I tend to use pipelines in my bash scripts over process substitution in most situations, especially in cases of using multiple sets of commands as it seems more readable to do ... | ... | ... over ... < <(... < <(...)).
I’m wondering though why using process substitution is much faster in some situations than using a pipeline.
To test this, I timed two scripts using 10000 iterations of the same attached commands with one using a pipeline and another using process substitution.
Scripts:
pipeline.bash:
for i in {1..10000}; do
echo foo bar |
while read; do
echo $REPLY >/dev/null
done
done
proc-sub.bash
for i in {1..10000}; do
while read; do
echo $REPLY >/dev/null
done < <(echo foo bar)
done
Results:
~$ time ./pipeline.bash real 0m17.678s user 0m14.666s sys 0m14.807s ~$ time ./proc-sub.bash real 0m8.479s user 0m4.649s sys 0m6.358s
I know that pipelines create a sub process whereas process substitution creates a named pipe or some file in /dev/fd, but am unclear about how those differences impact performance.
Answers:
Thank you for visiting the Q&A section on Magenaut. Please note that all the answers may not help you solve the issue immediately. So please treat them as advisements. If you found the post helpful (or not), leave a comment & I’ll get back to you as soon as possible.
Method 1
Doing same strace, you can see the differences:
With pipe:
$ strace -c ./pipe.sh % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 57.89 0.103005 5 20000 clone 40.81 0.072616 2 30000 10000 wait4 0.58 0.001037 0 120008 rt_sigprocmask 0.40 0.000711 0 10000 pipe
With proc-sub:
$ strace -c ./procsub.sh % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 85.08 0.045502 5 10000 clone 3.25 0.001736 0 90329 322 read 2.12 0.001133 0 20009 open 2.03 0.001086 0 50001 dup2
With above statistics, you can see pipe create more child processes (clone syscall) and spending many times to wait child process (wait4 syscall) to finish for parent process to continue executing.
Process substitution is not. It can read directly from child processes. Process substitution is performed at the same time with parameter and variable expansion, the command in Process Substitution run in background. From bash manpage:
Process Substitution
Process substitution is supported on systems that support named pipes
(FIFOs) or the /dev/fd method of naming open files. It takes the form
of <(list) or >(list). The process list is run with its input or out‐
put connected to a FIFO or some file in /dev/fd. The name of this file
is passed as an argument to the current command as the result of the
expansion. If the >(list) form is used, writing to the file will pro‐
vide input for list. If the <(list) form is used, the file passed as
an argument should be read to obtain the output of list.
When available, process substitution is performed simultaneously with
parameter and variable expansion, command substitution, and arithmetic
expansion.
Update
Doing strace with statistics from child processes:
With pipe:
$ strace -fqc ./pipe.sh % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 70.76 0.215739 7 30000 10000 wait4 28.04 0.085490 4 20000 clone 0.78 0.002374 0 220008 rt_sigprocmask 0.17 0.000516 0 110009 20000 close 0.15 0.000456 0 10000 pipe
With proc-sub:
$ strace -fqc ./procsub.sh % time seconds usecs/call calls errors syscall ------ ----------- ----------- --------- --------- ---------------- 52.38 0.033977 3 10000 clone 32.24 0.020913 0 96070 6063 read 5.24 0.003398 0 20009 open 2.34 0.001521 0 110003 10001 fcntl 1.87 0.001210 0 100009 close
All methods was sourced from stackoverflow.com or stackexchange.com, is licensed under cc by-sa 2.5, cc by-sa 3.0 and cc by-sa 4.0