Improve the performance of ConditionalWeakTable.TryGetValue

[AustinWise]

Also fixes Objective-C reference tracking in NativeAOT, which was broken by #79519.

Fixes#80032
Related issue: #77472

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @agocke, @MichalStrehovsky, @jkotas
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Fixes #80032

Author:	AustinWise
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-NativeAOT-coreclr
Milestone:	-

[jkotas]

I would not expect 20% perf regression with the current change. Is it repeatable? Have you looked at the generated code to see what caused it?

[AustinWise]

My bad, the benchmark runner was not using the correct runtime, because I did not pass the args in. I'll correct this and rerun.

[AustinWise]

I updated the benchmark to properly read arguments and try a few different number of objects. It now shows that trying to get a value that is not in the ConditionalWeakTable is a fair amount faster.

usingSystem.Runtime.CompilerServices;usingBenchmarkDotNet.Attributes;usingBenchmarkDotNet.Running;namespaceMyBenchmarks{publicclassTryGetHashCode{privatereadonlyList<object>mRootedObjects=new();privatereadonlyConditionalWeakTable<object,object>mWeakTable=new();privateobjectmAnObjectInTheTable=null!;[Params(1,100,1000,10000)]publicintNumberOfObjects;[GlobalSetup]publicvoidSetup(){for(inti=0;i<NumberOfObjects;i++){varobj=newobject();mRootedObjects.Add(obj);mWeakTable.Add(obj,newobject());mAnObjectInTheTable=obj;}}[Benchmark]publicboolTryGetNonExistentValue(){returnmWeakTable.TryGetValue(newobject(),outobject_);}[Benchmark]publicboolTryGetExistingValue(){returnmWeakTable.TryGetValue(mAnObjectInTheTable,outobject_);}}publicclassProgram{publicstaticvoidMain(string[]args){varsummary=BenchmarkRunner.Run<TryGetHashCode>(null!,args);}}}

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.3, OS=ubuntu 22.04
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 16-Cores, 1 CPU, 32 logical and 16 physical cores
.NET SDK=7.0.101
[Host] : .NET 7.0.1 (7.0.122.56804), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
Job-FOVPQH : .NET 8.0.0 (42.42.42.42424), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
Job-WAHSHU : .NET 8.0.0 (42.42.42.42424), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
// * Warnings *
MultimodalDistribution
TryGetHashCode.TryGetExistingValue: Toolchain=merge-base -> It seems that the distribution is bimodal (mValue = 3.29)

Method	Job	Toolchain	NumberOfObjects	Mean	Error	StdDev	Ratio	RatioSD
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	1	28.840 ns	0.2900 ns	0.2712 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	1	7.504 ns	0.0704 ns	0.0624 ns	0.26	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	1	12.081 ns	0.3200 ns	0.9435 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	1	10.224 ns	0.2313 ns	0.2475 ns	0.84	0.08
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	100	33.848 ns	0.0376 ns	0.0333 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	100	7.568 ns	0.0164 ns	0.0145 ns	0.22	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	100	10.562 ns	0.0760 ns	0.0711 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	100	10.089 ns	0.1101 ns	0.0976 ns	0.96	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	1000	35.367 ns	0.0269 ns	0.0224 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	1000	7.527 ns	0.0183 ns	0.0152 ns	0.21	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	1000	10.223 ns	0.2265 ns	0.2945 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	1000	9.775 ns	0.1210 ns	0.1132 ns	0.95	0.03
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	10000	35.562 ns	0.0861 ns	0.0719 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	10000	7.795 ns	0.1275 ns	0.1192 ns	0.22	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-FOVPQH	merge-base	10000	11.644 ns	0.2608 ns	0.7227 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-WAHSHU	PR	10000	10.384 ns	0.0961 ns	0.0852 ns	0.89	0.07

[AustinWise]

I added an implementation for Mono.

One thing to note is that unlike CoreCLR, the hashcodes generated for objects are not deterministic. So the hash table could potentially have a different number of collisions run-to-run. I ran the benchmarks twice and confirmed the ratio between merge-base and PR were roughly the same.

Here is the results for running Mono on x64 Linux. I used these directions to run the benchmarks. I used #80082 to include corerun in the testhost.

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.3, OS=ubuntu 22.04
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 16-Cores, 1 CPU, 32 logical and 16 physical cores
.NET SDK=7.0.101
[Host] : .NET 7.0.1 (7.0.122.56804), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
Job-PGRQPW : .NET 8.0.0 (42.42.42.42424) using MonoVM, X64 VectorSize=128
Job-SWPJPT : .NET 8.0.0 (42.42.42.42424) using MonoVM, X64 VectorSize=128

Method	Job	Toolchain	NumberOfObjects	Mean	Error	StdDev	Ratio	RatioSD
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	1	55.36 ns	0.017 ns	0.015 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	1	47.41 ns	0.027 ns	0.024 ns	0.86	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	1	51.71 ns	0.093 ns	0.087 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	1	50.67 ns	0.859 ns	0.803 ns	0.98	0.02
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	100	59.69 ns	0.078 ns	0.073 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	100	50.21 ns	0.593 ns	0.555 ns	0.84	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	100	54.07 ns	0.512 ns	0.479 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	100	49.83 ns	0.400 ns	0.374 ns	0.92	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	1000	62.25 ns	0.045 ns	0.042 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	1000	47.91 ns	0.059 ns	0.055 ns	0.77	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	1000	53.12 ns	0.131 ns	0.116 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	1000	50.17 ns	0.480 ns	0.449 ns	0.94	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	10000	62.63 ns	0.244 ns	0.229 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	10000	48.70 ns	0.133 ns	0.124 ns	0.78	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-PGRQPW	merge-base	10000	52.06 ns	0.044 ns	0.036 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	Job-SWPJPT	PR	10000	51.24 ns	0.026 ns	0.025 ns	0.98	0.00

I also benchmarked WASM running on V8. I followed these directions to build the runtime. I modfied my benchmark to run against the WASM runtime. See this branch: https://github.com/AustinWise/TryGetHashCodeBenchmark/tree/wasm

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.3, OS=ubuntu 22.04
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 16-Cores, 1 CPU, 32 logical and 16 physical cores
.NET SDK=7.0.101
[Host] : .NET 7.0.1 (7.0.122.56804), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
PR : .NET Core (Mono) 8.0.0-dev, Wasm AOT
merge-base : .NET Core (Mono) 8.0.0-dev, Wasm AOT
Runtime=Wasm IterationCount=3 LaunchCount=1 WarmupCount=3 V8 version 11.1.92

Method	Job	Toolchain	NumberOfObjects	Mean	Error	StdDev	Ratio	RatioSD
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1	235.6 ns	23.61 ns	1.29 ns	0.84	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1	278.8 ns	7.32 ns	0.40 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1	325.4 ns	31.42 ns	1.72 ns	0.93	0.04
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1	350.9 ns	283.24 ns	15.53 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	100	224.6 ns	5.16 ns	0.28 ns	0.76	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	100	294.3 ns	16.31 ns	0.89 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	100	329.3 ns	15.52 ns	0.85 ns	0.94	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	100	349.4 ns	47.84 ns	2.62 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1000	254.7 ns	40.19 ns	2.20 ns	0.84	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1000	303.1 ns	12.48 ns	0.68 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1000	337.1 ns	23.65 ns	1.30 ns	1.02	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1000	331.6 ns	19.43 ns	1.07 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	10000	253.8 ns	41.11 ns	2.25 ns	0.92	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	10000	277.1 ns	10.21 ns	0.56 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	10000	367.4 ns	21.53 ns	1.18 ns	1.15	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	10000	320.2 ns	19.91 ns	1.09 ns	1.00	0.00

[jkotas]

@vargaz@lambdageek Could you please review Mono changes?

[lambdageek]

Mono changes LGTM

[AustinWise]

With the interpreter transforms actually kicking in, the improvments for Mono WASM are even better. At least I assume that is the reason, I could not figure out how run the interpreter under a debugger.

BenchmarkDotNet=v0.13.3, OS=ubuntu 22.04
AMD Ryzen Threadripper PRO 3955WX 16-Cores, 1 CPU, 32 logical and 16 physical cores
.NET SDK=7.0.101
[Host] : .NET 7.0.1 (7.0.122.56804), X64 RyuJIT AVX2
PR : .NET Core (Mono) 8.0.0-dev, Wasm AOT
merge-base : .NET Core (Mono) 8.0.0-dev, Wasm AOT
Runtime=Wasm IterationCount=3 LaunchCount=1 WarmupCount=3
V8 version 11.1.92

Method	Job	Toolchain	NumberOfObjects	Mean	Error	StdDev	Ratio	RatioSD
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1	139.9 ns	3.64 ns	0.20 ns	0.46	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1	302.9 ns	23.78 ns	1.30 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1	265.1 ns	19.45 ns	1.07 ns	0.81	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1	326.2 ns	14.47 ns	0.79 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	100	136.2 ns	8.35 ns	0.46 ns	0.47	0.01
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	100	292.6 ns	98.27 ns	5.39 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	100	236.7 ns	28.44 ns	1.56 ns	0.70	0.03
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	100	340.1 ns	267.10 ns	14.64 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1000	138.3 ns	10.93 ns	0.60 ns	0.45	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1000	307.0 ns	36.50 ns	2.00 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	1000	233.9 ns	22.86 ns	1.25 ns	0.71	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	1000	330.4 ns	43.60 ns	2.39 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	PR	Wasm: PR	10000	140.2 ns	13.44 ns	0.74 ns	0.43	0.00
TryGetNonExistentValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	10000	322.6 ns	19.63 ns	1.08 ns	1.00	0.00
TryGetExistingValue	PR	Wasm: PR	10000	241.0 ns	24.04 ns	1.32 ns	0.74	0.01
TryGetExistingValue	merge-base	Wasm: merge-base	10000	327.1 ns	51.33 ns	2.81 ns	1.00	0.00

[jkotas]

@AustinWise Could you please resolve the merge conflict?

[AustinWise]

@jkotas I merged in main. Test failure looks like #74838, but did not dig into this deeply.

[jkotas]

@AustinWise Thank you!

[VSadov]

@AustinWise Thanks for getting this through!!

[AustinWise]

Thanks for all the help with reviewing!

Perhaps this PR should be labeled-with tenet-performance so that @stephentoub can find it to potentially include it in the .NET 8 performance improvements post 😀

[stephentoub]

I don't look at the labels. I look at every pr that comes through and track them on a list of prs to consider... this one is already on my list :)