Intel 3770K ~35% time difference in tight loop depending on location - other cpus?
The code below is X86 64 bit assembly code to calculate the sum of Fib(0) to Fib(93). It includes a conditional to use either a tight loop or an unfolded loop with a computed jump to enter the unfolded loop similar to C switch / case. Originally, it was meant to see the performance improvement of unfolding a loop, but during the testing, it turns out that the tight loop code is very sensitive to where the code is located. The table with multiples of 37 % 93 is used mostly to vary the jumps on the unfolded code.
The code is run 2^20 = 1048576 times for a bench mark, so this is actually a nested loop where the inner loop runs from 0 to 93 times, for an average of ~46 (since 0 and 1 inputs skip the inner loop). Even if the outer and inner loop have a cache conflict, since the inner loop is run an average of ~46 times, it shouldn't have as much impact on the timing that I'm seeing.
The times are noted below, but for the tight loop, depending on code location, the tight loop runs as fast as 1.465 seconds, or as slow as 2.000 seconds. The unfolded loop only has slight variation, 1.042 to 1.048 seconds.
I removed the printf statements, and switched to using a debugger to check results, and the performance was unaffected (since it's assembly code). I'm using Visual Studio 2015 on Windows 7 Pro 64 bit to do the builds and do the runs. Switching to AT&T syntax for Linux / Posix could take a while, unless there's something MASM syntax compatible for Linux / Posix.
I'm wondering if other X86 cpu's have similar performance differences. I'm posting this as a follow up in another thread that included performance of a 4 way merge sort that uses gotos.
Sometimes "goto" is useful
Code:
includelib msvcrtd
includelib oldnames
.data
; multiples of 37 mod 93 + 93 at the end
a dq 0,37,74,18,55,92,36,73,17,54
dq 91,35,72,16,53,90,34,71,15,52
dq 89,33,70,14,51,88,32,69,13,50
dq 87,31,68,12,49,86,30,67,11,48
dq 85,29,66,10,47,84,28,65, 9,46
dq 83,27,64, 8,45,82,26,63, 7,44
dq 81,25,62, 6,43,80,24,61, 5,42
dq 79,23,60, 4,41,78,22,59, 3,40
dq 77,21,58, 2,39,76,20,57, 1,38
dq 75,19,56,93
.data?
.code
; parameters rcx,rdx,r8,r9
; not saved rax,rcx,rdx,r8,r9,r10,r11
; code starts on 16 byte boundary
main proc
push r15
push r14
push r13
push r12
push rbp
mov rbp,rsp
and rsp,0fffffffffffffff0h
sub rsp,64
mov r15,offset a
xor r14,r14
mov r11,0100000h
; nop padding effect on loop version (with 0 padding in padx below)
; 0 puts main2 on odd 16 byte boundary clk = 0131876622h => 1.465 seconds
; 9 puts main1 on odd 16 byte boundary clk = 01573FE951h => 1.645 seconds
rept 0
nop
endm
rdtsc
mov r12,rdx
shl r12,32
or r12,rax
main0: xor r10,r10
main1: mov rcx,[r10+r15]
call fib
main2: add r14,rax
add r10,8
cmp r10,8*94
jne main1
dec r11
jnz main0
rdtsc
mov r13,rdx
shl r13,32
or r13,rax
sub r13,r12
mov rdx,r14
xor rax,rax
mov rsp,rbp
pop rbp
pop r12
pop r13
pop r14
pop r15
ret
main endp
align 16
padx proc
; nop padding effect on loop version with 0 padding above
; 0 puts fib on odd 16 byte boundary clk = 0131876622h => 1.465 seconds
; 16 puts fib on even 16 byte boundary clk = 01A13C8CB8h => 2.000 seconds
; nop padding effect on computed jump version with 9 padding above
; 0 puts fib on odd 16 byte boundary clk = 00D979792Dh => 1.042 seconds
; 16 puts fib on even 16 byte boundary clk = 00DA93E04Dh => 1.048 seconds
rept 0
nop
endm
padx endp
if 0 ;0 = loop version, 1 = computed jump version
fib proc ;rcx == n
mov r8,rcx ;set jmp adr
mov r9,offset fib0+279
lea r8,[r8+r8*2]
neg r8
add r8,r9
mov rax,rcx ;set rax,rdx
mov rdx,1
and rax,rdx
sub rdx,rax
jmp r8
fib0: ; assumes add xxx,xxx takes 3 bytes
rept 46
add rax,rdx
add rdx,rax
endm
add rax,rdx
ret
fib endp
else
fib proc ;rcx == n
mov rax,rcx ;br if < 2
cmp rax,2
jb fib1
mov rdx,1 ;set rax, rdx
and rax,rdx
sub rdx,rax
shr rcx,1
fib0: add rdx,rax
add rax,rdx
dec rcx
jnz fib0
fib1: ret
fib endp
endif
end
