Performance Tips:
There are two basic rules for writing efficient code:
- Don't do work that you don't need to do.
- Don't allocate memory if you can avoid it.
Avoid Creating Unnecessary Objects:
Object creation is never free. A generational garbage collector with per-thread allocation pools for temporary objects can make allocation cheaper, but allocating memory is always more expensive than not allocating memory.
As you allocate more objects in your app, you will force a periodic garbage collection, creating little "hiccups" in the user experience. The concurrent garbage collector introduced in Android 2.3 helps, but unnecessary work should always be avoided.
Thus, you should avoid creating object instances you don't need to. Some examples of things that can help:
- If you have a method returning a string, and you know that its result will always be appended to a
StringBuffer
anyway, change your signature and implementation so that the function does the append directly, instead of creating a short-lived temporary object. - When extracting strings from a set of input data, try to return a substring of the original data, instead of creating a copy. You will create a new
String
object, but it will share thechar[]
with the data. (The trade-off being that if you're only using a small part of the original input, you'll be keeping it all around in memory anyway if you go this route.)
A somewhat more radical idea is to slice up multidimensional arrays into parallel single one-dimension arrays:
- An array of
int
s is a much better than an array ofInteger
objects, but this also generalizes to the fact that two parallel arrays of ints are also a lot more efficient than an array of(int,int)
objects. The same goes for any combination of primitive types. - If you need to implement a container that stores tuples of
(Foo,Bar)
objects, try to remember that two parallelFoo[]
andBar[]
arrays are generally much better than a single array of custom(Foo,Bar)
objects. (The exception to this, of course, is when you're designing an API for other code to access. In those cases, it's usually better to make a small compromise to the speed in order to achieve a good API design. But in your own internal code, you should try and be as efficient as possible.)
Generally speaking, avoid creating short-term temporary objects if you can. Fewer objects created mean less-frequent garbage collection, which has a direct impact on user experience.
Prefer Static Over Virtual:
If you don't need to access an object's fields, make your method static. Invocations will be about 15%-20% faster. It's also good practice, because you can tell from the method signature that calling the method can't alter the object's state.
Use Static Final For Constants:
Consider the following declaration at the top of a class:
static int intVal = 42; static String strVal = "Hello, world!";
The compiler generates a class initializer method, called
<clinit>
, that is executed when the class is first used. The method stores the value 42 into intVal
, and extracts a reference from the classfile string constant table forstrVal
. When these values are referenced later on, they are accessed with field lookups.
We can improve matters with the "final" keyword:
static final int intVal = 42; static final String strVal = "Hello, world!";
The class no longer requires a
<clinit>
method, because the constants go into static field initializers in the dex file. Code that refers to intVal
will use the integer value 42 directly, and accesses to strVal
will use a relatively inexpensive "string constant" instruction instead of a field lookup.
Avoid Internal Getters/Setters:
In native languages like C++ it's common practice to use getters (
i = getCount()
) instead of accessing the field directly (i = mCount
). This is an excellent habit for C++ and is often practiced in other object oriented languages like C# and Java, because the compiler can usually inline the access, and if you need to restrict or debug field access you can add the code at any time.
However, this is a bad idea on Android. Virtual method calls are expensive, much more so than instance field lookups. It's reasonable to follow common object-oriented programming practices and have getters and setters in the public interface, but within a class you should always access fields directly.
Without a JIT, direct field access is about 3x faster than invoking a trivial getter. With the JIT (where direct field access is as cheap as accessing a local), direct field access is about 7x faster than invoking a trivial getter.
Note that if you're using ProGuard, you can have the best of both worlds because ProGuard can inline accessors for you.
Use Enhanced For Loop Syntax:
The enhanced
for
loop (also sometimes known as "for-each" loop) can be used for collections that implement the Iterable
interface and for arrays. With collections, an iterator is allocated to make interface calls tohasNext()
and next()
. With an ArrayList
, a hand-written counted loop is about 3x faster (with or without JIT), but for other collections the enhanced for loop syntax will be exactly equivalent to explicit iterator usage.
There are several alternatives for iterating through an array:
static class Foo { int mSplat; } Foo[] mArray = ... public void zero() { int sum = 0; for (int i = 0; i < mArray.length; ++i) { sum += mArray[i].mSplat; } } public void one() { int sum = 0; Foo[] localArray = mArray; int len = localArray.length; for (int i = 0; i < len; ++i) { sum += localArray[i].mSplat; } } public void two() { int sum = 0; for (Foo a : mArray) { sum += a.mSplat; } }
zero()
is slowest, because the JIT can't yet optimize away the cost of getting the array length once for every iteration through the loop.one()
is faster. It pulls everything out into local variables, avoiding the lookups. Only the array length offers a performance benefit.two()
is fastest for devices without a JIT, and indistinguishable from one() for devices with a JIT. It uses the enhanced for loop syntax introduced in version 1.5 of the Java programming language.
So, you should use the enhanced
for
loop by default, but consider a hand-written counted loop for performance-critical ArrayList
iteration.Consider Package Instead of Private Access with Private Inner Classes:
Consider the following class definition:
public class Foo { private class Inner { void stuff() { Foo.this.doStuff(Foo.this.mValue); } } private int mValue; public void run() { Inner in = new Inner(); mValue = 27; in.stuff(); } private void doStuff(int value) { System.out.println("Value is " + value); } }
What's important here is that we define a private inner class (
Foo$Inner
) that directly accesses a private method and a private instance field in the outer class. This is legal, and the code prints "Value is 27" as expected.
The problem is that the VM considers direct access to
Foo
's private members from Foo$Inner
to be illegal because Foo
and Foo$Inner
are different classes, even though the Java language allows an inner class to access an outer class' private members. To bridge the gap, the compiler generates a couple of synthetic methods:/*package*/ static int Foo.access$100(Foo foo) { return foo.mValue; } /*package*/ static void Foo.access$200(Foo foo, int value) { foo.doStuff(value); }
The inner class code calls these static methods whenever it needs to access the
mValue
field or invoke thedoStuff()
method in the outer class. What this means is that the code above really boils down to a case where you're accessing member fields through accessor methods. Earlier we talked about how accessors are slower than direct field accesses, so this is an example of a certain language idiom resulting in an "invisible" performance hit.
If you're using code like this in a performance hotspot, you can avoid the overhead by declaring fields and methods accessed by inner classes to have package access, rather than private access. Unfortunately this means the fields can be accessed directly by other classes in the same package, so you shouldn't use this in public API.
Avoid Using Floating-Point:
As a rule of thumb, floating-point is about 2x slower than integer on Android-powered devices.
In speed terms, there's no difference between
float
and double
on the more modern hardware. Space-wise,double
is 2x larger. As with desktop machines, assuming space isn't an issue, you should prefer double
tofloat
.
Also, even for integers, some processors have hardware multiply but lack hardware divide. In such cases, integer division and modulus operations are performed in software—something to think about if you're designing a hash table or doing lots of math.
Know and Use the Libraries:
In addition to all the usual reasons to prefer library code over rolling your own, bear in mind that the system is at liberty to replace calls to library methods with hand-coded assembler, which may be better than the best code the JIT can produce for the equivalent Java. The typical example here is
String.indexOf()
and related APIs, which Dalvik replaces with an inlined intrinsic. Similarly, the System.arraycopy()
method is about 9x faster than a hand-coded loop on a Nexus One with the JIT.
Use Native Methods Carefully:
Developing your app with native code using the Android NDK isn't necessarily more efficient than programming with the Java language. For one thing, there's a cost associated with the Java-native transition, and the JIT can't optimize across these boundaries. If you're allocating native resources (memory on the native heap, file descriptors, or whatever), it can be significantly more difficult to arrange timely collection of these resources. You also need to compile your code for each architecture you wish to run on (rather than rely on it having a JIT). You may even have to compile multiple versions for what you consider the same architecture: native code compiled for the ARM processor in the G1 can't take full advantage of the ARM in the Nexus One, and code compiled for the ARM in the Nexus One won't run on the ARM in the G1.
Native code is primarily useful when you have an existing native codebase that you want to port to Android, not for "speeding up" parts of your Android app written with the Java language.
No comments:
Post a Comment