Jump to content
  • Advertisement
  • entries
  • comments
  • views

.NET Performance Part 2

Sign in to follow this  


Optimizations That Aren't

It is not that uncommon to see people advocating the usage of unsafe code as a means of producing "optimized" code in the managed environment. The idea is a simple one, by getting down to the metal with pointers and all that fun stuff, you can somehow produce code that will be "optimized" in ways that typical managed code cannot be.

Unsafe code does not allow you to manipulate pointers to managed objects in whatever manner you please. Certain steps have to be taken to ensure that your operations are safe with regards to the managed heap. Just because your code is marked as "unsafe" doesn't mean that it is free to do what it wants. For example, you cannot assign a pointer the address of a managed object without first pinning the object. Pointers to objects are not tracked by the GC, so should you obtain a pointer to an object and then attempt to use the pointer, you could end up accessing a now collected region of memory. What can also happen is that you could obtain a pointer to an object, but when the GC runs your object could be shuffled around on the heap. This shuffling would invalidate your pointer, but since pointers are not tracked by the GC it would not be updated (while references to objects are updated). Pinning objects solves this problem, and hence is why you are only allowed to take the address of an object that's been pinned. In essence, a pinned object cannot be moved nor collected by the GC until it is unpinned. This is typically done through the use of the fixed keyword in C# or the GCHandle structure.

Much like how a fixed object cannot be moved by the GC, a pointer to a fixed object cannot be reassigned. This makes it difficult to traverse primitive arrays, as you end up needing to create other temporary pointers, or limiting the size of the fixed area to a small segment. Fixed objects, and unsafe code, increase the overall size of the produced IL by a fairly significant margin. While an increase in the IL is not indicative of the size of the produced machine code, it does prevent the runtime from inlining such methods. As an example, the two following snippets reveal the difference between a safe inner product and an unsafe one; note that in the unmanaged case it was using a fixed sized buffer.
To read more, please visit my blog or you can pull it from RSS/ATOM
Sign in to follow this  

1 Comment

Recommended Comments

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Advertisement

Important Information

By using GameDev.net, you agree to our community Guidelines, Terms of Use, and Privacy Policy.

We are the game development community.

Whether you are an indie, hobbyist, AAA developer, or just trying to learn, GameDev.net is the place for you to learn, share, and connect with the games industry. Learn more About Us or sign up!

Sign me up!