fwrite() - effect of size and count on performance

问题

There seems to be a lot of confusion regarding the purpose of the two arguments 'size' and 'count' in fwrite(). I am trying to figure out which will be faster -

fwrite(source, 1, 50000, destination);

fwrite(source, 50000, 1, destination);

This is an important decision in my code as this command will be executed millions of times.

Now, I could just jump to testing and use the one which gives better results, but the problem is that the code is intended for MANY platforms.

So,

How can I get a definitive answer to which is better across platforms?
Will implementation logic of fwrite() vary from platform to platform?

I realize there are similar questions (What is the rationale for fread/fwrite taking size and count as arguments?, Performance of fwrite and write size) but do understand that this is a different question regarding the same issue. The answers in similar questions do not suffice in this case.

回答1:

The performance should not depend on either way, because anyone implementing fwrite would multiply size and count to determine how much I/O to do.

This is exemplified by FreeBSD's libc implementation of fwrite.c, which in its entirety reads (include directives elided):

/*
 * Write `count' objects (each size `size') from memory to the given file.
 * Return the number of whole objects written.
 */
size_t
fwrite(buf, size, count, fp)
    const void * __restrict buf;
    size_t size, count;
    FILE * __restrict fp;
{
    size_t n;
    struct __suio uio;
    struct __siov iov;

    /*
     * ANSI and SUSv2 require a return value of 0 if size or count are 0.
     */
    if ((count == 0) || (size == 0))
        return (0);

    /*
     * Check for integer overflow.  As an optimization, first check that
     * at least one of {count, size} is at least 2^16, since if both
     * values are less than that, their product can't possible overflow
     * (size_t is always at least 32 bits on FreeBSD).
     */
    if (((count | size) > 0xFFFF) &&
        (count > SIZE_MAX / size)) {
        errno = EINVAL;
        fp->_flags |= __SERR;
        return (0);
    }

    n = count * size;

    iov.iov_base = (void *)buf;
    uio.uio_resid = iov.iov_len = n;
    uio.uio_iov = &iov;
    uio.uio_iovcnt = 1;

    FLOCKFILE(fp);
    ORIENT(fp, -1);
    /*
     * The usual case is success (__sfvwrite returns 0);
     * skip the divide if this happens, since divides are
     * generally slow and since this occurs whenever size==0.
     */
    if (__sfvwrite(fp, &uio) != 0)
        count = (n - uio.uio_resid) / size;
    FUNLOCKFILE(fp);
    return (count);
}

回答2:

The purpose of two arguments gets more clear, if you consider ther return value, which is the count of objects successfuly written/read to/from the stream:

fwrite(src, 1, 50000, dst); // will return 50000
fwrite(src, 50000, 1, dst); // will return 1

The speed might be implementation dependent although, I don't expect any considerable difference.

回答3:

I'd like to point you to my question, which ended up exposing an interesting performance difference between calling fwrite once and calling fwrite multiple times to write a file "in chunks".

My problem was that there's a bug in Microsoft's implementation of fwrite so files larger than 4GB cannot be written in one call (it hangs at fwrite). So I had to work around this by writing the file in chunks, calling fwrite in a loop until the data was completely written. I found that this latter method always returns faster than the single fwrite call.

I'm in Windows 7 x64 with 32 GB of RAM, which makes write caching pretty aggressive.

来源：https://stackoverflow.com/questions/10564562/fwrite-effect-of-size-and-count-on-performance

标签

performance

fwrite