For an array of 1000 32bit integers, I was able to get a small speedup of about 1.4x single-threaded, using @hirschhornsalz's method in a loop on Intel Sandybridge. With a 60kiB buffer of ints, the speedup is about 1.37. With 8MiB of ints, the speedup is still 1.13. (i5-2500k at 3.8GHz turbo, with DDR3-1600.)
Smaller elements (int16_t or uint8_t, or the unsigned versions) would take an extra stage of shift/add for each doubling of the number of elements per vector. Overflow is bad, so don't try to use a data type that can't hold the sum of all elements, even though it gives SSE a bigger advantage.
#include
// In-place rewrite an array of values into an array of prefix sums.
// This makes the code simpler, and minimizes cache effects.
int prefix_sum_sse(int data[], int n)
{
// const int elemsz = sizeof(data[0]);
#define elemsz sizeof(data[0]) // clang-3.5 doesn't allow compile-time-const int as an imm8 arg to intrinsics
__m128i *datavec = (__m128i*)data;
const int vec_elems = sizeof(*datavec)/elemsz;
// to use this for int8/16_t, you still need to change the add_epi32, and the shuffle
const __m128i *endp = (__m128i*) (data + n - 2*vec_elems); // don't start an iteration beyond this
__m128i carry = _mm_setzero_si128();
for(; datavec <= endp ; datavec += 2) {
IACA_START
__m128i x0 = _mm_load_si128(datavec + 0);
__m128i x1 = _mm_load_si128(datavec + 1); // unroll / pipeline by 1
// __m128i x2 = _mm_load_si128(datavec + 2);
// __m128i x3;
x0 = _mm_add_epi32(x0, _mm_slli_si128(x0, elemsz)); // for floats, use shufps not bytewise-shift
x1 = _mm_add_epi32(x1, _mm_slli_si128(x1, elemsz));
x0 = _mm_add_epi32(x0, _mm_slli_si128(x0, 2*elemsz));
x1 = _mm_add_epi32(x1, _mm_slli_si128(x1, 2*elemsz));
// more shifting if vec_elems is larger
x0 = _mm_add_epi32(x0, carry); // this has to go after the byte-shifts, to avoid double-counting the carry.
_mm_store_si128(datavec +0, x0); // store first to allow destructive shuffle (non-avx pshufb if needed)
x1 = _mm_add_epi32(_mm_shuffle_epi32(x0, _MM_SHUFFLE(3,3,3,3)), x1);
_mm_store_si128(datavec +1, x1);
carry = _mm_shuffle_epi32(x1, _MM_SHUFFLE(3,3,3,3)); // broadcast the high element for next vector
}
// FIXME: scalar loop to handle the last few elements
IACA_END
return data[n-1];
#undef elemsz
}
int prefix_sum_simple(int data[], int n)
{
int sum=0;
for (int i=0; i
sum += data[i];
data[i] = sum;
}
IACA_END
return sum;
}
// perl -we '$n=1000; sub rnlist($$) { return map { int rand($_[1]) } ( 1..$_[0] );} @a=rnlist($n,127); $"=", "; print "$n\n@a\n";'
int data[] = { 51, 83, 126, 11, 20, 63, 113, 102,
126,67, 83, 113, 86, 123, 30, 109,
97, 71, 109, 86, 67, 60, 47, 12,
/* ... */ };
int main(int argc, char**argv)
{
const int elemsz = sizeof(data[0]);
const int n = sizeof(data)/elemsz;
const long reps = 1000000 * 1000 / n;
if (argc >= 2 && *argv[1] == 'n') {
for (int i=0; i < reps ; i++)
prefix_sum_simple(data, n);
}else {
for (int i=0; i < reps ; i++)
prefix_sum_sse(data, n);
}
return 0;
}
Testing with n=1000, with the list compiled into the binary. (And yes, I checked that it's actually looping, not taking any compile-time shortcuts that make the vector or non-vector test meaningless.)
Note that compiling with AVX to get 3-operand non-destructive vector instructions saves a lot of movdqa instructions, but only saves a tiny amount of cycles. This is because shuffle and vector-int-add can both only run on ports 1 and 5, on SnB/IvB, so port0 has plenty of spare cycles to run the mov instructions. uop-cache throughput bottlenecks might be the reason why the non-AVX version is slightly slower. (All those extra mov instructions push us up to 3.35 insn/cycle). The frontend is only idle 4.54% of cycles, so it's barely keeping up.
gcc -funroll-loops -DIACA_MARKS_OFF -g -std=c11 -Wall -march=native -O3 prefix-sum.c -mno-avx -o prefix-sum-noavx
# gcc 4.9.2
################# SSE (non-AVX) vector version ############
$ ocperf.py stat -e task-clock,cycles,instructions,uops_issued.any,uops_dispatched.thread,uops_retired.all,uops_retired.retire_slots,stalled-cycles-frontend,stalled-cycles-backend ./prefix-sum-noavx
perf stat -e task-clock,cycles,instructions,cpu/event=0xe,umask=0x1,name=uops_issued_any/,cpu/event=0xb1,umask=0x1,name=uops_dispatched_thread/,cpu/event=0xc2,umask=0x1,name=uops_retired_all/,cpu/event=0xc2,umask=0x2,name=uops_retired_retire_slots/,stalled-cycles-frontend,stalled-cycles-backend ./prefix-sum-noavx
Performance counter stats for './prefix-sum-noavx':
206.986720 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs utilized
777,473,726 cycles # 3.756 GHz
2,604,757,487 instructions # 3.35 insns per cycle
# 0.01 stalled cycles per insn
2,579,310,493 uops_issued_any # 12461.237 M/sec
2,828,479,147 uops_dispatched_thread # 13665.027 M/sec
2,829,198,313 uops_retired_all # 13668.502 M/sec (unfused domain)
2,579,016,838 uops_retired_retire_slots # 12459.818 M/sec (fused domain)
35,298,807 stalled-cycles-frontend # 4.54% frontend cycles idle
1,224,399 stalled-cycles-backend # 0.16% backend cycles idle
0.207234316 seconds time elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------
######### AVX (same source, but built with -mavx). not AVX2 #########
$ ocperf.py stat -e task-clock,cycles,instructions,uops_issued.any,uops_dispatched.thread,uops_retired.all,uops_retired.retire_slots,stalled-cycles-frontend,stalled-cycles-backend ./prefix-sum-avx
Performance counter stats for './prefix-sum-avx':
203.429021 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs utilized
764,859,441 cycles # 3.760 GHz
2,079,716,097 instructions # 2.72 insns per cycle
# 0.12 stalled cycles per insn
2,054,334,040 uops_issued_any # 10098.530 M/sec
2,303,378,797 uops_dispatched_thread # 11322.764 M/sec
2,304,140,578 uops_retired_all # 11326.509 M/sec
2,053,968,862 uops_retired_retire_slots # 10096.735 M/sec
240,883,566 stalled-cycles-frontend # 31.49% frontend cycles idle
1,224,637 stalled-cycles-backend # 0.16% backend cycles idle
0.203732797 seconds time elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------
################## scalar version (cmdline arg) #############
$ ocperf.py stat -e task-clock,cycles,instructions,uops_issued.any,uops_dispatched.thread,uops_retired.all,uops_retired.retire_slots,stalled-cycles-frontend,stalled-cycles-backend ./prefix-sum-avx n
Performance counter stats for './prefix-sum-avx n':
287.567070 task-clock (msec) # 0.999 CPUs utilized
1,082,611,453 cycles # 3.765 GHz
2,381,840,355 instructions # 2.20 insns per cycle
# 0.20 stalled cycles per insn
2,272,652,370 uops_issued_any # 7903.034 M/sec
4,262,838,836 uops_dispatched_thread # 14823.807 M/sec
4,256,351,856 uops_retired_all # 14801.249 M/sec
2,256,150,510 uops_retired_retire_slots # 7845.650 M/sec
465,018,146 stalled-cycles-frontend # 42.95% frontend cycles idle
6,321,098 stalled-cycles-backend # 0.58% backend cycles idle
0.287901811 seconds time elapsed
------------------------------------------------------------
Haswell should be about the same, but maybe slightly slower per-clock, because shuffle can only run on port 5, not port 1. (vector-int add is still p1/5 on Haswell.)
OTOH, IACA thinks Haswell will be slightly faster than SnB for one iteration, if you compile without -funroll-loops (which does help on SnB). Haswell can do branches on port6, but on SnB branches are on port5, which we already saturate.
# compile without -DIACA_MARKS_OFF
$ iaca -64 -mark 1 -arch HSW prefix-sum-avx
Intel(R) Architecture Code Analyzer Version - 2.1
Analyzed File - prefix-sum-avx
Binary Format - 64Bit
Architecture - HSW
Analysis Type - Throughput
*******************************************************************
Intel(R) Architecture Code Analyzer Mark Number 1
*******************************************************************
Throughput Analysis Report
--------------------------
Block Throughput: 6.20 Cycles Throughput Bottleneck: Port5
Port Binding In Cycles Per Iteration:
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Port | 0 - DV | 1 | 2 - D | 3 - D | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Cycles | 1.0 0.0 | 5.8 | 1.4 1.0 | 1.4 1.0 | 2.0 | 6.2 | 1.0 | 1.3 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
N - port number or number of cycles resource conflict caused delay, DV - Divider pipe (on port 0)
D - Data fetch pipe (on ports 2 and 3), CP - on a critical path
F - Macro Fusion with the previous instruction occurred
* - instruction micro-ops not bound to a port
^ - Micro Fusion happened
# - ESP Tracking sync uop was issued
@ - SSE instruction followed an AVX256 instruction, dozens of cycles penalty is expected
! - instruction not supported, was not accounted in Analysis
| Num Of | Ports pressure in cycles | |
| Uops | 0 - DV | 1 | 2 - D | 3 - D | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| 1 | | | 1.0 1.0 | | | | | | | vmovdqa xmm2, xmmword ptr [rax]
| 1 | 1.0 | | | | | | | | | add rax, 0x20
| 1 | | | | 1.0 1.0 | | | | | | vmovdqa xmm3, xmmword ptr [rax-0x10]
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpslldq xmm1, xmm2, 0x4
| 1 | | 1.0 | | | | | | | | vpaddd xmm2, xmm2, xmm1
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpslldq xmm1, xmm3, 0x4
| 1 | | 1.0 | | | | | | | | vpaddd xmm3, xmm3, xmm1
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpslldq xmm1, xmm2, 0x8
| 1 | | 1.0 | | | | | | | | vpaddd xmm2, xmm2, xmm1
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpslldq xmm1, xmm3, 0x8
| 1 | | 1.0 | | | | | | | | vpaddd xmm3, xmm3, xmm1
| 1 | | 0.9 | | | | 0.2 | | | CP | vpaddd xmm1, xmm2, xmm0
| 2^ | | | | | 1.0 | | | 1.0 | | vmovaps xmmword ptr [rax-0x20], xmm1
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpshufd xmm1, xmm1, 0xff
| 1 | | 0.9 | | | | 0.1 | | | CP | vpaddd xmm0, xmm1, xmm3
| 2^ | | | 0.3 | 0.3 | 1.0 | | | 0.3 | | vmovaps xmmword ptr [rax-0x10], xmm0
| 1 | | | | | | 1.0 | | | CP | vpshufd xmm0, xmm0, 0xff
| 1 | | | | | | | 1.0 | | | cmp rax, 0x602020
| 0F | | | | | | | | | | jnz 0xffffffffffffffa3
Total Num Of Uops: 20
BTW, gcc compiled the loop to use a one-register addressing mode even when I had a loop counter and was doing load(datavec + i + 1). That's the best code, esp. on SnB-family where 2-register addressing modes can't micro-fuse, so I change the source to that loop condition for the benefit of clang.
No comments:
Post a Comment