标签:默认 变化 单元测试 方式 tpm 功能 intel 过程 方案
WebApiClient的netcoreapp版本的开发已接近尾声,最后的进攻方向是性能的压榨,我把我所做性能优化的过程介绍给大家,大家可以依葫芦画瓢,应用到自己的实际项目中,提高程序的性能。
使用MockResponseHandler消除真实http请求,原生HttpClient、WebApiClientCore和Refit的性能参考:
BenchmarkDotNet=v0.12.1, OS=Windows 10.0.18362.836 (1903/May2019Update/19H1)
Intel Core i3-4150 CPU 3.50GHz (Haswell), 1 CPU, 4 logical and 2 physical cores
.NET Core SDK=3.1.202
[Host] : .NET Core 3.1.4 (CoreCLR 4.700.20.20201, CoreFX 4.700.20.22101), X64 RyuJIT
DefaultJob : .NET Core 3.1.4 (CoreCLR 4.700.20.20201, CoreFX 4.700.20.22101), X64 RyuJIT
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev |
---|---|---|---|
HttpClient_GetAsync | 3.945 μs | 0.2050 μs | 0.5850 μs |
WebApiClientCore_GetAsync | 13.320 μs | 0.2604 μs | 0.3199 μs |
Refit_GetAsync | 43.503 μs | 0.8489 μs | 1.0426 μs |
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev |
---|---|---|---|
HttpClient_PostAsync | 4.876 μs | 0.0972 μs | 0.2092 μs |
WebApiClientCore_PostAsync | 14.018 μs | 0.1829 μs | 0.2246 μs |
Refit_PostAsync | 46.512 μs | 0.7885 μs | 0.7376 μs |
优化之后的WebApiClientCore,性能靠近原生HttpClient,并领先于Refit。
性能基准测试可以帮助我们比较多个方法的性能,在没有性能基准测试工具的情况下,我们仅凭肉眼如何区分性能的变化。
BenchmarkDotNet是一款强力的.NET性能基准测试库,其为每个被测试的方法提供了孤立的环境,使用BenchmarkDotnet,我们很容易的编写各种性能测试方法,并可以避免许多常见的坑。
拿到BenchmarkDotNet,我就迫不及待地写了WebApiClient的老版本、原生HttpClient和WebApiClientCore三个请求对比,看看新的Core版本有没有预期的性能有所提高,以及他们与原生HttpClient有多少性能损耗。
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev |
---|---|---|---|
WebApiClient_GetAsync | 279.479 us | 22.5466 us | 64.3268 us |
WebApiClientCore_GetAsync | 25.298 us | 0.4953 us | 0.7999 us |
HttpClient_GetAsync | 2.849 us | 0.0568 us | 0.1393 us |
WebApiClient_PostAsync | 25.942 us | 0.3817 us | 0.3188 us |
WebApiClientCore_PostAsync | 13.462 us | 0.2551 us | 0.6258 us |
HttpClient_PostAsync | 4.515 us | 0.0866 us | 0.0926 us |
粗略地看了一下结果,我开怀一笑,Core版本比原版本性能好一倍,且接近原生。
细看让我大吃一惊,老版本的Get请求怎么这么慢,想想可能是老版本使用Json.net
,之前吃过Json.net
频繁创建ContractResolver性能急剧下降的亏,就算是单例ContractResolver第一次创建也很占用时间。所以改进为在对比之前,做一次请求预热,这样比较接近实际使用场景,预热之后的老版本WebApiClient,Get请求从279us
降低到39us
。
从上面的数据来看,WebApiClientCore在Get请求时明显落后于其Post请求,我的接口是如下定义的:
public interface IWebApiClientCoreApi
{
[HttpGet("/benchmarks/{id}")]
Task<Model> GetAsyc([PathQuery]string id);
[HttpPost("/benchmarks")]
Task<Model> PostAsync([JsonContent] Model model);
}
Get只需要处理参数id,做为请求uri,而Post需要json序列化model为json,证明代码里面的处理参数的[PathQuery]特性性能低下,[PathQuery]依赖于UriEditor工具类,执行流程为先尝试Replace(),不成功则调用AddQUery(),UriEditor的原型如下:
class UriEditor
{
public bool Replace(string name, string? value);
public void AddQuery(string name, string? value);
}
考虑到请求uri为[HttpGet("/benchmarks/{id}")]
,这里流程上是不会调用到AddQuery()方法的,所以锁定性能低的方法就是Replace()方法,接下来就是想办法改造Replace方法了,下面为改造前的Replace()实现:
/// <summary>
/// 替换带有花括号的参数的值
/// </summary>
/// <param name="name">参数名称,不带花括号</param>
/// <param name="value">参数的值</param>
/// <returns>替换成功则返回true</returns>
public bool Replace(string name, string? value)
{
if (this.Uri.OriginalString.Contains(‘{‘) == false)
{
return false;
}
var replaced = false;
var regex = new Regex($"{{{name}}}", RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
var url = regex.Replace(this.Uri.OriginalString, m =>
{
replaced = true;
return HttpUtility.UrlEncode(value, this.Encoding);
});
if (replaced == true)
{
this.Uri = new Uri(url);
}
return replaced;
}
在上面代码中,有点经验一眼就知道是Regex拖的后腿,因为业务需要不区分大小写的字符串替换,而现成中能用的,有且仅有Regex能用了,Regex有两种使用方式,一种是创建Regex实例,一种是使用Regex的静态方法。
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev |
---|---|---|---|
ReplaceByRegexStatic | 480.9 ns | 5.50 ns | 5.15 ns |
ReplaceByRegexNew | 2,615.8 ns | 41.33 ns | 36.63 ns |
这一跑就知道原因了,把new Regex替换为静态的Regex调用,性能马上提高5倍!
感觉Regex静态方法的性能还不是很高,自己实现一个Replace函数对比试试,万一比Regex静态方法还更快呢。于是我花一个晚上的时间写了这个Replace函数,对,就是整整一个晚上,来为它做性能测试,为它做单元测试,为它做内存分配优化。
/// <summary>
/// 不区分大小写替换字符串
/// </summary>
/// <param name="str"></param>
/// <param name="oldValue">原始值</param>
/// <param name="newValue">新值</param>
/// <param name="replacedString">替换后的字符中</param>
/// <exception cref="ArgumentNullException"></exception>
/// <returns></returns>
public static bool RepaceIgnoreCase(this string str, string oldValue, string? newValue, out string replacedString)
{
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(str) == true)
{
replacedString = str;
return false;
}
if (string.IsNullOrEmpty(oldValue) == true)
{
throw new ArgumentNullException(nameof(oldValue));
}
var strSpan = str.AsSpan();
using var owner = ArrayPool.Rent<char>(strSpan.Length);
var strLowerSpan = owner.Array.AsSpan();
var length = strSpan.ToLowerInvariant(strLowerSpan);
strLowerSpan = strLowerSpan.Slice(0, length);
var oldValueLowerSpan = oldValue.ToLowerInvariant().AsSpan();
var newValueSpan = newValue.AsSpan();
var replaced = false;
using var writer = new BufferWriter<char>(strSpan.Length);
while (strLowerSpan.Length > 0)
{
var index = strLowerSpan.IndexOf(oldValueLowerSpan);
if (index > -1)
{
// 左边未替换的
var left = strSpan.Slice(0, index);
writer.Write(left);
// 替换的值
writer.Write(newValueSpan);
// 切割长度
var sliceLength = index + oldValueLowerSpan.Length;
// 原始值与小写值同步切割
strSpan = strSpan.Slice(sliceLength);
strLowerSpan = strLowerSpan.Slice(sliceLength);
replaced = true;
}
else
{
// 替换过剩下的原始值
if (replaced == true)
{
writer.Write(strSpan);
}
// 再也无匹配替换值,退出
break;
}
}
replacedString = replaced ? writer.GetWrittenSpan().ToString() : str;
return replaced;
}
这代码不算长,但为它写了好多个Buffers相关类型,所以总体工作量很大。不过总算写好了,来个长一点文本的Benchmark:
public class Benchmark : IBenchmark
{
private readonly string str = "WebApiClientCore.Benchmarks.StringReplaces.WebApiClientCore";
private readonly string pattern = "core";
private readonly string replacement = "CORE";
[Benchmark]
public void ReplaceByRegexNew()
{
new Regex(pattern, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase).Replace(str, replacement);
}
[Benchmark]
public void ReplaceByRegexStatic()
{
Regex.Replace(str, pattern, replacement, RegexOptions.IgnoreCase);
}
[Benchmark]
public void ReplaceByCutomSpan()
{
str.RepaceIgnoreCase(pattern, replacement, out var _);
}
}
Method | Mean | Error | StdDev | Median |
---|---|---|---|---|
ReplaceByRegexNew | 3,323.7 ns | 115.82 ns | 326.66 ns | 3,223.4 ns |
ReplaceByRegexStatic | 881.9 ns | 16.79 ns | 43.94 ns | 868.3 ns |
ReplaceByCutomSpan | 524.0 ns | 4.78 ns | 4.47 ns | 524.9 ns |
大动干戈一个晚上,没多少提高,收支不成正比啊。
在自家里和老哥哥比没意思,所以想跳出来和功能非常相似的Refit做比较看看,在比较之前,我是很有信心的。为了公平,两者都使用默认配置,都进行预热,使用相同的接口定义:
public abstract class BenChmark : IBenchmark
{
protected IServiceProvider ServiceProvider { get; }
public BenChmark()
{
var services = new ServiceCollection();
services
.AddHttpClient(typeof(HttpClient).FullName)
.AddHttpMessageHandler(() => new MockResponseHandler());
services
.AddHttpApi<IWebApiClientCoreApi>()
.AddHttpMessageHandler(() => new MockResponseHandler())
.ConfigureHttpClient(c => c.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://webapiclient.com/"));
services
.AddRefitClient<IRefitApi>()
.AddHttpMessageHandler(() => new MockResponseHandler())
.ConfigureHttpClient(c => c.BaseAddress = new Uri("http://webapiclient.com/"));
this.ServiceProvider = services.BuildServiceProvider();
this.PreheatAsync().Wait();
}
private async Task PreheatAsync()
{
using var scope = this.ServiceProvider.CreateScope();
var core = scope.ServiceProvider.GetService<IWebApiClientCoreApi>();
var refit = scope.ServiceProvider.GetService<IRefitApi>();
await core.GetAsyc("id");
await core.PostAsync(new Model { });
await refit.GetAsyc("id");
await refit.PostAsync(new Model { });
}
}
public interface IRefitApi
{
[Get("/benchmarks/{id}")]
Task<Model> GetAsyc(string id);
[Post("/benchmarks")]
Task<Model> PostAsync(Model model);
}
public interface IWebApiClientCoreApi
{
[HttpGet("/benchmarks/{id}")]
Task<Model> GetAsyc(string id);
[HttpPost("/benchmarks")]
Task<Model> PostAsync([JsonContent] Model model);
}
/// <summary>
/// 跳过真实的http请求环节的模拟Get请求
/// </summary>
public class GetBenchmark : BenChmark
{
/// <summary>
/// 使用原生HttpClient请求
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
[Benchmark]
public async Task<Model> HttpClient_GetAsync()
{
using var scope = this.ServiceProvider.CreateScope();
var httpClient = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IHttpClientFactory>().CreateClient(typeof(HttpClient).FullName);
var id = "id";
var request = new HttpRequestMessage(HttpMethod.Get, $"http://webapiclient.com/{id}");
var response = await httpClient.SendAsync(request);
var json = await response.Content.ReadAsByteArrayAsync();
return JsonSerializer.Deserialize<Model>(json);
}
/// <summary>
/// 使用WebApiClientCore请求
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
[Benchmark]
public async Task<Model> WebApiClientCore_GetAsync()
{
using var scope = this.ServiceProvider.CreateScope();
var banchmarkApi = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IWebApiClientCoreApi>();
return await banchmarkApi.GetAsyc(id: "id");
}
/// <summary>
/// Refit的Get请求
/// </summary>
/// <returns></returns>
[Benchmark]
public async Task<Model> Refit_GetAsync()
{
using var scope = this.ServiceProvider.CreateScope();
var banchmarkApi = scope.ServiceProvider.GetRequiredService<IRefitApi>();
return await banchmarkApi.GetAsyc(id: "id");
}
}
去掉物理网络请求时间段,WebApiClient的性能是Refit的3倍,我终于可以安心的睡个好觉了!
这文章写得比较乱,是真实的记录我在做性能调优的过程,实际上的过程中,走过的大大小小弯路还更乱,要是写下来文章就没法看了,有需要性能调优的朋友,不防跑一跑banchmark,你会有收获的。
标签:默认 变化 单元测试 方式 tpm 功能 intel 过程 方案
原文地址:https://www.cnblogs.com/kewei/p/12969601.html