Re: Parallelism defaults and config options

From: Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason <avarab@gmail.com>
Date: Oct 25, 2022, 18:47 UTC
Message-ID: <221025.86k04nd89c.gmgdl@evledraar.gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <CAFySSZBnuszT0iYdFThRzktBuMaCTfGCTz5nbhK6sbrt=QL+5w@mail.gmail.com>

On Tue, Oct 25 2022, Calvin Wan wrote:

Show 21 quoted lines

>> > The safe option is to default to 1 process for many of these config
>> > options, but we trade off in improving the experience for the average
>> > user that is unaware of these options. If we're already defaulting to
>> > online_cpus() for grep.threads and selecting 5 for http.maxRequests,
>> > then why not do the same for other options? My suggestion would be
>> > defaulting IO dominant operations to min(4, online_cpus()) since that
>> > seems like the standard number of lanes for people using SSDs. I would
>> > also default operations that have a mix of both to
>> > min(8, online_cpus()).
>>
>> I haven't thought/tested what the defaults *should* be, but I think it's
>> a fair assumption that the current defaults were probably picked on the
>> basis of a few ad-hoc tests on some person's laptop :)
>>
>> I.e. the 48 core case you mention etc. is likely to be untested & wasn't
>> thought of at the time.
>
> Even with 8 threads, git grep runs very slightly slower than with 1 thread
> for me. Unless we have something along the lines of "git setup-parallelism",
> any default we pick will have different outcomes for different users, but I
> think we can at least make a better guess than what we currently have.

For me e.g.:

	hyperfine -L f E,P -L n 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10 'git -P -c grep.threads={n} grep -{f} a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'

Gets this in git.git, this is on a 8 core box:
	
	Summary
	  'git -P -c grep.threads=4 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa' ran
	    1.01 ± 0.11 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=3 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.03 ± 0.16 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=5 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.14 ± 0.14 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=6 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.22 ± 0.12 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=7 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.29 ± 0.13 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=0 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.29 ± 0.13 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=8 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.31 ± 0.13 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=2 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.33 ± 0.13 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=9 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.40 ± 0.15 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=10 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.49 ± 0.15 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=6 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.50 ± 0.15 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=7 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.57 ± 0.16 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=0 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.59 ± 0.17 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=8 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.59 ± 0.19 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=5 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.64 ± 0.17 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=9 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.66 ± 0.20 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=4 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.73 ± 0.18 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=10 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    1.94 ± 0.28 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=3 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    2.15 ± 0.21 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=1 grep -P a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    2.59 ± 0.25 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=2 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'
	    4.70 ± 0.46 times faster than 'git -P -c grep.threads=1 grep -E a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?a?aaaaaaaaaa'

YMMV.

I think there's been some past discussion about having a probing command figure this out for you, longer term that would be neat.

Show 23 quoted lines

>> I think *structurally* the best approach is something like having a
>> family of config variables like:
>>
>>         core.jobs: [(false | 1)|(0 | true) | [2..Inf] ]
>>         core.jobs.IOBound: [(false | 1)|(0 | true) | [2..Inf]]
>>         core.jobs.CPUBound: [(false | 1)|(0 | true) | [2..Inf]]
>>
>> Note that it's "0 or true" and "1 or false", not a mistake, i.e. that
>> matches our current defaults. You'd set it to "true" to get the "yes, I
>> want it parallel" setting.
>>
>> We'd have these take priority from each other, so "grep.threads" would
>> override "core.jobs.IOBound", which in turn would override "core.jobs".
>>
>> The common case would be that you wouldn't set either "core.jobs" or
>> "grep.threads", so we'd default to "core.jobs.IOBound", which we'd set
>> to some sensible default.
>
> While I like this concept very much, my worry is that some commands
> might not fall nicely into IOBound or CPUBound. If they're a mix of the two
> or bound by possibly something else (like network for fetch.parallel? not
> sure about this one haven't looked too into it), then what bucket would we
> put them under?

Just have them use the top-level config if there's no "intermediate".

Or maybe everything should go straight to the top-level default.

Or maybe there shouldn't be a "top-level" at all, and nobody wants to configure these N at at time, I don't know.

I was just trying to offer you a way out of the problem of wanting different defaults for certain variables, we could "hardcode" them across the different variables, or if we find commonalities we could have them fall back to another parent config variable.