原文作者:@玄冬Wong
好久没做过benchmark了,这次之所以想测试下,是怕std::atomic的效率没有windows的Interlocked性能好,测一下发现,性能差不多,Interlocked微弱的领先优势可以忽略不计。
先公布结果:三者的性能几乎相同,windows的Interlocked略好一点点。
测试代码:
#ifdef _WIN64
#ifndef _DEBUG
#pragma comment(lib, "libboost_atomic-vc140-mt-1_60.lib")
#endif
#endif
//#include "stdafx.h"
#include <windows.h>
#include <iostream>
#include <atomic>
#include <boost/atomic.hpp>
#include <time.h>
#include <thread>
#include <list>
#define MAX_THREADS 16
#define LOOP_COUNT 10000000
volatile long g_CountWin = 0;
std::atomic<long> g_CountStd = 0;
boost::atomic_long g_CountBoost(0);
void Interlocked_fun()
{
for (int i = 0; i < LOOP_COUNT; i++)
{
InterlockedIncrement((LPLONG)&g_CountWin);
}
}
void std_atomic_fun()
{
for (int i = 0; i < LOOP_COUNT; i++)
{
++g_CountStd;
}
}
void boost_atomic_fun()
{
for (int i = 0; i < LOOP_COUNT; i++)
{
++g_CountBoost;
}
}
void test_Interlocked()
{
std::list<std::thread*> threadlist;
//测试Interlocked
printf("testing Interlocked...\n");
clock_t start = clock();
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; ++i)
{
std::thread *t1 = new std::thread((&Interlocked_fun));
threadlist.push_back(t1);
}
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
(*i)->join();
}
clock_t finish = clock();
printf("result:%d\n", g_CountWin);
printf("cost:%dms\n", finish - start);
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
delete(*i);
}
}
void test_std_atomic()
{
std::list<std::thread*> threadlist;
//测试std::atomic
printf("testing std::atomic...\n");
clock_t start = clock();
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; ++i)
{
std::thread *t1 = new std::thread((&std_atomic_fun));
threadlist.push_back(t1);
}
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
(*i)->join();
}
clock_t finish = clock();
printf("result:%d\n", g_CountStd);
printf("cost:%dms\n", finish - start);
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
delete(*i);
}
}
void test_boost_atomic()
{
std::list<std::thread*> threadlist;
//测试boost::atomic
printf("testing boost::atomic...\n");
clock_t start = clock();
for (int i = 0; i < MAX_THREADS; ++i)
{
std::thread *t1 = new std::thread((&boost_atomic_fun));
threadlist.push_back(t1);
}
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
(*i)->join();
}
clock_t finish = clock();
printf("result:%d\n", g_CountBoost);
printf("cost:%dms\n", finish - start);
for (std::list<std::thread*>::const_iterator i = threadlist.begin(); i != threadlist.end(); i++)
{
delete(*i);
}
}
int main(char* args, int size)
{
test_Interlocked();
//test_std_atomic();
//test_boost_atomic();
}
三种API的测试线程数都是16个并发线程,测试输出结果如下(跑了5次,取的平均值):
testing Interlocked...
result:160000000
cost:4926ms
testing std::atomic...
result:160000000
cost:4952ms
testing boost::atomic...
result:160000000
cost:4949ms
测试环境:
boost 1.60
windows 10 pro x64
VS2015企业版 update2,release x64
CPU:i7二代移动版