I chatted this morning with Alex Gaynor about speeding up coverage.py on PyPy. He's already made some huge improvements, by changing PyPy so that settrace doesn't defeat the JIT.

We got to talking about speeding how coverage stores data during execution. What coverage stores depends on how you use it. For statement coverage, it needs to store a set of numbers for each file. The numbers are the line numbers that have been executed. Currently coverage stores these in a dictionary, using the numbers as keys, and None as a value.

If you use branch coverage, then coverage needs to store pairs of numbers, the line number jumped from and the line number jumped to, for each line transition. It currently stores these in a dictionary with a tuple of two numbers as keys, and None as a value. (Yes, it should really be an actual set.)

For statement coverage, a faster data structure would be a bit-vector: a large chunk of contiguous memory where each bit represents a number. To store a number, set the bit corresponding to the number. This would definitely be faster than the dictionary.

But for branch pairs, what options do we have? A general pair-of-integers data structure is probably too complex. But I had a hunch that our data had idiosyncracies we could take advantage of. In particular, for most of our pairs of numbers, the two numbers will be close together, since many branches are just a few statements forward in the code.

To test this hunch, I made a quick experiment. I reached for the nearest large project (Open edX), and changed its .coveragerc files to use the Python tracer. Then I hacked a counter into the Python tracer which would tally up, for each line transition, what was the delta between the source and the destination.

After running the tests, I had data like this:

-159: 6
  -6: 10439
  -5: 5548
  -4: 7856
  -3: 22892
  -2: 13976
  -1: 363659
   0: 141834
   1: 2160602
   2: 471227
   3: 474249
   4: 159185
   5: 67638
   6: 93216
   7: 54037
  21: 565
  22: 5197
  23: 1834
  24: 975
  25: 117251
  26: 5316
  27: 9907
  28: 3030
  29: 3397
  30: 1555
  37: 20413
  38: 40443
  39: 2732
  40: 23349
 348: 222
 349: 810
 350: 86
 351: 80478
 352: 9
 367: 2
 368: 318
 369: 179
 370: 14903
 371: 1530
 372: 713
 373: 14
1553: 15
1558: 81
1561: 1014
2396: 1
2412: 35
2431: 34
2512: 34
2555: 37
2575: 34
2624: 37
2656: 37
2678: 37

The data showed what I suspected: there's a huge bulge around zero, since most branches are to points nearby in the code. There are also spikes elsewhere, like the 80k branches that went 351 lines forward. And I don't understand why the seven largest jumps all occurred 34 or 37 times?

In any case, this pointed to a possible storage strategy. My first idea was a handful of bit-vectors, say 10. To store the pair (a, b), you use the difference b-a (which is the value our data above shows) to choose a particular bit-vector, and store a in that vector. If b-a is more than 10, then you fall back to a dictionary. Since most values of b-a are in that small range, we'll mostly use the bit-vector, and save time.

A variant of this idea is instead of using a bit-vector, use a vector of ints. To store (a, b), you set bit number b-a in the a'th int. If b-a is too large, then you fall back to a dictionary. To properly capture the biggest bulge around zero, you'd pick an offset like -2, and instead of b-a, you'd use b-a+offset as the bit index, so that a delta of -2 would be stored in bit 0.

A quick program tried out various values of the width of the int, and the offset from zero. The results:

Int size 8, offset 0: 68.05%
Int size 32, offset 0: 73.28%
Int size 64, offset 0: 77.73%
Int size 8, offset -1: 73.87%
Int size 32, offset -6: 80.74%
Int size 64, offset -7: 85.50%

This says that if we use a vector of bytes, with an offset of -1, then 73% of the data will use the vector, the rest would go to the dictionary. If we use 64-bit ints with an offset of -7, then 85% of them would be fast.

One factor not accounted for here: you'd also have to limit the length of the int vector, starting line numbers larger than the length of the vector would also have to go into the dictionary, but that should also be a small factor.

I'm not taking on any of this work now, but it's fascinating to work through the details. It might make an interesting pull request...

tagged: » react


Add a comment:

Ignore this:
not displayed and no spam.
Leave this empty:
not searched.
Name and either email or www are required.
Don't put anything here:
Leave this empty: