Is there a script available for post processing some objdump --disassemble output to annotate with cycle counts? Especially for the ARM family. Most of the time this would only be a pattern match with a table lookup for the count. I guess annotations like +5M for five memory cycles might be needed. Perl, python, bash, C, etc are fine. I think this can be done generically, but I am interested in the ARM, which has an orthogonal instruction set. Here is a thread on the 68HC11 doing the same thing. The script would need an CPU model option to select the appropriate cycle counts; I think these counts already exist in the gcc machine description.
I don't think there is an objdump switch for this, but RTFM would be great.
Edit: To clarify, assumptions such as best case memory sub-system as will be the case when the code executes from cache are fine. The goal is not a 100% accurate cycle count as per some running machine. It is possible to get a reasonable estimate, otherwise compiler design would be impossible.
As DWelch points out, a simple running total is not possible with deep pipelined architecture, like more recent Cortex chips. The objdump post processing would have to look at surrounding opcodes. A gcc plug-in is more likely to be able to accomplish this and as that is new (4.5+), I don't think such a thing exists. A script for the ARM926 is certainly possible and fairly simple.
The memory latency doesn't matter. The memory controller is like another CPU. It is doing it's business while the CPU is doing arithmetic, etc. A good/well tuned algorithm will parallel the memory accesses with the computations. By counting loads/store and cycles you can determine how much parallelism is accomplished, when you actively profile with a timer. The pipeline is significant due to interlocks between registers, but a cycle count for basic blocks can reliably be calculated and used even on modern ARM processors; this is too complex for a simple script.
Cycle counts are not something that can be assessed by looking at the instruction alone on a modern high end ARM. There is a lot of runtime state that affects the real world retirement rate of an instruction. Does the data it needs exist in the cache? Does the instruction have any dependencies on previous instruction results? If so, what latencies does the forwarding unit remove? How full is the load/store buffer? What kind of memory mapping is it touching? How full are the processor pipelines that this instruction needs? Are there synchronizing instructions in the stream? Has speculation brought forward some data it depends on? What is the state of the register renamer? Have conditional instructions been filling the pipeline or was the decoder smart enough to skip them completely? What are the ratios between the core clock and the bus and memory clocks? What's the size of the branch prediction table?
Without a full processor simulation all you can get are guesses. Whether those numbers are meaningful to you depends on what you are trying to accomplish with them.
There is an online tool which estimates cycle counts on Cortex-A8. However, this CPU is quite old, and programs optimized for it might be suboptimal on newer CPUs.
AFAIK ARM also provides Cortex-A9 and Cortex-A5 cycle-accurate emulators in their RVDS software, but it is quite expensive.
Related
I have an x86-64 Linux program which I am attempting to optimize via perf. The perf report shows the hottest instructions are scalar conversions from double to long with a memory argument, for example:
cvttsd2si (%rax, %rdi, 8), %rcx
which corresponds to C code like:
extern double *array;
long val = (long)array[idx];
(This is an unusual bottleneck but the code itself is very unusual.)
To inform optimizations I want to know if these instructions are hot because of the load from memory, or because of the arithmetic conversion itself. What's the best way to answer this question? What other data should I collect and how should I proceed to optimize this?
Some things I have looked at already. CPU counter results show 1.5% cache misses per instruction:
30686845493287 cache-references
2140314044614 cache-misses # 6.975 % of all cache refs
52970546 page-faults
1244774326560850 instructions
194784478522820 branches
2573746947618 branch-misses # 1.32% of all branches
52970546 faults
Top-down performance monitors show we are primarily backend-bound:
frontend bound retiring bad speculation backend bound
10.1% 25.9% 4.5% 59.5%
Ad-hoc measurement with top shows all CPUs pegged at 100% suggesting we are not waiting on memory.
A final note of interest: when run on AWS EC2, the code is dramatically slower (44%) on AMD vs Intel with the same core count. (Tested on Ice Lake 8375C vs EPYC 7R13). What could explain this discrepancy?
Thank you for any help.
To inform optimizations I want to know if these instructions are hot because of the load from memory, or because of the arithmetic conversion itself. What's the best way to answer this question?
I think there is two main reason for this instruction to be slow. 1. There is a dependency chain and the latency of this instruction is a problem since the processor is waiting on it to execute other instructions. 2. There is a cache miss (saturating the memory with such instruction is improbable unless many cores are doing memory-based operations).
First of all, tracking what is going on on a specific instruction is hard (especially if the instruction is not executed a lot of time). You need to use precise events to track the root of the problem, that is, events for which the exact instruction addresses that caused the event are available. Only a (small) subset of all events are precise one.
Regarding (1), the latency of the instruction should be about 12 cycles on both architecture (although it might be slightly more on the AMD processor, I do not expect a 44% difference). The target processor are able to execute multiple instruction at the same time in a given cycle. Instructions are executed on different port and are also pipelined. The port usage matters to understand what is going on. This means all the instruction in the hot loop matters. You cannot isolate this specific instruction. Modern processors are insanely complex so a basic analysis can be tricky. On Ice Lake processors, you can measure the average port usage with events like UOPS_DISPATCHED.PORT_XXX where XXX can be 0, 1, 2_3, 4_9, 5, 6, 7_8. Only the first three matters for this instruction. The EXE_ACTIVITY.XXX events may also be useful. You should check if a port is saturated and which one. AFAIK, none of these events are precise so you can only analyse a block of code (typically the hot loop). On Zen 3, the ports are FP23 and FP45. IDK what are the useful events on this architecture (I am not very familiar with it).
On Ice Lake, you can check the FRONTEND_RETIRED.LATENCY_GE_XXX events where XXX is a power of two integer (which should be precise one so you can see if this instruction is the one impacting the events). This help you to see whether the front-end or the back-end is the limiting factor.
Regarding (2), you can check the latency of the memory accesses as well as the number of L1/L2/L3 cache hits/misses. On Ice Lake, you can use events like MEM_LOAD_RETIRED.XXX where XXX can be for example L1_MISS L1_HIT, L2_MISS, L2_HIT, L3_MISS and L3_HIT. Still on Ice Lake, t may be useful to track the latency of the memory operation with MEM_TRANS_RETIRED.LOAD_LATENCY_GT_XXX where XXX is again a power of two integer.
You can also use LLVM-MCA to simulate the scheduling of the loop instruction statically on the target architecture (do not consider branches). This is very useful to understand deeply what the scheduler can do pretty easily.
What could explain this discrepancy?
The latency and reciprocal throughput should be about the same on the two platform or at least close. That being said, for the same core count, the two certainly do not operate at the same frequency. If this is not coming from that, then I doubt this instruction is actually the problem alone (tricky scheduling issues, wrong/inaccurate profiling results, etc.).
CPU counter results show 1.5% cache misses per instruction
The thing is the cache-misses event is certainly not very informative here. Indeed, it references the last-level cache (L3) misses. Thus, it does not give any information about the L1/L2 misses (previous events do).
how should I proceed to optimize this?
If the code is latency bound, the solution is to first break any dependency chain in this loop. Unrolling the loop dans rewriting it so to make it more SIMD-friendly can help a lot to improve performance (the reciprocal throughput of this instruction is about 1 cycle as opposed to 12 for the latency so there is a room for improvements in this case).
If the code is memory bound, they you should care about data locality. Data should fit in the L1 cache if possible. There are many tips to do so but it is hard to guide you without more context. This includes for example sorting data, reordering loop iterations, using smaller data types.
There are many possible source of weird unusual unexpected behaviours that can occurs. If such a thing happens, then it is nearly impossible to understand what is going on without the exact code executed. All details matter in this case.
My question primarily applies to firestorm/icestorm (because that's the hardware I have), but I am curious about what other representative arm cores do too. Arm has strange pre- and post-incremented addressing modes. If I have (for instance) two post-incremented loads from the same register, will the second depend on the first, or is the CPU smart enough to perform them in parallel?
AFAIK the exact behaviour of the M1 execution units is mainly undocumented. Still, there is certainly a dependency chain in this case. In fact, it would be very hard to break it and the design of modern processors make this even harder: the decoders, execution units, schedulers are distinct units and it would be insane to dynamically adapt the scheduling based on the instructions executed in parallel by execution units so to be able to break the chain in this particular case. Not to mention that instructions are pipelined and it generally takes few cycles for them to be committed. Furthermore, the time of the instructions is variable based on the fetched memory location. Finally, even this would be the case, the Firestorm documents does not mention such a feedback loop (see below for the links). Another possible solution for a processor to optimize such a pattern is to fuse the microinstructions so to combine the increment and add more parallelism but this is pretty complex to do for a relatively small improvement and there is no evidence showing Firestorm can do that so far (see here for more information about Firestorm instruction fusion/elimitation).
The M1 big cores (Apple's Firestorm) are designed to be massively parallel. They have 6 ALUs per core so they can execute a lot instructions in parallel on each core (possibly at the expense of a higher latency). However, this design tends to require a lot more transistors than current mainstream x86 Intel/AMD alternative (Alderlake/XX-Cove architecture put aside). Thus, the cores operate at a significantly lower frequency so to keep the energy consumption low. This means dependency chains are significantly more expensive on such an architecture compared to others unless there are enough independent instructions to be execute in parallel on the critical path. For more information about how CPUs works please thread Modern Microprocessors - A 90-Minute Guide!. For more information about the M1 processors and especially the Firestorm architecture, please read this deep analysis.
Note that Icestorm cores are designed to be energy efficient so they are far less parallel and thus having a dependency chain should be less critical on such a core. Still, having less dependency is often a good idea.
As for other ARM processors, recent core architecture are not as parallel as Firestorm. For example, the Cortex-A77 and Neoverse V1 have "only" 4 ALUs (which is already quite good). One need to also care about the latency of each instruction actually used in a given code. This information is available on the ARM website and AFAIK not yet published for Apple processors (one need to benchmark the instructions).
As for the pre VS post increment, I expect them to take the same time (same latency and throughput), especially on big cores like Firestorm (that try to reduce the latency of most frequent instruction at the expense of more transistors). However, the actual scheduling of the instruction for a given code can cause one to be slower than the other if the latency is not hidden by other instructions.
I received an answer to this on IRC: such usage will be fairly fast (makes sense when you consider it corresponds to typical looping patterns; good if the loop-carried dependency doesn't hurt too much), but it is still better to avoid it if possible, as it takes up rename bandwidth.
Does such a thing as a deterministic (as in same result every run) architecture emulator exist? It is to benchmark test compilers/interpreters.
I do not mean an emulator that simply runs your program on whatever simulated architecture, but something that would compute an efficiency/speed index based on the analysis of the generated code (such as, the thing would have a deterministic value for the time taken by each instruction).
I can compute benchmark statistics on a real machine, but a deterministic result would eliminate the particularities of my machine and allow me to see the effect of small optimizations.
Intel's IACA is a static analysis tool. What is IACA and how do I use it?. But it only works for a single loop and doesn't model cache effects, only the pipeline. (And it assumes nearly-ideal OoO scheduling, I think, so probably doesn't find ROB-size limits, only front-end vs. execution port vs. loop-carried dependency latency bottlenecks). Plus IACA has some bugs in its cost model (e.g. its unlamination rules for micro-fusion of indexed addressing modes are wrong for Haswell).
AFAIK, there are no cycle accurate x86 simulators publicly available for any modern micro-architecture. We only have emulators that don't even try to run at the same speed as any real hardware, just as fast as possible, like BOCHS and qemu. I'm sure Intel and AMD have simulator software internally to validate CPU designs and model their performance, though.
You could probably assign a cycle cost to every instruction in an interpreting emulator like BOCHS and get a deterministic number, and maybe model the cache, too (there are cache simulators). It would be the same every time you ran it, but it wouldn't correspond to the running time on any real hardware!
Being deterministic is nowhere near sufficient to be interesting for tuning software. Modern x86 CPUs have a lot of microarchitectural state for out-of-order execution. We can often predict very close to how they'll run a loop (http://agner.org/optimize/, and other performance links in the x86 tag wiki), but on a larger scale there are many things that are only known by the vendors so so we couldn't write a truly accurate simulator even if we had the time. Things like branch-prediction are known in general terms, but the details have not been reverse-engineered in full detail. But branch prediction is a critical part of making a heavily pipelined CPU sustain anywhere near 3 to 4 fused-domain (front-end) uops per clock in real code.
Things get even more complicated if you want to model a multi-core machine, and SMT / HT adds lots of complexity between threads sharing a core. It's barely deterministic in the real hardware because small timing variations can lead to different threads getting farther out of sync.
To be really useful, you'd want to be able to test your code on Sandybridge, Haswell, Skylake, Bulldozer, Ryzen, and maybe Silvermont. And maybe different variants of those with different amounts of cache, and server vs. desktop where L3 / memory latency differs. (Many-core servers have significantly worse uncore latency, and lower single-threaded bandwidth even though the aggregate bandwidth is higher.)
So the whole idea of a deterministic simulator for "the x86 architecture" is weird. You could make one as simply as by giving each instruction a cost of 1 cycle, but that would be totally unrealistic.
Assume I have two implementations of the same algorithm in assembly. I would like to know by examining the two snippets codes which one is faster.
The parameters I thought one might take into account are: number of op-codes, number of branches, number of function frames.
My questions are:
Can I assume each opcode execution is one cycle ?
What is the overhead of branch which break the pipeline ?
What are the effects and overhead of calling a function ?
Is there a difference in the analysis between ARM and x86 ?
The question is theoretical since I have two implementations; one 130 instructions long and one is 184 instructions long.
And I would like to know if it is definitely true to say the 130 instructions long snippet is faster than the 184 instructions long implementation?
"BETTER == FASTER"
Without wanting to be flippant, the answers are
no
that depends on your hardware
that depends on your hardware
yes
You would really need to test things on your target hardware, or have a simulator that understands your hardware fully, in order to answer your question the way you meant to...
For the last part of your question, you need to define "better"…better.
Since you asked about a Cortex A9, the data sheet has instruction cycle counts in appendix B. These counts generally assume that the memory bus is fast enough to keep the CPU busy. In reality this is rarely the case. Many video/audio algorithms will have a big win in how they access memory.
One cycle per op
Of course you can't assume this if you want an exact count. However, if you are deciding which algorithm to choose, you can get a feel for the best algorithm by looking at the instructions in the inner loop. Here, your cache should allow the code to execute as per the instruction counts in the data sheet. If the counts are close, then you probably need to look at each instruction. Load/stores are more expensive and usually multiples, etc. Some algorithms, especially crytographic, will have big wins by using assembler that doesn't map well to C. For example, clz, ror, using the carry for multi-word arithmetic, etc.
Branch overhead
Look in Appendix B, or whatever data sheet has cycle counts for your processor. For an ARM926 it is about 3 cycles. The compiler only generates two conditional opcodes in a row to avoid branching, otherwise, it branches. If the algorithm is large, the branch may disrupt the cache. A hard answer depends on your CPU, cache, and memory. According to the Cortex A9 datasheet (B.5), there is only one cycle overhead to a fixed branch.
Function overhead
This is much the same as the branch overhead. However, the compiler will also have an influence. noted by Jim Does it cache align functions. Does the compiler perform leaf function optimizations, etc. With modern gcc versions, if all the functions are static, the compiler will generally in-line when it is advantageous. If the algorithms are particularly large, a register spill may be advantageous. However, with your example of 130/184 instructions, this seems unlikely. The compiler options will obviously effect the overhead. You can use objdump -S to examine the prologue/epilogue and then determine the number of cycles for your hardware.
ARM verus x86
Of course there is a technical difference in the cycle counts. The CISC x86 also has variable instruction size. This complicates the analysis. It is slightly easier on the ARM.
Normally, you want to ball park things and then actually run them with a profiler. The estimates can help guide development of the algorithms. Loop/memory tuning, etc for your hardware. Something like instruction emulation, page or alignment faults, etc may be dominant and make all the cycle count analysis meaningless. If the algorithm is in user space, per-emption, may negate cache wins from run to run. It is possible that one algorithm will work better in a little loaded system and the other will work better under a higher load.
A note on cycle counts
See the post-process objdump for some complications in getting cycle counts. Basically a typical CPU is several phases (a pipe line) and different conditions can cause stalls. As CPU's become more complex, the pipe line typically gets longer, meaning there are more conditions or phases which can stall. However, cycle count estimates can be helpful in guiding development of an algorithm and evaluating them. Things like memory timing or branch prediction can be just as important, depending on the algorithm. Ie, cycle counts are not completely useless, but they are not complete either. Profiling should confirm actual algorithm times. If they diverge, instruction re-ordering, pre-fetching and other techniques may bring them closer. The fact that cycle counts and active profiling diverge can be helpful in itself.
It is definitely not true to say that the 130 instruction code is faster than the 184 instruction code. it is very easy to have 1000 instructions run faster than 100 and vice versa on either of these platforms.
1 Can I assume each opcode execution is one cycle ?
Start by looking at the advertised mips/mhz, although a marketing number it gives a rough idea of what is possible. If the number is greater than one then more than one instruction per clock is possible.
2 What is the overhead of branch which break the pipeline ?
Anywhere from absolutely no affect to a very dramatic affect, on either system. one clock to hundreds are the potential penalty.
3 What are the effects and overhead of calling a function ?
Depends heavily on the function, and the function calling the function. Depending on the calling convention you might have to save registers to the stack, or rearrange the contents of registers to prepare for the parameters for the function to be called. If passing a struct by value a copy of the struct may need to be made on the stack, the bigger the struct passed the bigger the copy. once in the function a stack frame may need to be prepared, etc, etc. There are many factors involved. This question and answer are also independent of platform.
4 Is there a difference in the analysis between ARM and x86 ?
yes and no, both systems use all the modern tricks of pipelining, branch prediction, etc to keep the mips/mhz up. ARM is going to give a better mips per mhz than x86, x86 being variable instruction length might give more instructions per unit cache. How you analyze the cache, and memory and peripheral systems in the systems side of the analysis is roughly the same. The comparison of the instructions and core are similar and different depending on what aspects you are analyzing. The arm is not microcoded, the x86 likely is so you dont really see how many registers there really are, things like that. at the same time the x86 you can get a better look at the memory system with the arm, since they are generally not system on a chip. Depending on what ARM chip you buy you may lose a lot of the visibility in the boundaries of the chip, might not see all the memory and peripheral busses, for example. (x86 is changing that by putting pcie on chip now for example) in the case of something in the cortex-a class you mentioned you would have similar edge of chip visibility as those would use larger/cheaper dram based memory off chip rather than microcontroller like on chip resources.
Bottom line your final question:
"And I would like to know if it is definitely true to say the 130 instructions long snippet is faster than the 184 instructions long implementation?"
It is definitely NOT TRUE to say the 130 instruction snippet is faster than the 184 instruction snippet. It might be faster it might be slower and it might be about the same. With a lot more information we might be able to make a pretty good statement or it may still be non-deterministic. it is easy to choose 100 instructions that execute faster than 1000 instructions and likewise easy to choose 1000 instructions that execute faster than 100 instructions (even if I were to add no branching and no loops, just linear execution)
Your question is almost entirely meaningless: It probably depends on your input.
Most CPUs have something resembling a branch misprediction penalty (e.g. traditional ARM which throws away an instruction fetch/decode on any taken branch, IIRC). ARM and x86 also allow conditional execution, which can be faster than branching. If either of these are dependent on input data, then different inputs will follow different code paths.
Perhaps one version heavily uses conditional execution, which is wasteful when the condition is false. Perhaps another was compiled using some profiling information that performs no branches (except the return at the end) for a specific case. There are many, many reason why a compiler can take the same source and produce an "optimized" output which is faster for one input and slower for another.
Many optimizations have this characteristic — for example, aligning the start of a loop to 16 bytes helps on some processors, but not when the loop is only executed once.
Some text book answer to this question from Cortex
™
-A Series Programmer’s Guide, chapter 17.
Although cycle timing information can be found in the Technical Reference Manual (TRM) for the processor that you are using, it is very difficult to work out how many cycles even a trivial piece of code will take to execute. The movement of instructions through the pipeline is dependent on the progress of the surrounding instructions and can be significantly affected by memory system
activity. Pending loads or instruction fetches which miss in the cache can stall code for tens of cycles. Standard data processing instructions (logical and arithmetic) will take only one or two cycles to execute, but this does not give the full picture. Instead, we must use profiling tools, or the system performance monitor built-in to the processor, to extract useful information about performance.
Also read under 17.4 Cortex-A9 micro-architecture optimizations which answers your question very very much.
Approximately, how many physical instructions of MIPS does an abstract algorithm operation amortize to? As for an abstract algorithm operation, I means a basic operation, such as add, divide, etc.
I see this is not a strict measuring technique :-)
Kejia
There is a list of the basic MIPS instructions here. Most of the "basic operations" that you mentioned are a single MIPS instruction or perhaps two, which probably holds true on most current CPU families.
However this does not take into account at all the architecture and performance characteristics of any of the modern CPUs. Different instructions often have diffrent completion times. Current CPUs usually implement branch prediction, instruction pipelines, memory caching, parallelisation and a whole list of other techniques to make the code execution faster.
Therefore just having the assembly code implementation of an algorithm says nothing about its execution speed. You would have to measure and profile the code on the actual hardware to obtain comparable results. In fact, some algorithms may be far more effective on certain CPUs, even within the same CPU family.
A common and rather understandable example is the effect of the instruction cache. Unrolling a loop will eliminate a number of branch operations, which intuitively makes code faster. If you run that code on a CPU of the same family with very little instruction cache memory, though, the added accesses to the main memory can make it far slower than the simple branch-based loop.
Computers are complicated. If you want to get down to this level you need to start considering what kind of CPU you are using, how well your compiler can use this CPU's instruction set, what variables are being kept in what registers, what are their bit-level representations, etc. Even then, the number of instructions not always easily maps to the actual running time. Different instructions can take different ammounts of clock cycles to execute and this is not even thinking about OS threading and your program's cache miss rate.
In the end, there is a good reason we use big-O notatoin in the first place :)
BTW, most simple operations (add, subtract) on integers should map to a single machine instruction, in case you are worried.
It depends on the CPU architecture. Some processors requires several cycles for a single instruction such as divivide, while others manage to execute all machine code instructions in a single cycle each.
It is sometimes relevant to measure an algorithm in how many floating point operations it requires. However this does not take I/O (such as reading memory) into consideration.
The speed of a CPU is sometimes provided in FLOPS (Floating Point OPerations per Second) which could help to give you a time estimate. Again, not taking I/O into consideration - and not multi-threading issues (also a very important measuring factor).
Donald Knuth addressed this very problem in writing Volume 1 of "The Art of Computer Programming".
In the preface he gives a lengthy justification for presenting algorithms in the assembly code for an imaginary machine -
... To avoid this dilemma, I have
attempted to design an "ideal"
computer called "MIX," with very
simple rules of operation ...
That way, one can talk sensibly about how many "cycles" an algorithm would take, without having to care about differences between machines, caching, latency, pipelines, or any of the other ways computers have been optimized to save time, at the expense of knowing how long they will take.