# fwdlist - A simply linked list in [Rust](https://www.rust-lang.org/).
[](https://travis-ci.org/bombela/fwdlist)
A simple forward linked list, [see the API documentation](http://bombela.github.io/fwdlist/fwdlist/index.html).
The crate is also available on [crates.io](https://crates.io/crates/fwdlist).
It's a linked list. Its not cache friendly, its relatively slow when you think
about it, but it allows for O(1) insertion... after the current cursor
location, maybe you care about that.
# Avoiding unsafe
One of the goal here is to play with Rust and see how much unsafe is needed. It turns
out that you can implement the basics of a simply linked list without using
unsafe.
The mutable iterator and cursor both need mutable acces to the list with a different lifetime
than the mutable reference on the list itself.
The compiler cannot infer that auto-magically and needs a bit of our help.
# penultimate_link() performances
Sometimes the code is more convoluted than necessary to please the borrow
checker. Some unsafe code would make the code not only easier to read, but also
*as we might believe naively*, more efficient for the machine.
The best example here is `penultimate_link()`, which returns a mutable reference
to last but one link of the list.
To illustrate what this function returns, let's assume the following list:
```text
head_link -> node1.next -> node2.next -> node3.next -> nil
```
In this case, `penultimate_link()` will return a mutable reference to
`node2.next`. It is then trivial to implement `pop_back()` with a simple
`Option.take()`.
See `penultimate_link()` and `penultimate_link_with_unsafe()` implementations
further below.
## Assembly output
Take a look at the assembly outputs (cargo build --release) below:
* `penultimate_link()`:
```gas
0000000000016200 <::only_safe::>:
16200: 48 8b 4f 08 mov 0x8(%rdi),%rcx
16204: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
16206: 48 85 c9 test %rcx,%rcx
16209: 74 1f je 1622a <::only_safe::+0x2a>
1620b: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
1620d: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
16210: 48 89 ca mov %rcx,%rdx
16213: 48 8b 4a 08 mov 0x8(%rdx),%rcx
16217: 48 85 c9 test %rcx,%rcx
1621a: 74 0e je 1622a <::only_safe::+0x2a>
1621c: 48 83 79 08 00 cmpq $0x0,0x8(%rcx)
16221: 75 ed jne 16210 <::only_safe::+0x10>
16223: 48 83 c2 08 add $0x8,%rdx
16227: 48 89 d0 mov %rdx,%rax
1622a: c3 retq
```
* `penultimate_link_with_unsafe()`:
```gas
00000000000168a0 <::with_unsafe::>:
168a0: 31 c0 xor %eax,%eax
168a2: 48 83 7f 08 00 cmpq $0x0,0x8(%rdi)
168a7: 74 18 je 168c1 <::with_unsafe::+0x21>
168a9: 48 83 c7 08 add $0x8,%rdi
168ad: 0f 1f 00 nopl (%rax)
168b0: 48 8b 0f mov (%rdi),%rcx
168b3: 48 83 79 08 00 cmpq $0x0,0x8(%rcx)
168b8: 48 89 f8 mov %rdi,%rax
168bb: 48 8d 79 08 lea 0x8(%rcx),%rdi
168bf: 75 ef jne 168b0 <::with_unsafe::+0x10>
168c1: c3 retq
```
## Assembly quick analysis
The first thing to note, is how well the original code is translated from high
level Option and Box to simple null-able pointers.
* `penultimate_link()` is a loop with two conditional branches inside, and it
tests twice every nodes of the list (exactly like in the Rust code). One test
on every next_link, before testing it again when it become the new link to work
on new every new iteration.
* `penultimate_with_unsafe()` is a loop with only one condition, but it keeps a
“prev_link” pointer handy, again like in the Rust code.
Looking at the assembly with my ridiculously weak knowledge of modern CPU
architecture, I infer that `penultimate_link()` requires twice the amount of
branches predictions and both functions perform two data read per iteration.
Considering how modern CPUs seems to pipeline/pre-fetch like crazy, the two
branchs predictions should pretty much cost like only one.
## Callgrind/Cachegrind (valgrind) analysis
After adding `#[inline(never)]` on both `penultimate_link*` functions, I ran
valgrind like so:
```sh
$ valgrind --tool=callgrind --dump-instr=yes --trace-jump=yes --cache-sim=yes --branch-sim=yes --collect-atstart=no --toggle-collect=*penultimate_link* target/release/fwdlist... --test one_penultimate
```
We basically get the following report:
| safe_only | 6,291,459 | 2,097,152 | 1 261,697 | 236,874 | 2,097,151 | 4 |
| unsafe | 5,242,886 | 2,097,154 | 1 261,697 | 238,678 | 1,048,577 | 5 |
* **Ir**: instruction read, `penultimate_link()` has more instructions and so
more instruction read.
* **Dr**: data read. `penultimate_with_unsafe()` performs one more loop
iteration, reading **2** more data.
* **D1mr**: data read misses on L1 cache. Similar between the two.
* **DLmr**: data read misses on Last Level cache. Interestingly,
`penultimate_with_unsafe()` has more misses.
* **Bc**: Conditional branches. Confirms that `penultimate_link()` has two vs
one conditions.
* **Bcm**: Conditional branches misses. `penultimate_with_unsafe()` gets one
more, maybe the extra iteration?
## Benchmark
`penultimate_link()` is faster than `penultimate_with_unsafe()` on real hardware.
Benchmarks with List\<i64\> and BIGLIST_SIZE=2<sup>20</sup> (list takes ~16Mib):
```text
AMD Phenom(tm) II X4 965 Processor
penultimate_safe ... bench: 3651099 ns/iter (+/- 35924)
penultimate_with_unsafe ... bench: 3687377 ns/iter (+/- 33386)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-2720QM CPU @ 2.20GHz
penultimate_safe ... bench: 2333951 ns/iter (+/- 27634)
penultimate_with_unsafe ... bench: 2334611 ns/iter (+/- 43642)
Intel(R) Core(TM) i5-3320M CPU @ 2.60GHz
penultimate_safe ... bench: 1675111 ns/iter (+/- 106477)
penultimate_with_unsafe ... bench: 2127297 ns/iter (+/- 128966)
```
Benchmarks with List\<i64\> and BIGLIST_SIZE=2<sup>30</sup> (list takes ~16Gib):
```text
Intel(R) Xeon(R) CPU E5-1650 0 @ 3.20GHz
penultimate_safe ... bench: 2399497518 ns/iter (+/- 357540058)
penultimate_with_unsafe ... bench: 2509462341 ns/iter (+/- 377119880)
```
## Performances conclusion
Convoluted safe code vs simpler unsafe code doesn't necessary mean that unsafe
code is going to be faster. In our specific case `penultimate_with_unsafe()` is
indeed slower!
This is great because with safe Rust code, the compiler basically proves
for us that there is no possible memory bugs. Any code refactoring cannot
possibly introduce new memory bugs, the compiler wouldn't let it pass.
Happy hacking!