Improve mul!, AddedOperator, and update_coefficients! to remove memory allocations

[albertomercurio]

This PR fixes #246 and the remaining allocations of #247.

This is related to this issue in the SparseArrays.jl package.

[albertomercurio]

Ok, I'm done.

[albertomercurio]

I've also noticed that the time-dependent case is not still fixed. As an example

T = ComplexF64
N = 500
M = 10
# A1 = MatrixOperator(rand(T, N, N))
# A2 = MatrixOperator(rand(T, N, N))
A1 = MatrixOperator(sprand(T, N, N, 5 / N))
A2 = MatrixOperator(sprand(T, N, N, 5 / N))
A3 = MatrixOperator(sprand(T, N, N, 5 / N))

coeff1(a, u, p, t) = sin(p.ω * t)
coeff2(a, u, p, t) = cos(p.ω * t)
coeff3(a, u, p, t) = sin(p.ω * t) * cos(p.ω * t)

c1 = ScalarOperator(rand(T), coeff1)
c2 = ScalarOperator(rand(T), coeff2)
c3 = ScalarOperator(rand(T), coeff3)

H = c1 * A1 + c2 * A2 + c3 * A3

u = rand(T, N);
du = similar(u);
p = (ω=0.1,);
t = 0.1;

@benchmark $H($du, $u, $p, $t)

BenchmarkTools.Trial: 10000 samples with 7 evaluations.
 Range (min … max):  4.964 μs …  10.530 μs  ┊ GC (min … max): 0.00% … 0.00%
 Time  (median):     5.045 μs               ┊ GC (median):    0.00%
 Time  (mean ± σ):   5.079 μs ± 211.087 ns  ┊ GC (mean ± σ):  0.00% ± 0.00%

       ▂▆▇██▇▆▅▃▂▁           ▁▁▁ ▁       ▁▁▁▁                 ▂
  ▄▁▄▃▁█████████████▆▆▅▆▆▆▆▆█████████▆▇▇██████▇▅▇▆▅▆▄▄▄▅▅▃▄▁▄ █
  4.96 μs      Histogram: log(frequency) by time      5.48 μs <

 Memory estimate: 752 bytes, allocs estimate: 8.

And the number of the allocations scales as the number of operators in the sum. I actually don't understand what is the problem.

Anyhow, the time-independent code in #246 is fixed.

[albertomercurio]

Ok, also the time-dependent case should be fixed. At least for the case I studied. I basically followed the discussion on this thread, where they recommended to use generated functions when dealing with tuples of different types.

Indeed, the memory allocations are absent now.

[ChrisRackauckas]

why is this needed?

[albertomercurio]

It is related to this issue in SparseArrays.jl. We currently need it to avoid extra allocations.

[ChrisRackauckas]

is this actually required?

[albertomercurio]

The AddedOperator contains a Tuple of different objects. Performing a simple for loop would lead to runtime dispatch and extra allocations. Following this thread they recommended to use @generated functions. In this way, we directly work with the single types of the Tuple, and we unroll the for loop.

[ChrisRackauckas]

A recursive implmeentation is probably cleaner and would get more compilation reuse?

[albertomercurio]

How exactly?

[ChrisRackauckas]

Needs tests.

[albertomercurio]

I didn't add any new functionality, so the current tests should be fine. This was just to remove extra allocations and improve performance. But if you want to add some test, do you have something specific in mind?

[ChrisRackauckas]

A test for zero allocations so it doesn't regress

[albertomercurio]

Ok, I added the tests. It seems that @allocations returns 1 instead of 0 like with BenchmarkTools.jl. @allocations returns 0 outside of the test.

Anyways, the number of allocations of the current master branch is of the order of hundreds.

[ChrisRackauckas]

It's allocating a return because of the global scope IIUC. Wrap it in a function that then returns nothing.

[albertomercurio]

Still the same. Outside the tests it returns 0 allocations with both @allocations and BenchmarkTools.jl. Inside the test it returns 1.

[ChrisRackauckas]

@oscardssmith rfc

[oscardssmith]

This happens because apply_op! is a a dispatch so it's allocating for the method call. It does seem to me that this might be a bug in the @allocations macro, but I'm not entirely sure. The easiest way to get around it is to something like

test_apply_noalloc(H, du, u, p, t) = @test @allocations apply_op!(H, du, u, p, t) ==0

since that will introduce a function barrier.

[albertomercurio]

Ok, now it returns 0 allocations even in the runtests.