Why should a processor implement a subtract instruction ? Why cant the compilers change subtraction to 2-s complement additions?
Because if every subtraction had to be two instructions (negate and add) then you'd waste a lot of memory traffic (because code would become larger), cache space (because code would be larger), and instruction decode time (because there would be more instructions to decode), for a tiny gain in CPU simplicity. Totally not worth it.
Addition and subtraction are used enough that it makes sense to build it in. It is a trade off between having more native instructions which require less CPU cycles to faster CPU cycles (more cycles / second).
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.
I am trying to find out how long it takes to execute 10,000 RISC instructions with 4 bytes from a processor that is 2GHz and another that is 4GHz, I only need the very basics of a formula
I have tried 10,000 x 4 = 40,000 / 2x10^9 and 40,000 / 4x10^9
There isn't a correct way to calculate this. There are a number of dependencies and complexities:
What type of instructions are included? Instructions cycle counts can vary from 1 cycle to 20-30 cycles per instructions. How many of these instructions can be dispatched at once?
What is the memory access pattern and how is the CPU memory access designed? How effective will caching/pre-fetching be (and does the CPU support)?
Are there many branches? How predictable are those branches and how many are within the critical portion of the code? What is the cost of a miss-predict?
and more.
Fundamentally the question you are asking isn't easily solvable and absolutely depends on the code to be run.
Generally speaking, code execution does not scale linearly so it is unlikely that for anything non-trivial that a 4GHz processor will be twice as fast as a 2GHz processor.
I am looking for relevant performance indicators to benchmark and optimize my C/C++ code. For example, virtual memory usage is a simple but efficient indicator, but I know some are more specialized and help in optimizing specific domains : cache hits/misses, context switches, and so on.
I believe here is a good place to have a list of performance indicators, what they measure, and how to measure them, in order to help people who want to start optimizing their programs know where to start.
Time is the most relevant indicator.
This is why most profilers default to measuring / sampling time or core clock cycles. Understanding where your code spends its time is an essential first step to looking for speedups. First find out what's slow, then find out why it's slow.
There are 2 fundamentally different kinds of speedups you can look for, and time will help you find both of them.
Algorithmic improvements: finding ways to do less work in the first place. This is often the most important kind, and the one Mike Dunlavey's answer focuses on. You should definitely not ignore this. Caching a result that's slow to recompute can be very worth it, especially if it's slow enough that loading from DRAM is still faster.
Using data structures / algorithms that can more efficiently solve your problem on real CPUs is somewhere between these two kinds of speedups. (e.g. linked lists are in practice often slower than arrays because pointer-chasing latency is a bottleneck, unless you end up copying large arrays too often...)
Applying brute force more efficiently to do the same work in fewer cycles. (And/or more friendly to the rest of the program with smaller cache footprint and/or less branching that takes up space in the branch predictors, or whatever.)
Often involves changing your data layout to be more cache friendly, and/or manually vectorizing with SIMD. Or doing so in a smarter way. Or writing a function that handles a common special case faster than your general-case function. Or even hand-holding the compiler into making better asm for your C source.
Consider summing an array of float on modern x86-64: Going from latency-bound scalar addition to AVX SIMD with multiple accumulators can give you a speedup of 8 (elements per vector) * 8 (latency / throughput on Skylake) = 64x for a medium-sized array (still on a single core/thread), in the theoretical best case where you don't run into another bottleneck (like memory bandwidth if your data isn't hot in L1d cache). Skylake vaddps / vaddss has 4 cycle latency, and 2-per-clock = 0.5c reciprocal throughput. (https://agner.org/optimize/). Why does mulss take only 3 cycles on Haswell, different from Agner's instruction tables? for more about multiple accumulators to hide FP latency. But this still loses hard vs. storing the total somewhere, and maybe even updating the total with a delta when you change an element. (FP rounding error can accumulate that way, though, unlike integers.)
If you don't see an obvious algorithmic improvement, or want to know more before making changes, check whether the CPU is stalling on anything, or if it's efficiency chewing through all the work the compiler is making it do.
Instructions per clock (IPC) tells you whether the CPU is close to its max instruction throughput or not. (Or more accurately, fused-domain uops issued per clock on x86, because for example one rep movsb instruction is a whole big memcpy and decodes to many many uops. And cmp/jcc fuses from 2 instructions to 1 uop, increasing IPC but the pipeline width is still fixed.)
Work done per instruction is a factor, too, but isn't something you can measure with a profiler: if you have the expertise, look at compiler-generated asm to see if the same work with fewer instructions is possible. If the compiler didn't auto-vectorize, or did so inefficiently, you can maybe get a lot more work done per instruction by manually vectorizing with SIMD intrinsics, depending on the problem. Or by hand-holding the compiler into emitting better asm by tweaking your C source to compute things in a way that is natural for asm. e.g. What is the efficient way to count set bits at a position or lower?. And see also C++ code for testing the Collatz conjecture faster than hand-written assembly - why?
If you find low IPC, figure out why by considering possibilities like cache misses or branch misses, or long dependency chains (often a cause of low IPC when not bottlenecked on the front-end or memory).
Or you might find that it's already close to optimally applying the available brute force of the CPU (unlikely but possible for some problems). In that case your only hope is algorithmic improvements to do less work.
(CPU frequency isn't fixed, but core clock cycles is a good proxy. If your program doesn't spend time waiting for I/O, then core clock cycles is maybe more useful to measure.)
A mostly-serial portion of a multi-threaded program can be hard to detect; most tools don't have an easy way to find threads using cycles when other threads are blocked.
Time spent in a function isn't the only indicator, though. A function can make the rest of the program slow by touching a lot of memory, resulting in eviction of other useful data from cache. So that kind of effect is possible. Or having a lot of branches somewhere can maybe occupy some of the branch-prediction capacity of the CPU, resulting in more branch misses elsewhere.
But note that simply finding where the CPU is spending a lot of time executing is not the most useful, in a large codebase where functions containing hotspots can have multiple callers. e.g. lots of time spent in memcpy doesn't mean you need to speed up memcpy, it means you need to find which caller is calling memcpy a lot. And so on back up the call tree.
Use profilers that can record stack snapshots, or just hit control-C in a debugger and look at the call stack a few times. If a certain function usually appears in the call stack, it's making expensive calls.
Related: linux perf: how to interpret and find hotspots, especially Mike Dunlavey's answer there makes this point.
Algorithmic improvements to avoid doing work at all are often much more valuable than doing the same work more efficiently.
But if you find very low IPC for some work you haven't figured out how to avoid yet, then sure take a look at rearranging your data structures for better caching, or avoiding branch mispredicts.
Or if high IPC is still taking a long time, manually vectorizing a loop can help, doing 4x or more work per instruction.
#PeterCordes answers are always good. I can only add my own perspective, coming from about 40 years optimizing code:
If there is time to be saved (which there is), that time is spent doing something unnecessary, that you can get rid of if you know what it is.
So what is it? Since you don't know what it is, you also don't know how much time it takes, but it does take time. The more time it takes, the more worthwhile it is to find, and the easier it is to find it. Suppose it takes 30% of the time. That means a random-time snapshot has a 30% chance of showing you what it is.
I take 5-10 random snapshots of the call stack, using a debugger and the "pause" function.
If I see it doing something on more than one snapshot, and that thing can be done faster or not at all, I've got a substantial speedup, guaranteed.
Then the process can be repeated to find more speedups, until I hit diminishing returns.
The important thing about this method is - no "bottleneck" can hide from it. That sets it apart from profilers which, because they summarize, speedups can hide from them.
I have the source code written and I want to measure efficiency as how many clock cycles it takes to complete a particular task. Where can I learn how many clock cycles different commands take? Does every command take the same amount of time on 8086?
RDTSC is the high-resolution clock fetch instruction.
Bear in mind that cache misses, context switches, instruction reordering and pipelining, and multicore contention can all interfere with the results.
Clock cycles and efficiency are not the same thing.
For efficiency of code you need to consider, in particular, how the memory is utalised, in particular the differing levels of the cache. Also important is the branching prediction of the code etc. You want a profiler that tells you these things, ideally one that gives you profile specific information: examples are CodeAnalyst for AMD chips.
To answer your question, particular base instructions do have a given (average) number of cycles (AMD release the approximate numbers for the basic maths functions in their maths library). These numbers are a poor place to start optimising code, however.
In Crypto communities it is common to measure algorithm performance in cycles/byte. My question is, which parameters in the CPU architecture are affecting this number? Except the clockspeed ofcourse :)
Two important factors are:
the ISA of the CPU, or more specifically how closely CPU instructions map to the operations that you need to perform - if you can perform a given operation in one instruction one CPU but it requires 3 instructions on another CPU then the first CPU will probably be faster. If you have specific crypto instructions on the CPU, or extensions such as SIMD which can be leveraged, then so much the better.
the instruction issue rate of the CPU, i.e. how many instructions can be issued per clock cycle
Here are some CPU features that can impact cycles/byte:
depth of pipeline
number of IU and/or FPU able to work in parallel
size of cache memories
algorithms for branch prediction
algorithms for handling cache miss
Moreover, you may be interested in the general problem of assessing WCET (worst case execution time)
Mainly:
Memory bus bandwidth
CPU instructions per cycle
How much memory the CPU can access per second can be a limiting factor. That depends on the algorithm and how big part of the work is memory access. Also which parts of the memory that is accesses will affect how well the memory cache works.
Nowadays instruction times is not measured in how many cycles an instruction takes, but how many instructions can be executed in the same cycle. The pre-processor in the CPU lines up several instructions to be executed in parallel, so it depends on how many parallel lines the CPU has and how well the code can be parallelised. Generally a lot of conditional branching in the algorithm makes it harder to parallelise.