Hi Valery,
thanks for the test. Could you add several extra signals into your test
class to see how list of signals/connections lookup affects the performance?
Regards,
Anton
http://www.smartquant.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Valeriy Onuchin <onuchin@fnal.gov>
To: Anton Fokin <anton.fokin@smartquant.com>
Cc: <roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch>
Sent: Monday, March 26, 2001 4:44 AM
Subject: Re: [ROOT] TQObject::Emit()
> Hi Anton,
> check a simple stress test of signals/slots below.
> - the result on Pentium III 800 Mhz is 15 microseconds per call with
Emit.
> - the result for calls without Emit is 0.015 microseconds per call.
> - the results for compiled executable program are the same.
>
> Regards. Valeriy
>
>
> root [0] .x stress.C++
> Creating shared library /home/onuchin/tmp/./stress_C.so
> Class A: Streamer() not declared
> Class A: ShowMembers() not declared
> Nevents 1000000, Real time 0:0:14, CP time 14.900
>
>
> To compile stanalone executable program:
>
>
> $root -b -q >/dev/null stress.C | echo
'{gSystem->CompileMacro("stress.C","kf");}' >tmp.C
> $g++ -o stress stress.C `root-config --cflags --libs` -DSTANDALONE
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------- stress.C ---------------------------------
>
> #include <TQObject.h>
> #include <RQ_OBJECT.h>
> #include <TStopwatch.h>
>
> ///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> class A
> {
> RQ_OBJECT()
>
> private:
> Int_t fValue;
> public:
> A():fValue(0) { }
> ~A() { }
>
> void SetValue(Int_t value); file://*SIGNAL*
> };
>
>
> file://___________________________________________________________________
> void A::SetValue(Int_t value)
> {
> // Set new value.
> // Emit signal "SetValue(Int_t)" with a single parameter
>
> if(value!=fValue) {
> fValue=value;
> Emit("SetValue(Int_t)",fValue);
> }
> }
>
> /////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
> file://___________________________________________________________________
> void stress()
> {
> // Simple tests on signals, slots and connections
>
> A a;
> A b;
>
> a.Connect("SetValue(Int_t)","A",&b,"SetValue(Int_t)");
>
> const Int_t nevents = 1000000;
>
> TStopwatch timer;
> timer.Start();
> for(int i=0; i<nevents; i++) a.SetValue(i);
> timer.Stop();
> printf("Nevents %d, ",nevents);
> timer.Print();
> }
>
> ///////////////////////////// Main program ////////////////////////
> #ifdef STANDALONE
>
> #include <TROOT.h>
> #include <TApplication.h>
> #include <TSystem.h>
>
> file://---- Main program -------------------------------------------------
>
> TROOT root("tst","Stress test of signal/slots");
>
> int main(int argc, char **argv)
> {
> gSystem->Load("./tst_C");
> TApplication* app = new TApplication("",0,0);
> stress();
> return 0;
> }
> #endif file://STANDALONE
>
> ---------------------------- stress.C ---------------------------------
>
>
>
> Anton Fokin wrote:
>
> > Hi Valery,
> >
> > I meant that Emit("DataChanged()") call might be time consuming since
you
> > take an argument as char string, compress it and loop over class and
object
> > signal/connection lists (why don't you use hash table, btw?). I was
curious
> > how it is done in Qt/moc. If you say it does nearly the same, no probs.
A
> > benchmark test could be like
> >
> > while (end_test) {
> > DataChanged();
> > }
> >
> > with and without Emit() in DataChanged(). Of course nobody should be
> > connected to this signal. On the other hand result will depend on how
long
> > are lists of signals...
> >
> > > > I am also not sure what it takes in Qt/moc. In Qt you do not need to
> > call
> > > > Emit() in a signal method - the signal will be emitted automatically
> > once
> > > > the method is declared as signal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ("It is not correct ..." Valery Fine;)
> > >
> > >
> > > I studied Qt code ... it also uses "Emit" method inside "signal"
> > > Suppose looking at the code produced after MOC preprocessor will
reveal
> > it.
> > > > I am also not sure what it takes in Qt/moc. In Qt you do not need to
> > call
> > > > Emit() in a signal method - the signal will be emitted automatically
> > once
> > > > the method is declared as signal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ("It is not correct ..." Valery Fine;)
> > >
> > >
> > > I studied Qt code ... it also uses "Emit" method inside "signal"
> > > Suppose looking at the code produced after MOC preprocessor will
reveal
> > it.
> >
> > Yes, that was the questions. I meant that a user does not need to put
Emit()
> > in the body of a signal method in Qt - moc does it. I asked if it is
done in
> > a clever way since moc has control over the code and can make some
"direct"
> > substitutions.
> >
> > Regards,
> > Anton
> >
> > http://www.smartquant.com
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Valeriy Onuchin <onuchin@fnal.gov>
> > To: Anton Fokin <anton.fokin@smartquant.com>
> > Cc: <roottalk@pcroot.cern.ch>
> > Sent: Thursday, March 22, 2001 11:27 PM
> > Subject: Re: [ROOT] TQObject::Emit()
> >
> > > Hi Anton,
> > >
> > > Anton Fokin wrote:
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > If I want to use singal/slots I have to add Emit("DataChanged()");
or
> > alike
> > > > in my TQObject inherited class method to emit a signal. I am curious
if
> > this
> > > > call is costly or not.
> > >
> > > What cost do you mean?
> > >
> > > Memory?
> > >
> > > TQObject has 2 data members which are pointers to
> > Lists( sizeof(TList*) = 4 ).
> > > These TLists are created(new TList) only when connection is
> > established
> > > ( sizeof(TList) = 44 ). During creation of connection some
internal
> > structures
> > > are also initiated, but it was designed to make it minimal amd
reuses
> > existent ones.
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am also not sure what it takes in Qt/moc. In Qt you do not need to
> > call
> > > > Emit() in a signal method - the signal will be emitted automatically
> > once
> > > > the method is declared as signal.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ("It is not correct ..." Valery Fine;)
> > >
> > >
> > > I studied Qt code ... it also uses "Emit" method inside "signal"
> > > Suppose looking at the code produced after MOC preprocessor will
reveal
> > it.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > >
> > > > So could you comment on performance of Emit("DataCahnged()")
decoding
> > (with
> > > > CINT dict, etc.) compare to Qt moc processing.
> > >
> > > Fair comparison of benchmark tests is always difficult task
> > > ( btw it's not a bad business
> > http://www.tpc.org/information/about/join.asp )
> > >
> > > Suggest the "fair test" and I/we can try it.
> > >
> > >
> > > Regards. Valeriy
> > >
> > >
> > >
>
>
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Jan 01 2002 - 17:50:40 MET