我正在尝试在 java 上实现 Fast Inverse Square Root 以加速 vector 规范化。但是，当我在 Java 中实现单精度版本时，一开始我获得的速度与 1F/(float)Math.sqrt() 大致相同，然后迅速下降到一半。这很有趣，因为虽然 Math.sqrt 使用(我假设)本地方法，但这涉及浮点除法，我听说这真的很慢。我计算数字的代码如下:
public static float fastInverseSquareRoot(float x){
float xHalf = 0.5F * x;
int temp = Float.floatToRawIntBits(x);
temp = 0x5F3759DF - (temp >> 1);
float newX = Float.intBitsToFloat(temp);
newX = newX * (1.5F - xHalf * newX * newX);
return newX;
}
使用我编写的一个短程序，每迭代 1600 万次，然后汇总结果，并重复，我得到如下结果:
1F / Math.sqrt() took 65209490 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 65456128 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 0.378224 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 64131293 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 26214534 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 59.123647 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 27312205 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 56234714 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 105.895914 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 26493281 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 56004783 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 111.392402 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
我一直得到两者速度大致相同的数字，然后进行迭代，其中快速反平方根节省了 1F/Math.sqrt() 所需时间的大约 60%，随后通过几次迭代，快速反平方根运行的时间大约是控制的两倍。我很困惑为什么 FISR 会从 Same -> 快 60% -> 慢 100%，而且每次我运行我的程序时都会发生这种情况。
编辑:以上数据是我在eclipse中运行的。当我用 javac/java 运行程序时，我得到了完全不同的数据:
1F / Math.sqrt() took 57870498 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 88206794 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 52.421004 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 54982400 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 83777562 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 52.371599 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 21115822 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 76705152 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 263.259133 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 20159210 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 80745616 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 300.539585 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 21814675 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 85261648 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 290.845374 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
EDIT2: 几次响应后，速度似乎在几次迭代后稳定下来，但它稳定到的数字非常不稳定。有人知道为什么吗？
这是我的代码(不是很简洁，但这是全部):
public class FastInverseSquareRootTest {
public static FastInverseSquareRootTest conductTest() {
float result = 0F;
long startTime, endTime, midTime;
startTime = System.nanoTime();
for (float x = 1F; x < 4_000_000F; x += 0.25F) {
result = 1F / (float) Math.sqrt(x);
}
midTime = System.nanoTime();
for (float x = 1F; x < 4_000_000F; x += 0.25F) {
result = fastInverseSquareRoot(x);
}
endTime = System.nanoTime();
return new FastInverseSquareRootTest(midTime - startTime, endTime
- midTime);
}
public static float fastInverseSquareRoot(float x) {
float xHalf = 0.5F * x;
int temp = Float.floatToRawIntBits(x);
temp = 0x5F3759DF - (temp >> 1);
float newX = Float.intBitsToFloat(temp);
newX = newX * (1.5F - xHalf * newX * newX);
return newX;
}
public static void main(String[] args) throws Exception {
for (int i = 0; i < 7; i++) {
System.out.println(conductTest().toString());
}
}
private long controlDiff;
private long experimentalDiff;
private double percentError;
public FastInverseSquareRootTest(long controlDiff, long experimentalDiff) {
this.experimentalDiff = experimentalDiff;
this.controlDiff = controlDiff;
this.percentError = 100D * (experimentalDiff - controlDiff)
/ controlDiff;
}
@Override
public String toString() {
StringBuilder sb = new StringBuilder();
sb.append(String.format("1F / Math.sqrt() took %d nanoseconds.%n",
controlDiff));
sb.append(String.format(
"Fast Inverse Square Root took %d nanoseconds.%n",
experimentalDiff));
sb.append(String
.format("Fast Inverse Square Root was %f percent %s than 1F / Math.sqrt()%n",
Math.abs(percentError), percentError > 0D ? "slower"
: "faster"));
return sb.toString();
}
}
最佳答案
JIT 优化器似乎已经放弃了对 Math.sqrt 的调用。
用你未修改的代码，我得到了
1F / Math.sqrt() took 65358495 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 77152791 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 18,045544 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 52872498 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 75242075 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 42,308531 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 23386359 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 73532080 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 214,422951 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 23790209 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 76254902 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 220,530610 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 23885467 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 74869636 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 213,452678 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 23473514 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 73063699 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 211,260168 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 23738564 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 71917013 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 202,954353 percent slower than 1F / Math.sqrt()
fastInverseSquareRoot 的运行时间一直较慢，并且其运行时间都在同一个球场，而 Math.sqrt 调用速度大大加快。
更改代码以便无法避免对 Math.sqrt 的调用，
for (float x = 1F; x < 4_000_000F; x += 0.25F) {
result += 1F / (float) Math.sqrt(x);
}
midTime = System.nanoTime();
for (float x = 1F; x < 4_000_000F; x += 0.25F) {
result -= fastInverseSquareRoot(x);
}
endTime = System.nanoTime();
if (result == 0) System.out.println("Wow!");
我得到了
1F / Math.sqrt() took 184884684 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 85298761 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 53,863804 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 182183542 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 83040574 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 54,419278 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 165269658 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 81922280 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 50,431143 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 163272877 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 81906141 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 49,834815 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 165314846 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 81124465 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 50,927296 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 164079534 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 80453629 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 50,966689 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
1F / Math.sqrt() took 162350821 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root took 79854355 nanoseconds.
Fast Inverse Square Root was 50,813704 percent faster than 1F / Math.sqrt()
很多 Math.sqrt 的时间慢了很多，而 fastInverseSqrt 的时间只稍微慢了一点(现在它必须在每次迭代中做一个减法).
关于java - 为什么快速平方根反比在 Java 上如此奇怪和缓慢？，我们在Stack Overflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/16551140/
类classAprivatedeffooputs:fooendpublicdefbarputs:barendprivatedefzimputs:zimendprotecteddefdibputs:dibendendA的实例a=A.new测试a.foorescueputs:faila.barrescueputs:faila.zimrescueputs:faila.dibrescueputs:faila.gazrescueputs:fail测试输出failbarfailfailfail.发送测试[:foo,:bar,:zim,:dib,:gaz].each{|m|a.send(m)resc
我有一个模型:classItem项目有一个属性“商店”基于存储的值，我希望Item对象对特定方法具有不同的行为。Rails中是否有针对此的通用设计模式？如果方法中没有大的if-else语句，这是如何干净利落地完成的？ 最佳答案 通常通过Single-TableInheritance. 关于ruby-on-rails-Rails-子类化模型的设计模式是什么？，我们在StackOverflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.co
我正在使用的第三方API的文档状态:"[O]urAPIonlyacceptspaddedBase64encodedstrings."什么是“填充的Base64编码字符串”以及如何在Ruby中生成它们。下面的代码是我第一次尝试创建转换为Base64的JSON格式数据。xa=Base64.encode64(a.to_json) 最佳答案 他们说的padding其实就是Base64本身的一部分。它是末尾的“=”和“==”。Base64将3个字节的数据包编码为4个编码字符。所以如果你的输入数据有长度n和n%3=1=>"=="末尾用于填充n%
我主要使用Ruby来执行此操作，但到目前为止我的攻击计划如下:使用gemsrdf、rdf-rdfa和rdf-microdata或mida来解析给定任何URI的数据。我认为最好映射到像schema.org这样的统一模式，例如使用这个yaml文件，它试图描述数据词汇表和opengraph到schema.org之间的转换:#SchemaXtoschema.orgconversion#data-vocabularyDV:name:namestreet-address:streetAddressregion:addressRegionlocality:addressLocalityphoto:i
为什么4.1%2返回0.0999999999999996？但是4.2%2==0.2。 最佳答案 参见此处:WhatEveryProgrammerShouldKnowAboutFloating-PointArithmetic实数是无限的。计算机使用的位数有限(今天是32位、64位)。因此计算机进行的浮点运算不能代表所有的实数。0.1是这些数字之一。请注意，这不是与Ruby相关的问题，而是与所有编程语言相关的问题，因为它来自计算机表示实数的方式。 关于ruby-为什么4.1%2使用Ruby返
它不等于主线程的binding，这个toplevel作用域是什么？此作用域与主线程中的binding有何不同？>ruby-e'putsTOPLEVEL_BINDING===binding'false 最佳答案 事实是，TOPLEVEL_BINDING始终引用Binding的预定义全局实例，而Kernel#binding创建的新实例>Binding每次封装当前执行上下文。在顶层，它们都包含相同的绑定(bind)，但它们不是同一个对象，您无法使用==或===测试它们的绑定(bind)相等性。putsTOPLEVEL_BINDINGput
我可以得到Infinity和NaNn=9.0/0#=>Infinityn.class#=>Floatm=0/0.0#=>NaNm.class#=>Float但是当我想直接访问Infinity或NaN时:Infinity#=>uninitializedconstantInfinity(NameError)NaN#=>uninitializedconstantNaN(NameError)什么是Infinity和NaN？它们是对象、关键字还是其他东西？ 最佳答案 您看到打印为Infinity和NaN的只是Float类的两个特殊实例的字符串
如果您尝试在Ruby中的nil对象上调用方法，则会出现NoMethodError异常并显示消息:"undefinedmethod‘...’fornil:NilClass"然而，有一个tryRails中的方法，如果它被发送到一个nil对象，它只返回nil:require'rubygems'require'active_support/all'nil.try(:nonexisting_method)#noNoMethodErrorexceptionanymore那么try如何在内部工作以防止该异常？ 最佳答案 像Ruby中的所有其他对象
关闭。这个问题需要detailsorclarity.它目前不接受答案。想改进这个问题吗？通过editingthispost添加细节并澄清问题.关闭8年前。Improvethisquestion为什么SecureRandom.uuid创建一个唯一的字符串？SecureRandom.uuid#=>"35cb4e30-54e1-49f9-b5ce-4134799eb2c0"SecureRandom.uuid方法创建的字符串从不重复？
我真的很习惯使用Ruby编写以下代码:my_hash={}my_hash['test']=1Java中对应的数据结构是什么？ 最佳答案 HashMapmap=newHashMap();map.put("test",1);我假设？ 关于java-等价于Java中的RubyHash，我们在StackOverflow上找到一个类似的问题： https://stackoverflow.com/questions/22737685/