speed, functions and overheads

Question

Patrick Mboma 2013-6-24

0
链接

此问题的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/80001-speed-functions-and-overheads

评论： TallBrian 2019-10-15

Dear all,

I have noticed using functions, nested functions and sub-functions considerably decrease the speed of execution. Is it possible to decrease the overhead incurred when calling a function?

Thanks, Patrick

2 个评论
显示无隐藏无

Matt J 2013-6-24

Decrease it from what? What baseline are you comparing it to?

Sean de Wolski 2013-6-24

What are you doing?

Have you used the profiler to identify bottlenecks in your code that are more than likely killing way more time than function overhead?

请先登录，再进行评论。

请先登录，再回答此问题。

Answer 1

Jan 2013-6-24

0
链接

此回答的直接链接

https://ww2.mathworks.cn/matlabcentral/answers/80001-speed-functions-and-overheads#answer_89745

编辑：Jan 2013-6-25

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

x = rand(1000, 1000);
tic;
for k = 1:1e3
  m = mean(x);
end
toc;
tic;
for k = 1:1e3
  m = sum(x, 1) / size(x, 1);
end
toc;

I assume, but cannot test currently, that there is a measurable difference in the timing due to the overhead for calling the M-function mean() (at least until 2009a it was an M-file).

Of course there is no magic flag to reduce the overhead, otherwise TMW would not have disabled this. So inlining the code is the only way to avoid the overhead. The resulting code is faster for the price of a reduced readability.

[EDITED] Summary of my comments:

When you call functions, you cannot avoid the overhead.
When you inline the code instead, the overhead vanishes, but other difficulties arise.
Tertium non datur.

7 个评论
显示 5更早的评论隐藏 5更早的评论

Jan 2013-6-24

编辑：Jan 2013-6-24

在 MATLAB Online 中打开

@Patrick: Yes, I've chosen the most simple example I could find. You see both effects already:

In R2009a the inlined (not "inline"!) function is 10% faster than calling mean().
The mean() version looks cleaner. And if the example is e.g. expanded to nanmean() the inlined version looks cruel already.

Using small functions for special job is easier to maintain, debug and expand as well as it allows re-using established code. Inlining decreases the runtime by avoiding the overhead of calling a function and creating (shared) data copies. So as usual the programmer has to take into account the different processes which are required to solve a problem:

solution = design + program + validate + debug + runtime

So optimizing the runtime by some seconds does not allow to solve the problem faster, when it leads to hours of debug time. Therefore only the bottlenecks should be inlined into the loops, see e.g. Answers: condition-the-number-of-nested-for-loops: here SUB2IND had a lot of security checks and too much generality to handle the simple 2D case efficiently.

Jan 2013-6-25

编辑：Jan 2013-6-25

@Patrick: Let me repeat again, that the example is not "too simple" but chosen as simple as possible on purpose to demonstrate the drawbacks and benefits of inlining versus calling functions.

Of course I know, that calling mean() will not solve your problem. But you ask for avoiding the overhead of calling a function. And the answer is simply: See [EDITED].

TallBrian 2019-10-15

@Jan, this answer was from back in 2013, do you know is the answer still the same with the latest MATLAB?

请先登录，再进行评论。

speed, functions and overheads

2 个评论
显示无隐藏无

采纳的回答

7 个评论
显示 5更早的评论隐藏 5更早的评论

更多回答（0 个）

另请参阅

类别

标签

Community Treasure Hunt

speed, functions and overheads

2 个评论 显示 无隐藏 无

采纳的回答

7 个评论 显示 5更早的评论隐藏 5更早的评论

更多回答（0 个）

另请参阅

类别

标签

Community Treasure Hunt

2 个评论
显示无隐藏无

7 个评论
显示 5更早的评论隐藏 5更早的评论