目前最重要的限制因素是有限的内存带宽。多核只会让情况变得更糟，因为带宽是在核之间共享的。此外，用于实现缓存的有限芯片区域也分配给了内核和线程，这进一步恶化了这个问题。最后，保持不同缓存一致性所需的芯片间信号也会随着核数的增加而增加。这也增加了一个惩罚。

这些是您需要管理的影响。有时是通过对代码的微观管理，但有时是通过仔细考虑和重构。

很多注释已经提到了缓存友好的代码。至少有两种不同的风格:

避免内存读取延迟。 降低内存总线压力(带宽)。

第一个问题与如何使数据访问模式更规则有关，从而使硬件预取器更有效地工作。避免动态内存分配，这会将数据对象分散在内存中。使用线性容器代替链表、散列和树。

第二个问题与提高数据重用有关。修改算法以处理适合可用缓存的数据子集，并在数据仍在缓存中时尽可能多地重用这些数据。

更紧密地封装数据并确保在热循环中使用缓存线路中的所有数据，将有助于避免这些其他影响，并允许在缓存中安装更多有用的数据。

向它扔更多的硬件!

你在什么硬件上运行?您是否可以使用特定于平台化的优化(如向量化)? 你能找到更好的编译器吗?比如从GCC换成Intel? 你能让你的算法并行运行吗? 可以通过重新组织数据来减少缓存丢失吗? 可以禁用断言吗? 对编译器和平台进行微优化。在if/else语句中，把最常见的语句放在前面

我想这已经用不同的方式说过了。但是当你在处理一个处理器密集型算法时，你应该以牺牲其他所有东西为代价来简化最内部循环中的所有东西。

That may seem obvious to some, but it's something I try to focus on regardless of the language I'm working with. If you're dealing with nested loops, for example, and you find an opportunity to take some code down a level, you can in some cases drastically speed up your code. As another example, there are the little things to think about like working with integers instead of floating point variables whenever you can, and using multiplication instead of division whenever you can. Again, these are things that should be considered for your most inner loop.

有时，您可能会发现在内循环中对整数执行数学运算的好处，然后将其缩小为随后可以使用的浮点变量。这是一个牺牲一个部分的速度来提高另一个部分的速度的例子，但在某些情况下，这样做是值得的。

不像之前的答案那么深入或复杂，但下面是: (这些更多是初级/中级水平)

明显:干 向后运行循环，所以总是与0比较，而不是与变量比较 尽可能使用位操作符 将重复的代码分解为模块/函数 缓存对象 局部变量具有轻微的性能优势 尽可能限制字符串操作

我花了一些时间优化在低带宽和长延迟网络(例如卫星、远程、离岸)上运行的客户端/服务器业务系统，并能够通过相当可重复的过程实现一些显著的性能改进。

Measure: Start by understanding the network's underlying capacity and topology. Talking to the relevant networking people in the business, and make use of basic tools such as ping and traceroute to establish (at a minimum) the network latency from each client location, during typical operational periods. Next, take accurate time measurements of specific end user functions that display the problematic symptoms. Record all of these measurements, along with their locations, dates and times. Consider building end-user "network performance testing" functionality into your client application, allowing your power users to participate in the process of improvement; empowering them like this can have a huge psychological impact when you're dealing with users frustrated by a poorly performing system. Analyze: Using any and all logging methods available to establish exactly what data is being transmitted and received during the execution of the affected operations. Ideally, your application can capture data transmitted and received by both the client and the server. If these include timestamps as well, even better. If sufficient logging isn't available (e.g. closed system, or inability to deploy modifications into a production environment), use a network sniffer and make sure you really understand what's going on at the network level. Cache: Look for cases where static or infrequently changed data is being transmitted repetitively and consider an appropriate caching strategy. Typical examples include "pick list" values or other "reference entities", which can be surprisingly large in some business applications. In many cases, users can accept that they must restart or refresh the application to update infrequently updated data, especially if it can shave significant time from the display of commonly used user interface elements. Make sure you understand the real behaviour of the caching elements already deployed - many common caching methods (e.g. HTTP ETag) still require a network round-trip to ensure consistency, and where network latency is expensive, you may be able to avoid it altogether with a different caching approach. Parallelise: Look for sequential transactions that don't logically need to be issued strictly sequentially, and rework the system to issue them in parallel. I dealt with one case where an end-to-end request had an inherent network delay of ~2s, which was not a problem for a single transaction, but when 6 sequential 2s round trips were required before the user regained control of the client application, it became a huge source of frustration. Discovering that these transactions were in fact independent allowed them to be executed in parallel, reducing the end-user delay to very close to the cost of a single round trip. Combine: Where sequential requests must be executed sequentially, look for opportunities to combine them into a single more comprehensive request. Typical examples include creation of new entities, followed by requests to relate those entities to other existing entities. Compress: Look for opportunities to leverage compression of the payload, either by replacing a textual form with a binary one, or using actual compression technology. Many modern (i.e. within a decade) technology stacks support this almost transparently, so make sure it's configured. I have often been surprised by the significant impact of compression where it seemed clear that the problem was fundamentally latency rather than bandwidth, discovering after the fact that it allowed the transaction to fit within a single packet or otherwise avoid packet loss and therefore have an outsize impact on performance. Repeat: Go back to the beginning and re-measure your operations (at the same locations and times) with the improvements in place, record and report your results. As with all optimisation, some problems may have been solved exposing others that now dominate.

In the steps above, I focus on the application related optimisation process, but of course you must ensure the underlying network itself is configured in the most efficient manner to support your application too. Engage the networking specialists in the business and determine if they're able to apply capacity improvements, QoS, network compression, or other techniques to address the problem. Usually, they will not understand your application's needs, so it's important that you're equipped (after the Analyse step) to discuss it with them, and also to make the business case for any costs you're going to be asking them to incur. I've encountered cases where erroneous network configuration caused the applications data to be transmitted over a slow satellite link rather than an overland link, simply because it was using a TCP port that was not "well known" by the networking specialists; obviously rectifying a problem like this can have a dramatic impact on performance, with no software code or configuration changes necessary at all.