each calculation if the person wants to exit the program. Now you can probably assume that once the program is opened the person wants to do this at least once so you could do the following:
do
{
//do calculator logic here
//prompt user for continue here
} while(cont==true);//cont is short for continue
This is sort of an indirect answer, but this question got me thinking about the logic behind it, and I thought this might be worth sharing.
As everyone else has said, you use a do ... while loop when you want to execute the body at least once. But under what circumstances would you want to do that?
Well, the most obvious class of situations I can think of would be when the initial ("unprimed") value of the check condition is the same as when you want to exit. This means that you need to execute the loop body once to prime the condition to a non-exiting value, and then perform the actual repetition based on that condition. What with programmers being so lazy, someone decided to wrap this up in a control structure.
So for example, reading characters from a serial port with a timeout might take the form (in Python):
response_buffer = []
char_read = port.read(1)
while char_read:
response_buffer.append(char_read)
char_read = port.read(1)
# When there's nothing to read after 1s, there is no more data
response = ''.join(response_buffer)
Note the duplication of code: char_read = port.read(1). If Python had a do ... while loop, I might have used:
do:
char_read = port.read(1)
response_buffer.append(char_read)
while char_read
The added benefit for languages that create a new scope for loops: char_read does not pollute the function namespace. But note also that there is a better way to do this, and that is by using Python's None value:
response_buffer = []
char_read = None
while char_read != '':
char_read = port.read(1)
response_buffer.append(char_read)
response = ''.join(response_buffer)
So here's the crux of my point: in languages with nullable types, the situation initial_value == exit_value arises far less frequently, and that may be why you do not encounter it. I'm not saying it never happens, because there are still times when a function will return None to signify a valid condition. But in my hurried and briefly-considered opinion, this would happen a lot more if the languages you used did not allow for a value that signifies: this variable has not been initialised yet.
This is not perfect reasoning: in reality, now that null-values are common, they simply form one more element of the set of valid values a variable can take. But practically, programmers have a way to distinguish between a variable being in sensible state, which may include the loop exit state, and it being in an uninitialised state.
I used them a fair bit when I was in school, but not so much since.
In theory they are useful when you want the loop body to execute once before the exit condition check. The problem is that for the few instances where I don't want the check first, typically I want the exit check in the middle of the loop body rather than at the very end. In that case, I prefer to use the well-known for (;;) with an if (condition) exit; somewhere in the body.
In fact, if I'm a bit shaky on the loop exit condition, sometimes I find it useful to start writing the loop as a for (;;) {} with an exit statement where needed, and then when I'm done I can see if it can be "cleaned up" by moving initilizations, exit conditions, and/or increment code inside the for's parentheses.
A situation where you always need to run a piece of code once, and depending on its result, possibly more times. The same can be produced with a regular while loop as well.
rc = get_something();
while (rc == wrong_stuff)
{
rc = get_something();
}
do
{
rc = get_something();
}
while (rc == wrong_stuff);
It's as simple as that:
precondition vs postcondition
while (cond) {...} - precondition, it executes the code only after checking.
do {...} while (cond) - postcondition, code is executed at least once.
Now that you know the secret .. use them wisely :)
do while is if you want to run the code block at least once. while on the other hand won't always run depending on the criteria specified.
I see that this question has been adequately answered, but would like to add this very specific use case scenario. You might start using do...while more frequently.
do
{
...
} while (0)
is often used for multi-line #defines. For example:
#define compute_values \
area = pi * r * r; \
volume = area * h
This works alright for:
r = 4;
h = 3;
compute_values;
-but- there is a gotcha for:
if (shape == circle) compute_values;
as this expands to:
if (shape == circle) area = pi *r * r;
volume = area * h;
If you wrap it in a do ... while(0) loop it properly expands to a single block:
if (shape == circle)
do
{
area = pi * r * r;
volume = area * h;
} while (0);
The answers so far summarize the general use for do-while. But the OP asked for an example, so here is one: Get user input. But the user's input may be invalid - so you ask for input, validate it, proceed if it's valid, otherwise repeat.
With do-while, you get the input while the input is not valid. With a regular while-loop, you get the input once, but if it's invalid, you get it again and again until it is valid. It's not hard to see that the former is shorter, more elegant, and simpler to maintain if the body of the loop grows more complex.
I've used it for a reader that reads the same structure multiple times.
using(IDataReader reader = connection.ExecuteReader())
{
do
{
while(reader.Read())
{
//Read record
}
} while(reader.NextResult());
}
I can't imagine how you've gone this long without using a do...while loop.
There's one on another monitor right now and there are multiple such loops in that program. They're all of the form:
do
{
GetProspectiveResult();
}
while (!ProspectIsGood());
I like to understand these two as:
while -> 'repeat until',
do ... while -> 'repeat if'.
I've used a do while when I'm reading a sentinel value at the beginning of a file, but other than that, I don't think it's abnormal that this structure isn't too commonly used--do-whiles are really situational.
-- file --
5
Joe
Bob
Jake
Sarah
Sue
-- code --
int MAX;
int count = 0;
do {
MAX = a.readLine();
k[count] = a.readLine();
count++;
} while(count <= MAX)
Here's my theory why most people (including me) prefer while(){} loops to do{}while(): A while(){} loop can easily be adapted to perform like a do..while() loop while the opposite is not true. A while loop is in a certain way "more general". Also programmers like easy to grasp patterns. A while loop says right at start what its invariant is and this is a nice thing.
Here's what I mean about the "more general" thing. Take this do..while loop:
do {
A;
if (condition) INV=false;
B;
} while(INV);
Transforming this in to a while loop is straightforward:
INV=true;
while(INV) {
A;
if (condition) INV=false;
B;
}
Now, we take a model while loop:
while(INV) {
A;
if (condition) INV=false;
B;
}
And transform this into a do..while loop, yields this monstrosity:
if (INV) {
do
{
A;
if (condition) INV=false;
B;
} while(INV)
}
Now we have two checks on opposite ends and if the invariant changes you have to update it on two places. In a certain way do..while is like the specialized screwdrivers in the tool box which you never use, because the standard screwdriver does everything you need.
I am programming about 12 years and only 3 months ago I have met a situation where it was really convenient to use do-while as one iteration was always necessary before checking a condition. So guess your big-time is ahead :).
It is a quite common structure in a server/consumer:
DOWHILE (no shutdown requested)
determine timeout
wait for work(timeout)
IF (there is work)
REPEAT
process
UNTIL(wait for work(0 timeout) indicates no work)
do what is supposed to be done at end of busy period.
ENDIF
ENDDO
the REPEAT UNTIL(cond) being a do {...} while(!cond)
Sometimes the wait for work(0) can be cheaper CPU wise (even eliminating the timeout calculation might be an improvement with very high arrival rates). Moreover, there are many queuing theory results that make the number served in a busy period an important statistic. (See for example Kleinrock - Vol 1.)
Similarly:
DOWHILE (no shutdown requested)
determine timeout
wait for work(timeout)
IF (there is work)
set throttle
REPEAT
process
UNTIL(--throttle<0 **OR** wait for work(0 timeout) indicates no work)
ENDIF
check for and do other (perhaps polled) work.
ENDDO
where check for and do other work may be exorbitantly expensive to put in the main loop or perhaps a kernel that does not support an efficient waitany(waitcontrol*,n) type operation or perhaps a situation where a prioritized queue might starve the other work and throttle is used as starvation control.
This type of balancing can seem like a hack, but it can be necessary. Blind use of thread pools would entirely defeat the performance benefits of the use of a caretaker thread with a private queue for a high updating rate complicated data structure as the use of a thread pool rather than a caretaker thread would require thread-safe implementation.
I really don't want to get into a debate about the pseudo code (for example, whether shutdown requested should be tested in the UNTIL) or caretaker threads versus thread pools - this is just meant to give a flavor of a particular use case of the control flow structure.
This is my personal opinion, but this question begs for an answer rooted in experience:
I have been programming in C for 38 years, and I never use do / while loops in regular code.
The only compelling use for this construct is in macros where it can wrap multiple statements into a single statement via a do { multiple statements } while (0)
I have seen countless examples of do / while loops with bogus error detection or redundant function calls.
My explanation for this observation is programmers tend to model problems incorrectly when they think in terms of do / while loops. They either miss an important ending condition or they miss the possible failure of the initial condition which they move to the end.
For these reasons, I have come to believe that where there is a do / while loop, there is a bug, and I regularly challenge newbie programmers to show me a do / while loop where I cannot spot a bug nearby.
This type of loop can be easily avoided: use a for (;;) { ... } and add the necessary termination tests where they are appropriate. It is quite common that there need be more than one such test.
Here is a classic example:
/* skip the line */
do {
c = getc(fp);
} while (c != '\n');
This will fail if the file does not end with a newline. A trivial example of such a file is the empty file.
A better version is this:
int c; // another classic bug is to define c as char.
while ((c = getc(fp)) != EOF && c != '\n')
continue;
Alternately, this version also hides the c variable:
for (;;) {
int c = getc(fp);
if (c == EOF || c == '\n')
break;
}
Try searching for while (c != '\n'); in any search engine, and you will find bugs such as this one (retrieved June 24, 2017):
In ftp://ftp.dante.de/tex-archive/biblio/tib/src/streams.c , function getword(stream,p,ignore), has a do / while and sure enough at least 2 bugs:
c is defined as a char and
there is a potential infinite loop while (c!='\n') c=getc(stream);
Conclusion: avoid do / while loops and look for bugs when you see one.
while loops check the condition before the loop, do...while loops check the condition after the loop. This is useful is you want to base the condition on side effects from the loop running or, like other posters said, if you want the loop to run at least once.
I understand where you're coming from, but the do-while is something that most use rarely, and I've never used myself. You're not doing it wrong.
You're not doing it wrong. That's like saying someone is doing it wrong because they've never used the byte primitive. It's just not that commonly used.
The most common scenario I run into where I use a do/while loop is in a little console program that runs based on some input and will repeat as many times as the user likes. Obviously it makes no sense for a console program to run no times; but beyond the first time it's up to the user -- hence do/while instead of just while.
This allows the user to try out a bunch of different inputs if desired.
do
{
int input = GetInt("Enter any integer");
// Do something with input.
}
while (GetBool("Go again?"));
I suspect that software developers use do/while less and less these days, now that practically every program under the sun has a GUI of some sort. It makes more sense with console apps, as there is a need to continually refresh the output to provide instructions or prompt the user with new information. With a GUI, in contrast, the text providing that information to the user can just sit on a form and never need to be repeated programmatically.
I use do-while loops all the time when reading in files. I work with a lot of text files that include comments in the header:
# some comments
# some more comments
column1 column2
1.234 5.678
9.012 3.456
... ...
i'll use a do-while loop to read up to the "column1 column2" line so that I can look for the column of interest. Here's the pseudocode:
do {
line = read_line();
} while ( line[0] == '#');
/* parse line */
Then I'll do a while loop to read through the rest of the file.
Being a geezer programmer, many of my school programming projects used text menu driven interactions. Virtually all used something like the following logic for the main procedure:
do
display options
get choice
perform action appropriate to choice
while choice is something other than exit
Since school days, I have found that I use the while loop more frequently.
One of the applications I have seen it is in Oracle when we look at result sets.
Once you a have a result set, you first fetch from it (do) and from that point on.. check if the fetch returns an element or not (while element found..) .. The same might be applicable for any other "fetch-like" implementations.
I 've used it in a function that returned the next character position in an utf-8 string:
char *next_utf8_character(const char *txt)
{
if (!txt || *txt == '\0')
return txt;
do {
txt++;
} while (((signed char) *txt) < 0 && (((unsigned char) *txt) & 0xc0) == 0xc0)
return (char *)txt;
}
Note that, this function is written from mind and not tested. The point is that you have to do the first step anyway and you have to do it before you can evaluate the condition.
Any sort of console input works well with do-while because you prompt the first time, and re-prompt whenever the input validation fails.
Even though there are plenty of answers here is my take. It all comes down to optimalization. I'll show two examples where one is faster then the other.
Case 1: while
string fileName = string.Empty, fullPath = string.Empty;
while (string.IsNullOrEmpty(fileName) || File.Exists(fullPath))
{
fileName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString() + fileExtension;
fullPath = Path.Combine(uploadDirectory, fileName);
}
Case 2: do while
string fileName = string.Empty, fullPath = string.Empty;
do
{
fileName = Guid.NewGuid().ToString() + fileExtension;
fullPath = Path.Combine(uploadDirectory, fileName);
}
while (File.Exists(fullPath));
So there two will do the exact same things. But there is one fundamental difference and that is that the while requires an extra statement to enter the while. Which is ugly because let's say every possible scenario of the Guid class has already been taken except for one variant. This means I'll have to loop around 5,316,911,983,139,663,491,615,228,241,121,400,000 times.
Every time I get to the end of my while statement I will need to do the string.IsNullOrEmpty(fileName) check. So this would take up a little bit, a tiny fraction of CPU work. But do this very small task times the possible combinations the Guid class has and we are talking about hours, days, months or extra time?
Of course this is an extreme example because you probably wouldn't see this in production. But if we would think about the YouTube algorithm, it is very well possible that they would encounter the generation of an ID where some ID's have already been taken. So it comes down to big projects and optimalization.
Even in educational references you barely would find a do...while example. Only recently, after reading Ethan Brown beautiful book, Learning JavaScript I encountered one do...while well defined example. That's been said, I believe it is OK if you don't find application for this structure in you routine job.
It's true that do/while loops are pretty rare. I think this is because a great many loops are of the form
while(something needs doing)
do it;
In general, this is an excellent pattern, and it has the usually-desirable property that if nothing needs doing, the loop runs zero times.
But once in a while, there's some fine reason why you definitely want to make at least one trip through the loop, no matter what. My favorite example is: converting an integer to its decimal representation as a string, that is, implementing printf("%d"), or the semistandard itoa() function.
To illustrate, here is a reasonably straightforward implementation of itoa(). It's not quite the "traditional" formulation; I'll explain it in more detail below if anyone's curious. But the key point is that it embodies the canonical algorithm, repeatedly dividing by 10 to pick off digits from the right, and it's written using an ordinary while loop... and this means it has a bug.
#include <stddef.h>
char *itoa(unsigned int n, char buf[], int bufsize)
{
if(bufsize < 2) return NULL;
char *p = &buf[bufsize];
*--p = '\0';
while(n > 0) {
if(p == buf) return NULL;
*--p = n % 10 + '0';
n /= 10;
}
return p;
}
If you didn't spot it, the bug is that this code returns nothing — an empty string — if you ask it to convert the integer 0. So this is an example of a case where, when there's "nothing" to do, we don't want the code to do nothing — we always want it to produce at least one digit. So we always want it to make at least one trip through the loop. So a do/while loop is just the ticket:
do {
if(p == buf) return NULL;
*--p = n % 10 + '0';
n /= 10;
} while(n > 0);
So now we have a loop that usually stops when n reaches 0, but if n is initially 0 — if you pass in a 0 — it returns the string "0", as desired.
As promised, here's a bit more information about the itoa function in this example. You pass it arguments which are: an int to convert (actually, an unsigned int, so that we don't have to worry about negative numbers); a buffer to render into; and the size of that buffer. It returns a char * pointing into your buffer, pointing at the beginning of the rendered string. (Or it returns NULL if it discovers that the buffer you gave it wasn't big enough.) The "nontraditional" aspect of this implementation is that it fills in the array from right to left, meaning that it doesn't have to reverse the string at the end — and also meaning that the pointer it returns to you is usually not to the beginning of the buffer. So you have to use the pointer it returns to you as the string to use; you can't call it and then assume that the buffer you handed it is the string you can use.
Finally, for completeness, here is a little test program to test this version of itoa with.
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
int n;
if(argc > 1)
n = atoi(argv[1]);
else {
printf("enter a number: "); fflush(stdout);
if(scanf("%d", &n) != 1) return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
if(n < 0) {
fprintf(stderr, "sorry, can't do negative numbers yet\n");
return EXIT_FAILURE;
}
char buf[20];
printf("converted: %s\n", itoa(n, buf, sizeof(buf)));
return EXIT_SUCCESS;
}
I ran across this while researching the proper loop to use for a situation I have. I believe this will fully satisfy a common situation where a do.. while loop is a better implementation than a while loop (C# language, since you stated that is your primary for work).
I am generating a list of strings based on the results of an SQL query. The returned object by my query is an SQLDataReader. This object has a function called Read() which advances the object to the next row of data, and returns true if there was another row. It will return false if there is not another row.
Using this information, I want to return each row to a list, then stop when there is no more data to return. A Do... While loop works best in this situation as it ensures that adding an item to the list will happen BEFORE checking if there is another row. The reason this must be done BEFORE checking the while(condition) is that when it checks, it also advances. Using a while loop in this situation would cause it to bypass the first row due to the nature of that particular function.
In short:
This won't work in my situation.
//This will skip the first row because Read() returns true after advancing.
while (_read.NextResult())
{
list.Add(_read.GetValue(0).ToString());
}
return list;
This will.
//This will make sure the currently read row is added before advancing.
do
{
list.Add(_read.GetValue(0).ToString());
}
while (_read.NextResult());
return list;
I have built an application that is used to simulate the number of products that a company can produce in different "modes" per month. This simulation is used to aid in finding the optimal series of modes to run in for a month to best meet the projected sales forecast for the month. This application has been working well, until recently when the plant was modified to run in additional modes. It is now possible to run in 16 modes. For a month with 22 work days this yields 9,364,199,760 possible combinations. This is up from 8 modes in the past that would have yielded a mere 1,560,780 possible combinations. The PC that runs this application is on the old side and cannot handle the number of calculations before an out of memory exception is thrown. In fact the entire application cannot support more than 15 modes because it uses integers to track the number of modes and it exceeds the upper limit for an integer. Baring that issue, I need to do what I can to reduce the memory utilization of the application and optimize this to run as efficiently as possible even if it cannot achieve the stated goal of 16 modes. I was considering writing the data to disk rather than storing the list in memory, but before I take on that overhead, I would like to get people’s opinion on the method to see if there is any room for optimization there.
EDIT
Based on a suggestion by few to consider something more academic then merely calculating every possible answer, listed below is a brief explanation of how the optimal run (combination of modes) is chosen.
Currently the computer determines every possible way that the plant can run for the number of work days that month. For example 3 Modes for a max of 2 work days would result in the combinations (where the number represents the mode chosen) of (1,1), (1,2), (1,3), (2,2), (2,3), (3,3) For each mode a product produces at a different rate of production, for example in mode 1, product x may produce at 50 units per hour where product y produces at 30 units per hour and product z produces at 0 units per hour. Each combination is then multiplied by work hours and production rates. The run that produces numbers that most closely match the forecasted value for each product for the month is chosen. However, because some months the plant does not meet the forecasted value for a product, the algorithm increases the priority of a product for the next month to ensure that at the end of the year the product has met the forecasted value. Since warehouse space is tight, it is important that products not overproduce too much either.
Thank you
private List<List<int>> _modeIterations = new List<List<int>>();
private void CalculateCombinations(int modes, int workDays, string combinationValues)
{
List<int> _tempList = new List<int>();
if (modes == 1)
{
combinationValues += Convert.ToString(workDays);
string[] _combinations = combinationValues.Split(',');
foreach (string _number in _combinations)
{
_tempList.Add(Convert.ToInt32(_number));
}
_modeIterations.Add(_tempList);
}
else
{
for (int i = workDays + 1; --i >= 0; )
{
CalculateCombinations(modes - 1, workDays - i, combinationValues + i + ",");
}
}
}
This kind of optimization problem is difficult but extremely well-studied. You should probably read up in the literature on it rather than trying to re-invent the wheel. The keywords you want to look for are "operations research" and "combinatorial optimization problem".
It is well-known in the study of optimization problems that finding the optimal solution to a problem is almost always computationally infeasible as the problem grows large, as you have discovered for yourself. However, it is frequently the case that finding a solution guaranteed to be within a certain percentage of the optimal solution is feasible. You should probably concentrate on finding approximate solutions. After all, your sales targets are already just educated guesses, therefore finding the optimal solution is already going to be impossible; you haven't got complete information.)
What I would do is start by reading the wikipedia page on the Knapsack Problem:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Knapsack_problem
This is the problem of "I've got a whole bunch of items of different values and different weights, I can carry 50 pounds in my knapsack, what is the largest possible value I can carry while meeting my weight goal?"
This isn't exactly your problem, but clearly it is related -- you've got a certain amount of "value" to maximize, and a limited number of slots to pack that value into. If you can start to understand how people find near-optimal solutions to the knapsack problem, you can apply that to your specific problem.
You could process the permutation as soon as you have generated it, instead of collecting them all in a list first:
public delegate void Processor(List<int> args);
private void CalculateCombinations(int modes, int workDays, string combinationValues, Processor processor)
{
if (modes == 1)
{
List<int> _tempList = new List<int>();
combinationValues += Convert.ToString(workDays);
string[] _combinations = combinationValues.Split(',');
foreach (string _number in _combinations)
{
_tempList.Add(Convert.ToInt32(_number));
}
processor.Invoke(_tempList);
}
else
{
for (int i = workDays + 1; --i >= 0; )
{
CalculateCombinations(modes - 1, workDays - i, combinationValues + i + ",", processor);
}
}
}
I am assuming here, that your current pattern of work is something along the lines
CalculateCombinations(initial_value_1, initial_value_2, initial_value_3);
foreach( List<int> list in _modeIterations ) {
... process the list ...
}
With the direct-process-approach, this would be
private void ProcessPermutation(List<int> args)
{
... process ...
}
... somewhere else ...
CalculateCombinations(initial_value_1, initial_value_2, initial_value_3, ProcessPermutation);
I would also suggest, that you try to prune the search tree as early as possible; if you can already tell, that certain combinations of the arguments will never yield something, which can be processed, you should catch those already during generation, and avoid the recursion alltogether, if this is possible.
In new versions of C#, generation of the combinations using an iterator (?) function might be usable to retain the original structure of your code. I haven't really used this feature (yield) as of yet, so I cannot comment on it.
The problem lies more in the Brute Force approach that in the code itself. It's possible that brute force might be the only way to approach the problem but I doubt it. Chess, for example, is unresolvable by Brute Force but computers play at it quite well using heuristics to discard the less promising approaches and focusing on good ones. Maybe you should take a similar approach.
On the other hand we need to know how each "mode" is evaluated in order to suggest any heuristics. In your code you're only computing all possible combinations which, anyway, will not scale if the modes go up to 32... even if you store it on disk.
if (modes == 1)
{
List<int> _tempList = new List<int>();
combinationValues += Convert.ToString(workDays);
string[] _combinations = combinationValues.Split(',');
foreach (string _number in _combinations)
{
_tempList.Add(Convert.ToInt32(_number));
}
processor.Invoke(_tempList);
}
Everything in this block of code is executed over and over again, so no line in that code should make use of memory without freeing it. The most obvious place to avoid memory craziness is to write out combinationValues to disk as it is processed (i.e. use a FileStream, not a string). I think that in general, doing string concatenation the way you are doing here is bad, since every concatenation results in memory sadness. At least use a stringbuilder (See back to basics , which discusses the same issue in terms of C). There may be other places with issues, though. The simplest way to figure out why you are getting an out of memory error may be to use a memory profiler (Download Link from download.microsoft.com).
By the way, my tendency with code like this is to have a global List object that is Clear()ed rather than having a temporary one that is created over and over again.
I would replace the List objects with my own class that uses preallocated arrays to hold the ints. I'm not really sure about this right now, but I believe that each integer in a List is boxed, which means much more memory is used than with a simple array of ints.
Edit: On the other hand it seems I am mistaken: Which one is more efficient : List<int> or int[]