use ArrayPool instead of having a private buffer cache

[adamsitnik]

Contributes to #45315

usingSystem.Threading.Tasks;usingMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Builder;usingMicrosoft.AspNetCore.Hosting;usingMicrosoft.Extensions.Configuration;namespaceTemplate{publicclassStartup{publicStartup(IConfigurationconfiguration)=>Configuration=configuration;publicIConfigurationConfiguration{get;}// This method gets called by the runtime. Use this method to configure the HTTP request pipeline.publicvoidConfigure(IApplicationBuilderapp,IWebHostEnvironmentenv){app.UseRouting();app.UseEndpoints(routeBuilder =>{routeBuilder.Map("GetProcesses", context =>{foreach(varprocessinSystem.Diagnostics.Process.GetProcesses()){process.Dispose();}returnTask.CompletedTask;});});}}}

Citrine (28 cores):

load	before	after
CPU Usage (%)	3	4
Cores usage (%)	85	102
Working Set (MB)	48	48
Build Time (ms)	5,057	4,123
Start Time (ms)	0	0
Published Size (KB)	76,401	76,401
.NET Core SDK Version	3.1.404	3.1.404
First Request (ms)	101	106
Requests/sec	14,392	16,706
Requests	216,986	251,968
Mean latency (ms)	35.53	30.61
Max latency (ms)	301.49	310.73
Bad responses	0	0
Socket errors	0	0
Read throughput (MB/s)	1.26	1.47
Latency 50th (ms)	31.94	29.67
Latency 75th (ms)	40.05	31.19
Latency 90th (ms)	49.31	36.68
Latency 99th (ms)	69.83	48.34

Perf (12 cores):

load	before	after
CPU Usage (%)	10	12
Cores usage (%)	118	142
Working Set (MB)	49	49
Build Time (ms)	5,877	5,898
Start Time (ms)	0	0
Published Size (KB)	76,401	76,401
First Request (ms)	103	106
Requests/sec	13,499	17,852
Requests	203,683	269,349
Mean latency (ms)	38.06	28.65
Max latency (ms)	240.17	168.62
Bad responses	0	0
Socket errors	0	0
Read throughput (MB/s)	1.18	1.57
Latency 50th (ms)	38.57	26.50
Latency 75th (ms)	46.44	36.76
Latency 90th (ms)	57.80	40.75
Latency 99th (ms)	84.34	57.51

No difference for micro-benchmarks (this was expected):

| Method Toolchain | Mean | Ratio | Gen 0 | Gen 1 | Gen 2 | Allocated |
|------------------- -------------------- |---------:|------:|--------:|--------:|------:|----------:|
| GetProcesses \after\CoreRun.exe | 4.948 ms | 1.00 | 78.4314 | 19.6078 | - | 621 KB |
| GetProcesses \before\CoreRun.exe | 4.916 ms | 1.00 | 80.0000 | 20.0000 | - | 619 KB |
| | | | | | | |
| GetProcessesByName \after\CoreRun.exe | 4.912 ms | 1.00 | 80.0000 | 20.0000 | - | 619 KB |
| GetProcessesByName \before\CoreRun.exe | 4.903 ms | 1.00 | 80.0000 | 20.0000 | - | 619 KB |

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @eiriktsarpalis
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Contributes to #45315

Author:	adamsitnik
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Diagnostics.Process, tenet-performance
Milestone:	6.0.0

[jkotas]

@adamsitnik Now that ArrayPool was fixed to pool unlimited size arrays, I think this PR can be resurrect and updated to use ArrayPool unconditionally.

[adamsitnik]

Now that ArrayPool was fixed to pool unlimited size arrays, I think this PR can be resurrect and updated to use ArrayPool unconditionally.

@jkotas done, PTAL

[jkotas]

It looks good to me. I think it would be useful to verify that there is advantage in using the array pool instead of a simpler NativeMemory.Alloc in this situation - #45690 (comment) .

[adamsitnik]

I think it would be useful to verify that there is advantage in using the array pool instead of a simpler NativeMemory.Alloc

I did some measurements using modified benchmarks from performance repo:

Details

[Benchmark]publicvoidGetProcessesByName(){foreach(varprocessinProcess.GetProcessesByName(_nonExistingName)){process.Dispose();}}[Benchmark(OperationsPerInvoke=10*24)]publicvoidGetProcesses_Parallel(){Parallel.For(0,24, _ =>// my PC has 24 cores{for(inti=0;i<10;i++){foreach(varprocessinProcess.GetProcesses()){process.Dispose();}}});}[Benchmark(OperationsPerInvoke=10*24)]publicvoidGetProcessesByName_Parallel(){Parallel.For(0,24, _ =>{for(inti=0;i<10;i++){foreach(varprocessinProcess.GetProcessesByName(_nonExistingName)){process.Dispose();}}});}

And the results were following:

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.0.1559-nightly, OS=Windows 10.0.19043.1165 (21H1/May2021Update) AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3945WX 12-Cores, 1 CPU, 24 logical and 12 physical cores .NET SDK=6.0.100-rc.1.21417.19 

Method	Toolchain	Mean	Ratio	Gen 0	Gen 1	Gen 2	Allocated
GetProcesses	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	4.791 ms	1.05	-	-	-	477 KB
GetProcesses	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	4.508 ms	1.00	55.5556	18.5185	-	475 KB
GetProcessesByName	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	4.658 ms	1.05	46.8750	15.6250	-	475 KB
GetProcessesByName	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	4.456 ms	1.00	46.8750	15.6250	-	473 KB
GetProcesses_Parallel	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	1.154 ms	0.66	58.3333	16.6667	4.1667	476 KB
GetProcesses_Parallel	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	1.763 ms	1.00	62.5000	20.8333	4.1667	484 KB
GetProcessesByName_Parallel	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	1.098 ms	0.60	58.3333	16.6667	4.1667	475 KB
GetProcessesByName_Parallel	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	1.843 ms	1.00	62.5000	16.6667	4.1667	484 KB

AlignedAlloc seems to perform worse for single-threaded (5%), but better for parallel usage (30-40%).
With AlignedAlloc the code is also simpler.

@stephentoub@jkotas I don't have a strong opinion here. What are your thoughts on this?

[jkotas]

AlignedAlloc

Nit: It can be just NativeLibrary.Alloc. It guarantees sufficient alignment. AlignedAlloc is unnecessary.

What are your thoughts on this?

I would lean towards using NativeLibrary.Alloc. I think it will give lower high-memory watermark for some common usage patterns of this API. I think minimizing working set is more important than saving cycles for this API.

I do not have a strong opinion on this either. Thank you for collecting the numbers!

[adamsitnik]

NativeLibrary.Alloc

I've switched to NativeLibrary.Alloc and ensured that perf characteristics don't look worse than AlignedAlloc.

Method	Toolchain	Mean	Ratio	Gen 0	Gen 1	Gen 2	Allocated
GetProcesses	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	2,991.6 us	1.08	-	-	-	405 KB
GetProcesses	\alloc\corerun.exe	2,903.3 us	1.04	-	-	-	397 KB
GetProcesses	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	2,776.7 us	1.00	47.0588	11.7647	-	395 KB
GetProcessesByName	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	2,933.2 us	1.06	41.6667	10.4167	-	403 KB
GetProcessesByName	\alloc\corerun.exe	2,805.3 us	1.01	37.5000	12.5000	-	395 KB
GetProcessesByName	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	2,776.5 us	1.00	41.6667	10.4167	-	394 KB
GetProcesses_Parallel	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	1,049.0 us	0.70	54.1667	12.5000	4.1667	404 KB
GetProcesses_Parallel	\alloc\corerun.exe	963.5 us	0.64	45.8333	12.5000	4.1667	397 KB
GetProcesses_Parallel	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	1,521.2 us	1.00	50.0000	12.5000	4.1667	395 KB
GetProcessesByName_Parallel	\alignedAlloc\corerun.exe	982.3 us	0.64	50.0000	8.3333	4.1667	402 KB
GetProcessesByName_Parallel	\alloc\corerun.exe	1,035.7 us	0.68	54.1667	20.8333	4.1667	400 KB
GetProcessesByName_Parallel	\arrayPool\corerun.exe	1,544.2 us	1.00	50.0000	12.5000	4.1667	393 KB

@jkotas thank you for a lot of good hints and great discussion!

[jkotas]

Thanks