My unsafe method accepts a collection byte[]s. All of these byte[]s are of the same size.
I need to iterate over them all, searching for certain patterns. The search is inherently reinterpret-cast style: at each offset, I need to consider a value as if it were a float, a double, a short, an int, etc. So getting a byte* for each input byte[] and incrementing it on each iteration seems like a natural approach.
Unfortunately I can't find any way to create a collection of byte* - or, more specifically, to initialize it from a collection of arrays. Any ideas?
Here's a somewhat contrived version of the task:
static unsafe void SearchIteration(List<byte[]> arrays, byte[] resultArr)
{
fixed (byte* resultFix = resultArr)
{
byte* resultPtr = resultFix;
byte*[] pointers = new byte*[arrays.Count];
<some code to fix all the arrays and store the pointers in "pointers">
int remaining = resultArr.Length;
while (remaining > 0)
{
<look at resultPtr and each of the pointers and update *resultPtr>
remaining--;
for (int i = 0; i < pointers.Length; i++)
pointers[i]++;
}
}
}
Essentially the question is how to initialize pointers with the addresses of arrays, while pinning the arrays so that GC doesn't move them.
use GCHandle.Alloc() from System.Runtime.InteropServices:
var handles = new GCHandle[arrays.Count];
byte*[] pointers = new byte*[arrays.Count];
for(int i = 0; i < arrays.Count; ++i)
{
handles[i] = GCHandle.Alloc(arrays[i], GCHandleType.Pinned);
pointers[i] = (byte*)handles[i].AddrOfPinnedObject();
}
try
{
/* process pointers */
}
finally
{
for(int i = 0; i < arrays.Count; ++i)
{
handles[i].Free();
}
}
Related
As my goal is to out perform the List<T>
i am testing arrays and found few starting points to get on testing
i have tested this before trying to capture bitmaps off screen,
and tests proved the usage is suffice.
my question is what data types could use this Copy() code except for byte[]
say i want a data storage unit to take the advantage of unmanaged / unsafe
public unsafe struct NusT
{
public unsafe int vi;
public unsafe bool vb;
}
instead of populating a list
i initialise the struct as follows : 1)
NusT n;
n.vi= 90;
n.vb=true
i have tested this after testing the folowing: 2)
NusT n = new NusT(){vi=90, vb=true};
this test was after testing :3)
NusT n = new NusT("90", true);
i think both last had same results but the first one is blazing fast, as i do not create an object so
NusT n-> instructions- 1
n.vi=90 -> instructions- 1
n.vb=true -> instructions- 1
now i minimized what i could and this started at the begining with a class:
whitch was even worse than 2 & 3 above as it also uses properties
class bigAndSlow
{
public int a { get; private set;}
public bool b { get; private set;}
public string c { get; private set;}
public bigAndSlow(int .. ,boo .. , string.. )
{
initialise ...
}
}
so now when the final decision is
public unsafe struct NusT
{
public unsafe int vi;
public unsafe bool vb;
}
how can i implement this blazingly fast data unit to use Copy() on
NusT[] NustyArr;
static unsafe void Copy(byte[] src, int srcIndex,
byte[] dst, int dstIndex, int count)
{
if (src == null || srcIndex < 0 ||
dst == null || dstIndex < 0 || count < 0)
{
throw new ArgumentException();
}
int srcLen = src.Length;
int dstLen = dst.Length;
if (srcLen - srcIndex < count ||
dstLen - dstIndex < count)
{
throw new ArgumentException();
}
// The following fixed statement pins the location of
// the src and dst objects in memory so that they will
// not be moved by garbage collection.
fixed (byte* pSrc = src, pDst = dst)
{
byte* ps = pSrc;
byte* pd = pDst;
// Loop over the count in blocks of 4 bytes, copying an
// integer (4 bytes) at a time:
for (int n = 0; n < count / 4; n++)
{
*((int*)pd) = *((int*)ps);
pd += 4;
ps += 4;
}
// Complete the copy by moving any bytes that weren't
// moved in blocks of 4:
for (int n = 0; n < count % 4; n++)
{
*pd = *ps;
pd++;
ps++;
}
}
}
static void Main(string[] args)
{
byte[] a = new byte[100];
byte[] b = new byte[100];
for (int i = 0; i < 100; ++i)
a[i] = (byte)i;
Copy(a, 0, b, 0, 100);
Console.WriteLine("The first 10 elements are:");
for (int i = 0; i < 10; ++i)
Console.Write(b[i] + " ");
Console.WriteLine("\n");
}
Yes, you can do this with any blittable type. The blittable types are primitive types (integer and float types, but not bool), one-dimensional arrays of blittable types and structures containing fields of blittable types only.
The structure NusT is not blittable because it contains bool field. Just change it to byte and you will get a blittable structure for which you can obtain a pointer.
Here is the code that works for any type:
static unsafe void UnsafeCopy<T>(T[] src, int srcIndex, T[] dst, int dstIndex, int count) where T : struct
{
if (src == null || srcIndex < 0 || dst == null || dstIndex < 0 || count < 0 || srcIndex + count > src.Length || dstIndex + count > dst.Length)
{
throw new ArgumentException();
}
int elem_size = Marshal.SizeOf(typeof(T));
GCHandle gch1 = GCHandle.Alloc(src, GCHandleType.Pinned);
GCHandle gch2 = GCHandle.Alloc(dst, GCHandleType.Pinned);
byte* ps = (byte*)gch1.AddrOfPinnedObject().ToPointer() + srcIndex * elem_size;
byte* pd = (byte*)gch2.AddrOfPinnedObject().ToPointer() + dstIndex * elem_size;
int len = count * elem_size;
try
{
// Loop over the count in blocks of 4 bytes, copying an
// integer (4 bytes) at a time:
for (int n = 0; n < len / 4; n++)
{
*((int*)pd) = *((int*)ps);
pd += 4;
ps += 4;
}
// Complete the copy by moving any bytes that weren't
// moved in blocks of 4:
for (int n = 0; n < len % 4; n++)
{
*pd = *ps;
pd++;
ps++;
}
}
finally
{
gch1.Free();
gch2.Free();
}
}
But I strongly advice you to use Array.Copy. It is already the most efficient way to copy arrays. See the benchmarks of copying array of 1M elements below:
byte[] Array.Copy: 57,491 us
byte[] FastCopy: 138,198 us
byte[] JustCopy: 792,399 us
byte[] UnsafeCopy: 138,575 us
byte[] MemCpy: 57,667 us
NusT[] Array.Copy: 1,197 ms
NusT[] JustCopy: 1,843 ms
NusT[] UnsafeCopy: 1,550 ms
NusT[] MemCpy: 1,208 ms
FastCopy is your copy function, UnsafeCopy is my templated function, JustCopy is a simple implementation for (int i = 0; i < src.Length; i++) dst[i] = src[i];. MemCpy is PInvoke call of msvcrt memcpy function.
The verdict is: using pointers in C# for performance improvement is a bad practice. JIT does not optimize the unsafe code. The best solution is to move performance critical code to native DLLs.
An example will make this clear:
unsafe void ProcessUnmanagedBuffer( float * buffer, int length )
{
int i;
for( i = 0; i < length; i++ )
{
buffer[ i ] = ...;
}
}
void ProcessManagedBuffer( float[] buffer, int length )
{
int i;
for( i = 0; i < length; i++ )
{
buffer[ i ] = ...;
}
}
// common interface to avoid duplicate code?
void ProcessBuffer( IndexableThing buffer, int length )
Of course, there can't be a common interface since float * isn't a class.
The obvious solution is to wrap and override the indexer, but for performance critical code this is far from ideal.
The less obvious one would be to pin the float[] and get a pointer to it. Better, but pinning incurs some overhead too.
I suspect there is no good solution - any ideas?
is it possible to somehow cast the type of a pointer created by the fixed() statement?
This is the situation:
I have an array of byte, which i would like to iterate through, however i would like the values to be treated as int, thus having an int* instead of a byte*.
Here's some exemplary code:
byte[] rawdata = new byte[1024];
fixed(int* ptr = rawdata) //this fails with an implicit cast error
{
for(int i = idx; i < rawdata.Length; i++)
{
//do some work here
}
}
Can this be done without having to do the cast inside the iteration?
byte[] rawdata = new byte[1024];
fixed(byte* bptr = rawdata)
{
int* ptr=(int*)bptr;
for(int i = idx; i < rawdata.Length; i++)
{
//do some work here
}
}
I believe you have to go via a byte*. For example:
using System;
class Test
{
unsafe static void Main()
{
byte[] rawData = new byte[1024];
rawData[0] = 1;
rawData[1] = 2;
fixed (byte* bytePtr = rawData)
{
int* intPtr = (int*) bytePtr;
Console.WriteLine(intPtr[0]); // Prints 513 on my box
}
}
}
Note that when iterating, you should use rawData.Length / 4, not rawData.Length if you're treating your byte array as a sequence of 32-bit values.
I found a - seemingly - more elegant and for some reason also faster way of doing this:
byte[] rawData = new byte[1024];
GCHandle rawDataHandle = GCHandle.Alloc(rawData, GCHandleType.Pinned);
int* iPtr = (int*)rawDataHandle.AddrOfPinnedObject().ToPointer();
int length = rawData.Length / sizeof (int);
for (int idx = 0; idx < length; idx++, iPtr++)
{
(*iPtr) = idx;
Console.WriteLine("Value of integer at pointer position: {0}", (*iPtr));
}
rawDataHandle.Free();
This way the only thing i need to do - apart from setting the correct iteration length - is increment the pointer. I compared the code with the one using the fixed statement, and this one is slightly faster.
Convertion from Double[] src to Byte[] dst
can be efficiently done in C# by fixed pointers:
fixed( Double* pSrc = src)
{
fixed( Byte* pDst = dst)
{
Byte* ps = (Byte*)pSrc;
for (int i=0; i < dstLength; i++)
{
*(pDst + i) = *(ps +i);
}
}
}
How can I do the same for List src ?
I.e. how can I get fixed pointer to array Double[]
included in List ?
Thanks.
I have used these helper methods before:
byte[] GetBytesBlock(double[] values)
{
var result = new byte[values.Length * sizeof(double)];
Buffer.BlockCopy(values, 0, result, 0, result.Length);
return result;
}
double[] GetDoublesBlock(byte[] bytes)
{
var result = new double[bytes.Length / sizeof(double)];
Buffer.BlockCopy(bytes, 0, result, 0, bytes.Length);
return result;
}
An example:
List<double> myList = new List<double>(){ 1.0, 2.0, 3.0};
//to byte[]
var byteResult = GetBytesBlock(myList.ToArray());
//back to List<double>
var doubleResult = GetDoublesBlock(byteResult).ToList();
not sure what you are intending, but I think ... you want
System.Runtime.Interopservices.Marshal.StructToPtr.
You can always use the ToArray() method on the List<Double> object to get a Double[].
You can use reflection to get the reference to the private T[] _items field, in the List instance.
Warning: In your code snippet, you need to make sure dstLength is the minimum of dst and src lengths in bytes, so that you don't try to copy more bytes than what are available. Probably you do so by creating dst with exactly the needed size to match the src, but your snippet doesn't make it clear.
Use the List<T>.ToArray() method and operate on the resulting array.
This might work, but you will have a data loss- content of the array will be 3 and 34 .
List<double> list = new List<double>();
list.Add(Math.PI);
list.Add(34.22);
byte[] arr = (from l in list
select (byte)l).ToArray<byte>();
Why don't you just access the list as usual?
List<double> list = new List<double>();
list.Add(Math.PI);
list.Add(34.22);
byte[] res = new byte[list.Count * sizeof(double)];
unsafe
{
fixed (byte* pres = res)
{
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
*(((double*)pres) + i) = list[i];
}
}
}
I haven't tested it thoroughly and i seldomly need unsafe code, but it seems to work fine.
Edit: here is another (imo preferable) solution, without unsafe code:
int offset = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < list.Count; i++)
{
long num = BitConverter.DoubleToInt64Bits(list[i]);
for (int j = 0; j < 8; j++)
{
res[offset++] = (byte)num;
num >>= 8;
}
}
I would like to get a byte[] from a float[] as quickly as possible, without looping through the whole array (via a cast, probably). Unsafe code is fine. Thanks!
I am looking for a byte array 4 time longer than the float array (the dimension of the byte array will be 4 times that of the float array, since each float is composed of 4 bytes). I'll pass this to a BinaryWriter.
EDIT:
To those critics screaming "premature optimization":
I have benchmarked this using ANTS profiler before I optimized. There was a significant speed increase because the file has a write-through cache and the float array is exactly sized to match the sector size on the disk. The binary writer wraps a file handle created with pinvoke'd win32 API. The optimization occurs since this lessens the number of function calls.
And, with regard to memory, this application creates massive caches which use plenty of memory. I can allocate the byte buffer once and re-use it many times--the double memory usage in this particular instance amounts to a roundoff error in the overall memory consumption of the app.
So I guess the lesson here is not to make premature assumptions ;)
There is a dirty fast (not unsafe code) way of doing this:
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit)]
struct BytetoDoubleConverter
{
[FieldOffset(0)]
public Byte[] Bytes;
[FieldOffset(0)]
public Double[] Doubles;
}
//...
static Double Sum(byte[] data)
{
BytetoDoubleConverter convert = new BytetoDoubleConverter { Bytes = data };
Double result = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < convert.Doubles.Length / sizeof(Double); i++)
{
result += convert.Doubles[i];
}
return result;
}
This will work, but I'm not sure of the support on Mono or newer versions of the CLR. The only strange thing is that the array.Length is the bytes length. This can be explained because it looks at the array length stored with the array, and because this array was a byte array that length will still be in byte length. The indexer does think about the Double being eight bytes large so no calculation is necessary there.
I've looked for it some more, and it's actually described on MSDN, How to: Create a C/C++ Union by Using Attributes (C# and Visual Basic), so chances are this will be supported in future versions. I am not sure about Mono though.
Premature optimization is the root of all evil! #Vlad's suggestion to iterate over each float is a much more reasonable answer than switching to a byte[]. Take the following table of runtimes for increasing numbers of elements (average of 50 runs):
Elements BinaryWriter(float) BinaryWriter(byte[])
-----------------------------------------------------------
10 8.72ms 8.76ms
100 8.94ms 8.82ms
1000 10.32ms 9.06ms
10000 32.56ms 10.34ms
100000 213.28ms 739.90ms
1000000 1955.92ms 10668.56ms
There is little difference between the two for small numbers of elements. Once you get into the huge number of elements range, the time spent copying from the float[] to the byte[] far outweighs the benefits.
So go with what is simple:
float[] data = new float[...];
foreach(float value in data)
{
writer.Write(value);
}
There is a way which avoids memory copying and iteration.
You can use a really ugly hack to temporary change your array to another type using (unsafe) memory manipulation.
I tested this hack in both 32 & 64 bit OS, so it should be portable.
The source + sample usage is maintained at https://gist.github.com/1050703 , but for your convenience I'll paste it here as well:
public static unsafe class FastArraySerializer
{
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Explicit)]
private struct Union
{
[FieldOffset(0)] public byte[] bytes;
[FieldOffset(0)] public float[] floats;
}
[StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential, Pack = 1)]
private struct ArrayHeader
{
public UIntPtr type;
public UIntPtr length;
}
private static readonly UIntPtr BYTE_ARRAY_TYPE;
private static readonly UIntPtr FLOAT_ARRAY_TYPE;
static FastArraySerializer()
{
fixed (void* pBytes = new byte[1])
fixed (void* pFloats = new float[1])
{
BYTE_ARRAY_TYPE = getHeader(pBytes)->type;
FLOAT_ARRAY_TYPE = getHeader(pFloats)->type;
}
}
public static void AsByteArray(this float[] floats, Action<byte[]> action)
{
if (floats.handleNullOrEmptyArray(action))
return;
var union = new Union {floats = floats};
union.floats.toByteArray();
try
{
action(union.bytes);
}
finally
{
union.bytes.toFloatArray();
}
}
public static void AsFloatArray(this byte[] bytes, Action<float[]> action)
{
if (bytes.handleNullOrEmptyArray(action))
return;
var union = new Union {bytes = bytes};
union.bytes.toFloatArray();
try
{
action(union.floats);
}
finally
{
union.floats.toByteArray();
}
}
public static bool handleNullOrEmptyArray<TSrc,TDst>(this TSrc[] array, Action<TDst[]> action)
{
if (array == null)
{
action(null);
return true;
}
if (array.Length == 0)
{
action(new TDst[0]);
return true;
}
return false;
}
private static ArrayHeader* getHeader(void* pBytes)
{
return (ArrayHeader*)pBytes - 1;
}
private static void toFloatArray(this byte[] bytes)
{
fixed (void* pArray = bytes)
{
var pHeader = getHeader(pArray);
pHeader->type = FLOAT_ARRAY_TYPE;
pHeader->length = (UIntPtr)(bytes.Length / sizeof(float));
}
}
private static void toByteArray(this float[] floats)
{
fixed(void* pArray = floats)
{
var pHeader = getHeader(pArray);
pHeader->type = BYTE_ARRAY_TYPE;
pHeader->length = (UIntPtr)(floats.Length * sizeof(float));
}
}
}
And the usage is:
var floats = new float[] {0, 1, 0, 1};
floats.AsByteArray(bytes =>
{
foreach (var b in bytes)
{
Console.WriteLine(b);
}
});
If you do not want any conversion to happen, I would suggest Buffer.BlockCopy().
public static void BlockCopy(
Array src,
int srcOffset,
Array dst,
int dstOffset,
int count
)
For example:
float[] floatArray = new float[1000];
byte[] byteArray = new byte[floatArray.Length * 4];
Buffer.BlockCopy(floatArray, 0, byteArray, 0, byteArray.Length);
You're better-off letting the BinaryWriter do this for you. There's going to be iteration over your entire set of data regardless of which method you use, so there's no point in playing with bytes.
Although you can obtain a byte* pointer using unsafe and fixed, you cannot convert the byte* to byte[] in order for the writer to accept it as a parameter without performing data copy. Which you do not want to do as it will double your memory footprint and add an extra iteration over the inevitable iteration that needs to be performed in order to output the data to disk.
Instead, you are still better off iterating over the array of floats and writing each float to the writer individually, using the Write(double) method. It will still be fast because of buffering inside the writer. See sixlettervariables's numbers.
Using the new Span<> in .Net Core 2.1 or later...
byte[] byteArray2 = MemoryMarshal.Cast<float, byte>(floatArray).ToArray();
Or, if Span can be used instead, then a direct reinterpret cast can be done: (very fast - zero copying)
Span<byte> byteArray3 = MemoryMarshal.Cast<float, byte>(floatArray);
// with span we can get a byte, set a byte, iterate, and more.
byte someByte = byteSpan[2];
byteSpan[2] = 33;
I did some crude benchmarks. The time taken for each is in the comments. [release/no debugger/x64]
float[] floatArray = new float[100];
for (int i = 0; i < 100; i++) floatArray[i] = i * 7.7777f;
Stopwatch start = Stopwatch.StartNew();
for (int j = 0; j < 100; j++)
{
start.Restart();
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++)
{
Span<byte> byteSpan = MemoryMarshal.Cast<float, byte>(floatArray);
}
long timeTaken1 = start.ElapsedTicks; ////// 0 ticks //////
start.Restart();
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++)
{
byte[] byteArray2 = MemoryMarshal.Cast<float, byte>(floatArray).ToArray();
}
long timeTaken2 = start.ElapsedTicks; ////// 26 ticks //////
start.Restart();
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++)
{
byte[] byteArray = new byte[sizeof(float) * floatArray.Length];
for (int i = 0; i < floatArray.Length; i++)
BitConverter.GetBytes(floatArray[i]).CopyTo(byteArray, i * sizeof(float));
}
long timeTaken3 = start.ElapsedTicks; ////// 1310 ticks //////
start.Restart();
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++)
{
byte[] byteArray = new byte[sizeof(float) * floatArray.Length];
Buffer.BlockCopy(floatArray, 0, byteArray, 0, byteArray.Length);
}
long timeTaken4 = start.ElapsedTicks; ////// 33 ticks //////
start.Restart();
for (int k = 0; k < 1000; k++)
{
byte[] byteArray = new byte[sizeof(float) * floatArray.Length];
MemoryStream memStream = new MemoryStream();
BinaryWriter writer = new BinaryWriter(memStream);
foreach (float value in floatArray)
writer.Write(value);
writer.Close();
}
long timeTaken5 = start.ElapsedTicks; ////// 1080 ticks //////
Console.WriteLine($"{timeTaken1/10,6} {timeTaken2 / 10,6} {timeTaken3 / 10,6} {timeTaken4 / 10,6} {timeTaken5 / 10,6} ");
}
We have a class called LudicrousSpeedSerialization and it contains the following unsafe method:
static public byte[] ConvertFloatsToBytes(float[] data)
{
int n = data.Length;
byte[] ret = new byte[n * sizeof(float)];
if (n == 0) return ret;
unsafe
{
fixed (byte* pByteArray = &ret[0])
{
float* pFloatArray = (float*)pByteArray;
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
pFloatArray[i] = data[i];
}
}
}
return ret;
}
Although it basically does do a for loop behind the scenes, it does do the job in one line
byte[] byteArray = floatArray.Select(
f=>System.BitConverter.GetBytes(f)).Aggregate(
(bytes, f) => {List<byte> temp = bytes.ToList(); temp.AddRange(f); return temp.ToArray(); });