写高并发程序时慎用strncpy和sprintf

         分享一下最近做程序优化的一点小心得:在写高并发交易代码时要谨慎使用strncpy和sprintf。

         下面详细介绍一下这样说的原因及建议实践:

1 慎用strncpy因为它的副作用极大

         我们平时使用strncpy防止字符串拷贝时溢出,常常这样写

char buf[1024] = {0};

char str[16] = "hello";

strncpy(buf, sizefo(buf), str);

         这样写当然没问题,但有些人不知道的是:strncpy一行代码执行时是往buf写了sizeof(buf) = 1024个字节,而不是直观以为的strlen(str) + 1 = 6个字符。

         也就是说我们为了复制6个字符却写了1024个字节,多了不少额外消耗。如果这个函数被频繁调用,会导致系统性能出现不少损失。

         因为调用strncpy(dest, n, str)时,函数首先将字符从源缓冲区str逐个复制到目标缓冲区dest,直到拷贝了n碰上。

         紧接着,strncpy函数会往buf填充字符直到写满n个字符。

         所以我才会说上面的代码strncpy才会写了1024个字节。

         可以做一个小实验:

 

         看上面代码及输出结果,我们可以知道在执行strncpy之前dest是用'1'填充的,但在执行strncpy后,前面几个字符变成hello,后面的字符全变成;

         我个人的解决方法是写一个宏专用于往字符数组拷贝的,与大家分享一下,抛砖引玉。

 
// 静态断言  从vc拷贝过来(_STATIC_ASSERT) 稍微修改了一下 
// 原来是typedef char __static_assert_t[ (expr) ]
// 现在是typedef char __static_assert_t[ (expr) - 1 ] 
// 原因是gcc支持0字符数组
//TODO: 这里在win上编译有警告 有待优化 另外在linux宏好像不起作用 原因待查。暂时只有在win编译代码可以用
#ifndef _STATIC_ASSERT_RCC
#   ifdef __GNUC__
#       define _STATIC_ASSERT_RCC(expr) typedef char __static_assert_t[ (expr) - 1 ]
#   else
#       define _STATIC_ASSERT_RCC(expr) do { typedef char __static_assert_t[ (expr) ]; } while (0)
#   endif
#endif
 
//将src复制到字符数组arr 保证不会越界并且末尾肯定会加
//_STATIC_ASSERT_RCC这里作用是防止有人传字符串指针进来
#define strncpy2arr(arr, src) do { 
    char *dest_ = arr; 
    size_t n = strnlen(src, sizeof(arr) - 1); 
    _STATIC_ASSERT_RCC(sizeof(arr) != sizeof(char *)); 
    memcpy(dest_, src, n); 
    dest_[n] = ''; 
} while (0)
 
 
#ifdef WIN32
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
    char dest[16];
    char *src = "hello                                    222";
    int i = 0;
 
    for (i = 0; i < sizeof(dest); ++i)
    {
        dest[i] = '1';
    }
 
    printf("before strncpy
");
    for (i = 0; i < sizeof(dest); ++i)
    {
        printf("%d ", dest[i]);
    }
    printf("
");
 
    strncpy2arr(dest, src);
    printf("after strncpy
");
    for (i = 0; i < sizeof(dest); ++i)
    {
        printf("%d ", dest[i]);
    }
    printf("
");
 
    strncpy(dest, src, sizeof(dest));
    printf("after strncpy
");
    for (i = 0; i < sizeof(dest); ++i)
    {
        printf("%d ", dest[i]);
    }
    printf("
");
    
 
    return 0;
   
    //return CompressPerformanceTestMain(argc, argv);
}
#endif
 

2 慎用sprintf,因为它的效率比你想象的低

         之前我一直没注意到sprintf效率低的问题,直到有一次使用callgrind对程序进行性能分析时,发现有相当大的资源消耗在sprintf上面,我才有所警觉。

         为此,我写了一点测试代码,对常用的函数做了一下基准测试,结果如下:

测试内容

耗时(us

for循环赋值40亿次

13023889

调用简单函数40亿次

16967986

调用memset函数4亿次

(256个字节)

6932237

调用strcpy函数4亿次

(12个字节)

3239218

调用memcpy函数4亿次

(12个字节)

3239201

调用strcmp函数4亿次

(12个字节)

2500568

调用memcmp函数4亿次

(12个字节)

2668378

调用strcpy函数4亿次

(74个字节)

4951085

调用memcpy函数4亿次

(74个字节)

4950890

调用strcmp函数4亿次

(74个字节)

5551391

调用memcmp函数4亿次

(74个字节)

3840448

调用sprintf函数8千万次

(约27个字节)

21398106

调用scanf函数8千万次

(约27个字节)

36158749

调用fwrite函数8千万次

5913579

调用fprintf函数8千万次

24806837

调用fread函数8千万次

3182704

调用fscanf函数8千万次

18739442

调用WriteLog函数20万次

(15个字节)

4873746

调用WriteLog函数20万次

(47个字节)

4846449

调用WriteLog函数20万次

(94个字节)

4950448

 

1us = 1000ms

 

图示:scanf/printf系列函数耗时是其它常见字符串操作函数的10倍以上,甚至比io操作还耗时

测试代码见这里:

 

#define TEST_LOG_INF NULL, __FILE__, __LINE__

 

#ifdef WIN32

 

#define WriteLog lazy_log_output

#define LOG_ERROR NULL, __FILE__, __LINE__

#define LOG_KEY NULL, __FILE__, __LINE__

#define sleep(n) Sleep(100 * n)

 

 

int gettimeofday(struct timeval *tv, struct timezone *tz)

{

    SYSTEMTIME wtm;

    GetLocalTime(&wtm);

    tv->tv_sec = (long)(wtm.wDayOfWeek * 24 * 3600 + wtm.wHour * 3600 + wtm.wMinute * 60 + wtm.wSecond);

    tv->tv_usec = wtm.wMilliseconds * 1000;

 

    return 0;

}

 

void InitLog(const char *logname)

{

 

}

#endif

 

struct timeval  begTimes = {0}, endTims = {0};

void beginTimer()

{

    gettimeofday(&begTimes, NULL);

}

 

int g_nSleepSec = 10;

void stopTimer(char *userdata, const char *file, int fileno, int nSleepFlag)

{

    size_t totalTranTimes;

    gettimeofday(&endTims, NULL);

    totalTranTimes = (size_t)(endTims.tv_sec - begTimes.tv_sec) * 1000000 + (endTims.tv_usec - begTimes.tv_usec); 

 

#ifdef WIN32

    WriteLog(userdata, file, fileno, "== == end == == == totalTranTimes %lu us", (unsigned long) totalTranTimes);

#else

    WriteLog(2, file, fileno, "== == end == == == totalTranTimes %lu us", (unsigned long) totalTranTimes);

#endif

 

    if (nSleepFlag)

    {

        WriteLog(LOG_ERROR, "sleep");

        sleep(g_nSleepSec);

    }

    else

    {

        beginTimer();

    }

}

 

void PerformanceTestLog(char *userdata, const char *file, int fileno, const char *log)

{

    stopTimer(userdata, file, fileno, 1);

#ifdef WIN32

    WriteLog(userdata, file, fileno, "== == beg == == == %s", log);

#else

    WriteLog(2, file, fileno, "== == beg == == == %s", log);

#endif

    beginTimer();

}

 

int func(int argc, char *argv[], char *tmp)

{

    tmp[argc] = '1';

 

    return 0;

}

 

//基准测试

int BaseTest(unsigned long nTimes)

{

    unsigned long i = 0;

    char tmp[256], t1[64], t2[64], t3[64];

    int nTmp;

    const char *strWriten;

 

    nTimes *= 100000; //40亿

    WriteLog(LOG_KEY, "BaseTest %lu", nTimes);

 

    beginTimer();

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test for");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        i = i; 

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test call func");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        func(1, NULL, tmp);

    }

 

    stopTimer(TEST_LOG_INF, 0);

    nTimes /= 10; //4亿

    WriteLog(LOG_KEY, "BaseTest %lu", nTimes);

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test memset");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        memset(tmp, 0, sizeof(tmp));

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test strcpy");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        strcpy(tmp, "test strcpy");

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test memcpy");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        memcpy(tmp, "test strcpy", sizeof("test strcpy"));

    }

 

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test strcmp");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        if (0 == strcmp(tmp, "test strcpy"))

        {

            i = i;

        }

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test memcmp");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        if (0 == memcmp(tmp, "test strcpy", sizeof("test strcpy")))

        {

            i = i;

        }

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test strcpy1");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        strcpy(tmp, "test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy");

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test memcpy1");

 

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        memcpy(tmp, "test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy", 

            sizeof("test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy"));

    }

 

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test strcmp1");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        if (0 == strcmp(tmp, "test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy"))

        {

            i = i;

        }

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test memcmp1");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        if (0 == memcmp(tmp, "test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy", 

            sizeof("test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy  test strcpy test strcpytest strcpy")))

        {

            i = i;

        }

    }

 

    stopTimer(TEST_LOG_INF, 0);

    nTimes /= 5; //8千万

    WriteLog(LOG_KEY, "BaseTest %lu", nTimes);

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test sprintf");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        sprintf(tmp, "thiis %s testing %d", "sprintf", i);

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test sscanf");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        sscanf(tmp, "%s %s %s %d", t1, t2, t3, &nTmp);

    }

 

    {

        FILE *fp;

        int nStr;

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "fopen");

        fp = fopen("performancetest.txt", "w");

        strWriten = "this is testing write
";

        nStr = strlen(strWriten);

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test write file");

        for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

        {

            fwrite(strWriten, 1, nStr, fp);

        }

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "fflush");

        fflush(fp);

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test fprintf file");

        for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

        {

            //太过简单的fprintf好像会被自动优化成fwrite,即使没开优化选项

            //例如 fprintf(fp, "%s", "strWriten");

            fprintf(fp, "%s %d
", "strWriten", i);

        }

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "fclose");

        fclose(fp);

    }

 

    {

        FILE *fp;

        int nStr;

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "fopen 1");

        fp = fopen("performancetest.txt", "r");

 

        nStr = strlen(strWriten);

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test read file");

        for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

        {

            fread(tmp, 1, nStr, fp);

            tmp[nStr] = '';

        }

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "test fscanf file");

        tmp[0] = t1[0] = '';

        for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

        {

            fscanf(fp, "%s %s", tmp, t1);

        }

 

        PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "fclose");

        fclose(fp);

    }

    fclose(fopen("performancetest.txt", "w"));

    

    nTimes /= 400; //20万

    WriteLog(LOG_KEY, "BaseTest %lu", nTimes);

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "WriteLog 1");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        WriteLog(LOG_ERROR, "this is loging");

    }

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "WriteLog 2");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        WriteLog(LOG_ERROR, "this is loging  this is loging  this is loging");

    }

 

 

    PerformanceTestLog(TEST_LOG_INF, "WriteLog 3");

    for (i = 0; i < nTimes; ++i)

    {

        WriteLog(LOG_ERROR, "this is loging  this is loging  this is loging  this is loging  this is loging this is loging");

    }

 

    stopTimer(TEST_LOG_INF, 0);

 

    return 0;

}

         从基准测试结果可以知道,sprintf系列函数效率是比较低的,是我们常见的字符串操作函数的1/10以下。

         我个人的解决方案是sprintf该用还是用,但有些情况不是特别必要用的情况,用自己写一些小函数代替。例如下面这个宏是用来代替sprintf(buf, "%02d", i)的

//sprintf比较慢 这里需要写一些简单的字符串组装函数
//这个是代替%02d的(但不会添加结尾)顾名思义,传入的值需要保证0 <= vallue < 100
//再次提醒注意,这里为了方便调用,不会添加! 不会添加! 不会添加!
#define itoaLt100Ge0(value, buff_output) do 
{
    int value_ = (int)(value);
    char *buff_output_ = (buff_output);
    if ((value_) >= 10) { int nDigit_ = value_ / 10; buff_output_[0] = '0' + nDigit_; buff_output_[1] = '0' + (value_ - nDigit_ * 10); }
    else { buff_output_[0] = '0'; buff_output_[1] = '0' + (value_);  } 
} while (0)
 

        

         总结一下就是:高并发交易需要慎用strncpy和sprintf,因为不恰当使用它们可能会成为程序性能瓶颈。

         如果大家有啥想法,欢迎分享,我是黄词辉,一个程序员 ^_^

原文地址:https://www.cnblogs.com/kingstarer/p/10225674.html