Re: Can you write code directly in CIL ???


"Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
message news:u3hVLnqCGHA.3064@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> Peter,
>
> I highly recommend that you read up on how Garbage Collection works
> exactly.

I already know this. One thing that it can not do is to reclaim memory that is
still in use. I remember reading the algorithm. It is some sort of aging system.
In any case even if my memory needs to be constantly checked to see if it is
still in use, I only need a single monolithic large block. One thing that I do
know about GC, is that it is ONLY invoked when memory runs out, and is needed,
otherwise it is never invoked.
>
>
> --
> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:Hy4sf.37932$QW2.22826@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>
>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>> message news:%23YB$FaqCGHA.3820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> Peter,
>>>
>>> You are missing the point completely. If you implement your code as
>>> managed code, even in IL, you can't stop a GC no matter what. Your thread
>>> is going to be pre-empted (in most situations, except if you have the GC
>>> running on a separate thread) and it WILL stop and it WILL affect your
>>> performance when it happens.
>>
>> I don't care if a GC occurs during the execution of my code. It can't occur
>> because of my code because my code knows how much memory it needs in advance
>> and always needs all of this memory the whole time that it is executing. If
>> some other process interrupts my code, it won't hurt it. My code just can't
>> take more than 1/10 second to execute, since it needs to execute every second
>> this will limit its use to 10% of the CPU time. Ultimately I want to limit my
>> thread's required execution to no more than 10% of the CPU time. This means
>> that this one function can't take more than 1/10 second to execute.
>>
>>>
>>> Just because your code knows how much memory it needs doesn't mean that
>>> you can pre-empt a GC. If it happens, it's going to happen, and there is
>>> nothing you can do about it. Your 100-line function isn't going to be able
>>> to stop it, and the CLR isn't going to care what your function is doing.
>>>
>>> You can't just pretend its not going to happen. It does, and it will,
>>> and you can't stop it. This isn't a choice you have if you are running
>>> managed code, whether you do it in IL or not.
>>>
>>> This is what it means to have ^managed^ code. The CLR is going to
>>> provide a good number of services, but you are going to have to pay for
>>> them, and should be aware of how they impact your code.
>>>
>>> This is why I recommended that you use interop with your unmanaged code.
>>> You will have your performance requirements fufilled, and not have to worry
>>> about doing something that will ultimately be self-defeating.
>>
>> I don't think that unmanaged code would make a good .NET component. The
>> current design requires the function to be implemented as a .NET component.
>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>
>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>> news:GV3sf.37927$QW2.2410@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>
>>>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in
>>>> message news:uvvaatpCGHA.4004@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>
>>>>> You don't understand a fundamental concept to .NET and CIL. Yes, there
>>>>> are compilers that will perform optimization of IL to a certain degree.
>>>>>
>>>>> However, when the managed code is run, the CLR will take the CIL and
>>>>> then compile it into native code. At this point in time, it is free to
>>>>> optimize, or not optimize, or mangle your code in any way you want when
>>>>> making the transition from CIL to native code.
>>>>>
>>>>> When you are dealing with assembly language in general, you have
>>>>> complete control of what is going on, memory allocation, deallocation,
>>>>> execution, etc, etc. With the CLR, this is taken out of your hands to a
>>>>> degree.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care about these things they are not effecting my performance. What
>>>> is effecting my performance are things such as the compiler failing to
>>>> inline my functions code, and unnecessary overhead in the translation of a
>>>> switch statement. My function will be always executed several million times
>>>> every second. It must run concurrently with other applications.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> For example, have you considered, what happens when a Garbage
>>>>> Collection (GC) occurs while your function is running? If it is in
>>>>> complete managed code, then there is nothing that you can do about it, and
>>>>> your function will resume running when the GC is complete. Depending on
>>>>> what is happening on the machine at the time, combined with what your
>>>>> program is doing, etc, etc, it is very feasible that your code will take
>>>>> more than 1/10th of a second.
>>>> My code knows exactly how much memory it needs at load time. It needs all
>>>> of this memory the whole time that it executes. It would make no sense to
>>>> have any garbage collection of my code's memory in this case. I want my
>>>> code to be implemented as a .ET component.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Just because it looks like assembly language, don't assume that CIL is
>>>>> assembly language. There are some very different things going on under
>>>>> the hood.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>
>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>> news:xj2sf.37906$QW2.34052@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>I want to be able to stick with purely managed code, if possible. I just
>>>>>>need this 100 line function to run as fast as if it was hand tweaked
>>>>>>assembly language. I have examined CIL, for the most part it is
>>>>>>essentially assembly language. From what I understand any optimizations
>>>>>>take place before the CIL is generated. When I designed this system (in
>>>>>>1998) I had hand tweaked assembly language in mind for this crucial
>>>>>>function all along.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>>>>>> in message news:%23RjK3$oCGHA.2040@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all. When the CLR gets a hold of the JIT, it is free to
>>>>>>> perform any optimizations it deems necessary, and that might not
>>>>>>> necessarily be in line with what you are expecting.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My recommendation would be to use Managed C++ to create a wrapper to
>>>>>>> your unmanaged code which uses It Just Works (IJW, seriously). You
>>>>>>> should get a managed interface, and the best possible performance (for
>>>>>>> this specific situation, not all situations) between managed an
>>>>>>> unmanaged code.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>>>>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:_51sf.37898$QW2.37853@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>I need the best possible execution speed. I have found that there is a
>>>>>>>>large difference in the quality of the code generated by the various
>>>>>>>>compilers. I have 16,000 hours of development time in my current
>>>>>>>>project. There is a 100 line function that must take no longer than 1/10
>>>>>>>>second to execute. I can just barely achieve this with MSVC++ 6.0.
>>>>>>>>MSVC++ 7.0 has had some of its optimizations disabled. I eventually will
>>>>>>>>need to port this to C# .NET. This is a case where hand tweaked assembly
>>>>>>>>language would be appropriate. I figured that hand tweaked CIL would be
>>>>>>>>the .NET equivalent of hand tweaked assembly language.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]" <mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
>>>>>>>> wrote in message news:OCvd7unCGHA.2644@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>> Peter,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can write it, but you would have to create a module with IL,
>>>>>>>>> and then compile that into your assembly (or just write the whole
>>>>>>>>> assembly).
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Also, what optimizations do you think you can make? Ultimately,
>>>>>>>>> you suffer from the fact that Windows is not a real-time OS, and
>>>>>>>>> nothing you can do will change that. On top of that, the JIT is
>>>>>>>>> what's going to optimize your code again after you try to, so you
>>>>>>>>> might actually end up hurting yourself more than helping yourself.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you post the code you are trying to optimize, we can try and
>>>>>>>>> tell you where you might make some improvements, but dipping down to
>>>>>>>>> the IL level is most likely not going to help you much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>>>> - Nicholas Paldino [.NET/C# MVP]
>>>>>>>>> - mvp@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "Peter Olcott" <olcott@xxxxxxx> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>> news:7t%rf.37887$QW2.9998@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>>>>>>>>> Cab you write code directly in the Common Intermediate language? I
>>>>>>>>>> need to optimize a critical real-time function.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>
>


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Can you write code directly in CIL ???
    ... I highly recommend that you read up on how Garbage Collection works ... > advance and always needs all of this memory the whole time that it is ... > execute every second this will limit its use to 10% of the CPU time. ... >>> sense to have any garbage collection of my code's memory in this case. ...
    (microsoft.public.dotnet.languages.csharp)
  • [UNIX] Linux Kernel binfmt_elf ELF Loader Privilege Escalation
    ... Get your security news from a reliable source. ... or in other words to execute a new program. ... One of the Linux format loaders is the ELF (Executable and Linkable ... of the memory map header in the binary image and the program ...
    (Securiteam)
  • [SECURITY] iSEC advisory about binfmt_elf
    ... Linux kernel binfmt_elf loader vulnerabilities ... One of the Linux format loaders is the ELF (Executable and Linkable ... and the position of the memory map header in the binary image and ... An user may try to execute such a malicious binary with an unterminated ...
    (Linux-Kernel)
  • [Full-Disclosure] Linux ELF loader vulnerabilities
    ... Numerous bugs have been found in the Linux ELF binary loader while ... Internally the Linux kernel uses a binary format loader layer to ... and the position of the memory map header in the binary image and ... An user may try to execute such a malicious binary with an unterminated ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
  • Linux ELF loader vulnerabilities
    ... Numerous bugs have been found in the Linux ELF binary loader while ... Internally the Linux kernel uses a binary format loader layer to ... and the position of the memory map header in the binary image and ... An user may try to execute such a malicious binary with an unterminated ...
    (Full-Disclosure)
Loading