cuda.bindings benchmarks part 5

[danielfrg]

Description

Follow up #1580

This one is to discuss and improve Cpp harness to make a more stable data collection.

I added a with min-time flag and to report the min/std on the compare.

This is the last one i got, where most of them are <2%.

stream.stream_create_destroy did went back from like 8% to 6% when I collected more time.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark                                   C++ (mean)   C++ RSD   Python (mean)   Py RSD    Overhead
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ctx_device.ctx_get_current                        6 ns      1.6%          111 ns     1.3%     +105 ns
ctx_device.ctx_get_device                         9 ns      1.5%          116 ns     1.7%     +107 ns
ctx_device.ctx_set_current                        8 ns      1.0%          101 ns     2.8%      +93 ns
ctx_device.device_get                             6 ns      4.4%          127 ns     2.4%     +121 ns
ctx_device.device_get_attribute                   8 ns      1.6%          190 ns     1.5%     +182 ns
event.event_create_destroy                       79 ns      1.3%          307 ns     2.0%     +228 ns
event.event_query                                77 ns      1.2%          210 ns     7.1%     +133 ns
event.event_record                               88 ns      1.2%          221 ns     2.2%     +133 ns
event.event_synchronize                          98 ns      1.2%          225 ns     3.2%     +128 ns
launch.launch_16_args                          1.59 us      1.2%         3.12 us     1.6%    +1528 ns
launch.launch_16_args_pre_packed               1.57 us      0.5%         1.97 us     0.3%     +395 ns
launch.launch_2048b                            1.68 us      1.9%         2.50 us     1.6%     +820 ns
launch.launch_256_args                         2.34 us      0.9%        16.50 us     1.8%   +14158 ns
launch.launch_512_args                         3.33 us      0.8%        31.31 us     1.7%   +27973 ns
launch.launch_512_args_pre_packed              3.37 us      1.2%         3.77 us     0.8%     +392 ns
launch.launch_512_bools                        3.39 us      0.7%        57.82 us     3.2%   +54435 ns
launch.launch_512_bytes                        3.40 us      0.7%        59.53 us     2.8%   +56134 ns
launch.launch_512_doubles                      3.32 us      0.7%        86.76 us     3.6%   +83438 ns
launch.launch_512_ints                         3.18 us      0.8%        60.59 us     3.6%   +57411 ns
launch.launch_512_longlongs                    3.31 us      0.7%        65.91 us     2.4%   +62605 ns
launch.launch_empty_kernel                     1.62 us      1.9%         1.87 us     1.4%     +250 ns
launch.launch_small_kernel                     1.57 us      0.3%         2.22 us     1.2%     +651 ns
memory.mem_alloc_async_free_async               386 ns      1.1%          747 ns     1.7%     +361 ns
memory.mem_alloc_free                          1.55 us      2.2%         1.98 us     1.5%     +429 ns
memory.memcpy_dtod                             2.07 us      0.5%         2.29 us     1.4%     +219 ns
memory.memcpy_dtoh                             4.99 us      0.3%         5.42 us     0.8%     +437 ns
memory.memcpy_htod                             3.94 us      0.2%         4.00 us     1.0%      +61 ns
module.func_get_attribute                        14 ns      1.5%          212 ns     1.8%     +198 ns
module.module_get_function                       33 ns      1.7%          179 ns     1.9%     +146 ns
module.module_load_unload                      7.73 us      0.7%         8.26 us     1.4%     +528 ns
nvrtc.nvrtc_compile_program                 7194.82 us      1.2%      7294.98 us     1.1%  +100158 ns
nvrtc.nvrtc_create_program                       68 ns      1.2%          670 ns     1.8%     +603 ns
nvrtc.nvrtc_create_program_100_headers        11.08 us      3.7%        13.14 us     3.0%    +2052 ns
pointer_attributes.pointer_get_attribute         27 ns      1.6%          487 ns     2.1%     +460 ns
stream.stream_create_destroy                   3.48 us      6.1%         3.53 us     1.6%      +57 ns
stream.stream_query                              84 ns      1.5%          217 ns     2.2%     +133 ns
stream.stream_synchronize                       115 ns      1.1%          243 ns     2.8%     +128 ns
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes me feel a bit better about those numbers but the Python ones do seem more stable except event.event_query.

If we think its worth it to do the process isolation for the Cpp one let me know and I will take a look.

Checklist

• New or existing tests cover these changes.
• The documentation is up to date with these changes.

[copy-pr-bot]

This pull request requires additional validation before any workflows can run on NVIDIA's runners.

Pull request vetters can view their responsibilities here.

Contributors can view more details about this message here.

[rwgk]

calibrate_loops() looks like a custom reimplementation of the same minimum-time calibration idea that tools like pyperf and Google Benchmark already provide. I understand that there are advantages to keeping the existing custom C++ harness / pyperf-compatible JSON output, but if we go that route, I think the custom calibration should match the usual/expected --min-time semantics more closely.

Right now, I do not think --min-time actually guarantees the requested minimum sample duration for a large chunk of these microbenchmarks. The calibration stops once it hits max_loops = 1000000, and BenchmarkSuite::run() then uses that capped loop count as-is. For very fast benchmarks, that cap is still well short of 0.1 s per value. For example:

• ~6 ns/op tops out around 6 ms
• ~33 ns/op tops out around 33 ms
• even ~79 ns/op only reaches around 79 ms

So the new "stable collection" mode still under-times many of the exact fast C++ benchmarks it is meant to stabilize. The same issue also seems to apply to the explicit-loop overload, which means the --min-time semantics are not consistently honored there either.

I think that is important to fix before we rely on these numbers as "min-time collected" results, because readers will reasonably assume that --min-time 0.1 means each measured value is actually being calibrated to about 100 ms.

[rwgk]

Generated by Cursor GPT-5.4 Extra High Fast after a few round of prompting, with a few small edits

---

I think the --min-time direction is great, but for async / stream-backed benchmarks the calibration pass may change the state being measured before the first timed sample. For synchronous operations that is probably harmless, but for enqueue-style operations it looks like calibration can leave a substantial backlog on the persistent stream, so the harness may end up measuring "enqueue on an already busy stream" rather than the quieter starting condition these benchmarks had before.

More concretely, calibrate_loops() repeatedly calls fn() until the target wall time is reached, and BenchmarkSuite::run() then immediately goes into run_benchmark() with no post-calibration drain/reset. That means calibration is not just estimating a loop count; it is also mutating benchmark state right before measurement begins.

Why I think this matters:

• For async benchmarks, fn() often enqueues work onto a persistent stream rather than fully completing it.
• A 0.1 s target can mean a lot of enqueued work before the first warmup/value. For example, a ~1.6 us kernel launch benchmark needs on the order of ~60k launches to get there.
• So the first measured sample may start from a deeply backlogged stream rather than an effectively empty stream.

That seems especially relevant for benchmarks like:

• kernel launches in bench_launch.cpp
• cuMemAllocAsync / cuMemFreeAsync in bench_memory.cpp
• cuEventRecord in bench_event.cpp

The effect may be small for some cases, but since this PR is specifically about improving measurement stability, I think it is worth making sure the calibration step is not also changing what is being measured.

Helpful follow-up directions could be:

• add a post-calibration drain/reset step before the first measured warmup/value for async benchmarks
• or do a quick A/B comparison with and without a cuStreamSynchronize() after calibration
• or calibrate on a separate warmup path/stream if that is practical

If those variants all produce essentially the same numbers, that would be reassuring. If they move the launch/async-memory/event benchmarks materially, then this concern is real.

[rwgk]

Missing space after bench