I have this minimal example of Google Benchmark usage.
The weird thing is that "42" is printed a number of times (4), not just once.
I understand that the library has to run things several times to gain statistics but this I though that this is handled by the statie-loop itself.
This is a minimal example of something more complicated where I wanted to print (outside the loop) the result to verify that different implementations of the same function would give the same result.
#include <benchmark/benchmark.h>
#include<iostream>
#include <thread> //sleep for
int SomeFunction(){
using namespace std::chrono_literals;
std::this_thread::sleep_for(10ms);
return 42;
}
static void BM_SomeFunction(benchmark::State& state) {
// Perform setup here
int result = -1;
for (auto _ : state) {
// This code gets timed
result = SomeFunction();
benchmark::DoNotOptimize(result);
}
std::cout<< result <<std::endl;
}
// Register the function as a benchmark
BENCHMARK(BM_SomeFunction);
// Run the benchmark
BENCHMARK_MAIN();
output: (42 is printed 4 times, why more than once, why 4?)
Running ./a.out
Run on (12 X 4600 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 32 KiB (x6)
L1 Instruction 32 KiB (x6)
L2 Unified 256 KiB (x6)
L3 Unified 12288 KiB (x1)
Load Average: 0.30, 0.65, 0.79
42
42
42
42
----------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
----------------------------------------------------------
BM_SomeFunction 10243011 ns 11051 ns 1000
How else could I test (at least visually) that different benchmarking blocks give the same answer?
Related
I am trying to benchmark the potential performance increase of emplace_back vs. push_back using Google Benchmark:
#include <benchmark/benchmark.h>
#include <vector>
#include <string>
using namespace std;
static void BM_pushback(benchmark::State& state) {
for(auto _ : state) {
vector<string> data;
for(int i=0;i<10000000;++i)
data.push_back("A long string to avoid sbo");
}
}
static void BM_emplaceback(benchmark::State& state) {
for(auto _ : state) {
vector<string> data;
for(int i=0;i<10000000;++i)
data.emplace_back("A long string to avoid sbo");
}
}
BENCHMARK(BM_pushback)->UseRealTime();
BENCHMARK(BM_emplaceback)->UseRealTime();
BENCHMARK_MAIN();
Using g++ with -O3 I get:
Running ./benchmark
Run on (8 X 4200 MHz CPU s)
CPU Caches:
L1 Data 32 KiB (x4)
L1 Instruction 32 KiB (x4)
L2 Unified 256 KiB (x4)
L3 Unified 8192 KiB (x1)
Load Average: 0.60, 0.48, 0.53
***WARNING*** CPU scaling is enabled, the benchmark real time measurements may be noisy and will incur extra overhead.
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BM_pushback/real_time 886383300 ns 886276679 ns 1
BM_emplaceback/real_time 698194513 ns 698159138 ns 1
If I, however, change the order of execution, that is
BENCHMARK(BM_emplaceback)->UseRealTime();
BENCHMARK(BM_pushback)->UseRealTime();
I receive opposite timings:
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BM_emplaceback/real_time 863837627 ns 863814885 ns 1
BM_pushback/real_time 765406073 ns 765407578 ns 1
Can someone explain this behavior? I think, this might have something to do with caching but what exactly is going on here? Just as a note: What seems to help is to reduce the benchmarking size, i.e. adding only 10000 instead of 10000000 strings to my vector (which leads to more cycles being performed by the library).
I was reading Chapter 8 of the "Modern C++ Programming Cookbook, 2nd edition" on concurrency and stumbled upon something that puzzles me.
The author implements different versions of parallel map and reduce functions using std::thread and std::async. The implementations are really close; for example, the heart of the parallel_map functions are
// parallel_map using std::async
...
tasks.emplace_back(std::async(
std::launch::async,
[=, &f] {std::transform(begin, last, begin, std::forward<F>(f)); }));
...
// parallel_map using std::thread
...
threads.emplace_back([=, &f] {std::transform(begin, last, begin, std::forward<F>(f)); });
...
The complete code can be found here for std::thread and there for std::async.
What puzzles me is that the computation times reported in the book give a significant and consistent advantage to the std::async implementation. Moreover, the author acknowledge this fact as being obvious, without providing any hint of justification:
If we compare this [result with async] with the results from the parallel version using threads, we will find that these are faster execution times and that the speedup is significant, especially for the fold function.
I ran the code above on my computer, and even though the differences are not as compelling as in the book, I find that the std::async implementation is indeed faster than the std::thread one. (The author also later brings in standard implementations of these algorithms, which are even faster). On my computer, the code runs with four threads, which corresponds to the number of physical cores of my CPU.
Maybe I missed something, but why is it obvious that std::async should run faster than std::thread on this example? My intuition was that std::async being a higher-level implementation of threads, it should take at least the same amount of time, if not more, than threads -- obviously I was wrong. Are those findings consistent, as suggested by the book, and what is the explanation?
My original interpretation was incorrect. Refer to #OznOg's answer below.
Modified Answer:
I created a simple benchmark that uses std::async and std::thread to do some tiny tasks:
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <vector>
#include <future>
#include <iostream>
__thread volatile int you_shall_not_optimize_this;
void work() {
// This is the simplest way I can think of to prevent the compiler and
// operating system from doing naughty things
you_shall_not_optimize_this = 42;
}
[[gnu::noinline]]
std::chrono::nanoseconds benchmark_threads(size_t count) {
std::vector<std::optional<std::thread>> threads;
threads.resize(count);
auto before = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
threads[i] = std::thread { work };
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
threads[i]->join();
threads.clear();
auto after = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
return after - before;
}
[[gnu::noinline]]
std::chrono::nanoseconds benchmark_async(size_t count, std::launch policy) {
std::vector<std::optional<std::future<void>>> results;
results.resize(count);
auto before = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
results[i] = std::async(policy, work);
for (size_t i = 0; i < count; ++i)
results[i]->wait();
results.clear();
auto after = std::chrono::high_resolution_clock::now();
return after - before;
}
std::ostream& operator<<(std::ostream& stream, std::launch value)
{
if (value == std::launch::async)
return stream << "std::launch::async";
else if (value == std::launch::deferred)
return stream << "std::launch::deferred";
else
return stream << "std::launch::unknown";
}
// #define CONFIG_THREADS true
// #define CONFIG_ITERATIONS 10000
// #define CONFIG_POLICY std::launch::async
int main() {
std::cout << "Running benchmark:\n"
<< " threads? " << std::boolalpha << CONFIG_THREADS << '\n'
<< " iterations " << CONFIG_ITERATIONS << '\n'
<< " async policy " << CONFIG_POLICY << std::endl;
std::chrono::nanoseconds duration;
if (CONFIG_THREADS) {
duration = benchmark_threads(CONFIG_ITERATIONS);
} else {
duration = benchmark_async(CONFIG_ITERATIONS, CONFIG_POLICY);
}
std::cout << "Completed in " << duration.count() << "ns (" << std::chrono::duration_cast<std::chrono::milliseconds>(duration).count() << "ms)\n";
}
I've run the benchmark as follows:
$ g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++20 -pthread -O3 -DCONFIG_THREADS=false -DCONFIG_ITERATIONS=10000 -DCONFIG_POLICY=std::launch::deferred main.cpp -o main && ./main
Running benchmark:
threads? false
iterations 10000
async policy std::launch::deferred
Completed in 4783327ns (4ms)
$ g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++20 -pthread -O3 -DCONFIG_THREADS=false -DCONFIG_ITERATIONS=10000 -DCONFIG_POLICY=std::launch::async main.cpp -o main && ./main
Running benchmark:
threads? false
iterations 10000
async policy std::launch::async
Completed in 301756775ns (301ms)
$ g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++20 -pthread -O3 -DCONFIG_THREADS=true -DCONFIG_ITERATIONS=10000 -DCONFIG_POLICY=std::launch::deferred main.cpp -o main && ./main
Running benchmark:
threads? true
iterations 10000
async policy std::launch::deferred
Completed in 291284997ns (291ms)
$ g++ -Wall -Wextra -std=c++20 -pthread -O3 -DCONFIG_THREADS=true -DCONFIG_ITERATIONS=10000 -DCONFIG_POLICY=std::launch::async main.cpp -o main && ./main
Running benchmark:
threads? true
iterations 10000
async policy std::launch::async
Completed in 293539858ns (293ms)
I re-ran all the benchmarks with strace attached and accumulated the system calls made:
# std::async with std::launch::async
1 access
2 arch_prctl
36 brk
10000 clone
6 close
1 execve
1 exit_group
10002 futex
10028 mmap
10009 mprotect
9998 munmap
7 newfstatat
6 openat
7 pread64
1 prlimit64
5 read
2 rt_sigaction
20001 rt_sigprocmask
1 set_robust_list
1 set_tid_address
5 write
# std::async with std::launch::deferred
1 access
2 arch_prctl
11 brk
6 close
1 execve
1 exit_group
10002 futex
28 mmap
9 mprotect
2 munmap
7 newfstatat
6 openat
7 pread64
1 prlimit64
5 read
2 rt_sigaction
1 rt_sigprocmask
1 set_robust_list
1 set_tid_address
5 write
# std::thread with std::launch::async
1 access
2 arch_prctl
27 brk
10000 clone
6 close
1 execve
1 exit_group
2 futex
10028 mmap
10009 mprotect
9998 munmap
7 newfstatat
6 openat
7 pread64
1 prlimit64
5 read
2 rt_sigaction
20001 rt_sigprocmask
1 set_robust_list
1 set_tid_address
5 write
# std::thread with std::launch::deferred
1 access
2 arch_prctl
27 brk
10000 clone
6 close
1 execve
1 exit_group
2 futex
10028 mmap
10009 mprotect
9998 munmap
7 newfstatat
6 openat
7 pread64
1 prlimit64
5 read
2 rt_sigaction
20001 rt_sigprocmask
1 set_robust_list
1 set_tid_address
5 write
We observe that std::async is significantly faster with std::launch::deferred but that everything else doesn't seem to matter as much.
My conclusions are:
The current libstdc++ implementation does not take advantage of the fact that std::async doesn't need a new thread for each task.
The current libstdc++ implementation does some sort of locking in std::async that std::thread doesn't do.
std::async with std::launch::deferred saves setup and destroy costs and is much faster for this case.
My machine is configured as follows:
$ uname -a
Linux linux-2 5.12.1-arch1-1 #1 SMP PREEMPT Sun, 02 May 2021 12:43:58 +0000 x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ g++ --version
g++ (GCC) 10.2.0
Copyright (C) 2020 Free Software Foundation, Inc.
This is free software; see the source for copying conditions. There is NO
warranty; not even for MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
$ lscpu # truncated
Architecture: x86_64
Byte Order: Little Endian
CPU(s): 8
Model name: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4770K CPU # 3.50GHz
Original Answer:
std::thread is a wrapper for thread objects which are provided by the operating system, they are extremely expensive to create and destroy.
std::async is similar, but there isn't a 1-to-1 mapping between tasks and operating system threads. This could be implemented with thread pools, where threads are reused for multiple tasks.
So std::async is better if you have many small tasks, and std::thread is better if you have a few tasks that are running for long periods of time.
Also if you have things that truly need to happen in parallel, then std::async might not fit very well. (std::thread also can't make such guarantees, but that's the closest you can get.)
Maybe to clarify, in your case std::async saves the overhead from creating and destroying threads.
(Depending on the operating system, you could also lose performance simply by having a lot of threads running. An operating system might have a scheduling strategy where it tries to guarantee that every thread gets executed every so often, thus the scheduler could decide go give the individual threads smaller slices of processing time, thus creating more overhead for switching between threads.)
Looks like something is not happening like expected. I compiled the whole thing on my fedora and the first results where surprising. I commented out all tests to keep only the 2 ones comparing threads and async. The output looks like confirming the behaviour:
Thead version result
size s map p map s fold p fold
10000 642 628 751 770
100000 6533 3444 7985 3338
500000 14885 5760 13854 6304
1000000 23428 11398 27795 12129
2000000 47136 22468 55518 24154
5000000 118690 55752 139489 60142
10000000 236496 112467 277413 121002
25000000 589277 276750 694742 297832
500000001.17839e+06 5553181.39065e+06 594102
Async version:
size s map p1 map p2 map s fold p1 fold p2 fold
10000 248 232 231 273 282 273
100000 2323 1562 2827 2757 1536 1766
500000 12312 5615 12044 14014 6272 7431
1000000 23585 11701 24060 27851 12376 14109
2000000 47147 22796 48035 55433 25565 30095
5000000 118465 59980 119698 140775 62960 68382
10000000 241727 110883 239554 277958 121205 136041
Looks like the async is actually 2 times faster (for small vallues) than the threaded one.
Then I used strace to count the number of clone system call done (number of thread created):
64 clone with threads
92 clone with async
So looks like the explaination on the time spend to create thread is somehow in contradiction as he async version actually creates as many threads than the thread based one (the difference comes from the fact that there are two version of fold in the async code).
Then I tried to swap both test order of execution (put async before thread), and here are the results:
size s map p1 map p2 map s fold p1 fold p2 fold
10000 653 694 624 718 748 718
100000 6731 3931 2978 8533 3116 1724
500000 12406 5839 14589 13895 8427 7072
1000000 23813 11578 24099 27853 13091 14108
2000000 47357 22402 48197 55469 24572 33543
5000000 117923 55869 120303 139061 61801 68281
10000000 234861 111055 239124 277153 121270 136953
size s map p map s fold p fold
10000 232 232 273 328
100000 6424 3271 8297 4487
500000 21329 5547 13913 6263
1000000 23654 11419 27827 12083
2000000 47230 22763 55653 24135
5000000 117448 56785 139286 61679
10000000 235394 111021 278177 119805
25000000 589329 279637 696392 301485
500000001.1824e+06 5564431.38722e+06 606279
So now the "thread" version is 2 time faster than async for small values.
Looking at clone calls di not show any differences:
92 clone
64 clone
I didn't have much time to go further, but at least on linux, we can consider that there are no differences between the two version (the async could even be seen as less efficient as it requires more threads).
We can see that it has nothing to do with the async/thread problem.
Moreover, if we look at values that realy need computation time, the difference of time is really small and not relevent: 55752us vs 56785us for 5'000'000, and keeps matching for bigger values.
This looks like usual problem with microbenches, we somehow measure latencies of the system more than the computation time itself.
Note: the figures shown are without optimization (original code) ; adding -O3 obviously speeds up the computations, but results show the same: there is not real difference in computation time on big values.
I'm trying to test the performance impact of false sharing. The test code is as below:
constexpr uint64_t loop = 1000000000;
struct no_padding_struct {
no_padding_struct() :x(0), y(0) {}
uint64_t x;
uint64_t y;
};
struct padding_struct {
padding_struct() :x(0), y(0) {}
uint64_t x;
char padding[64];
uint64_t y;
};
alignas(64) volatile no_padding_struct n;
alignas(64) volatile padding_struct p;
constexpr core_a = 0;
constexpr core_b = 1;
void func(volatile uint64_t* addr, uint64_t b, uint64_t mask) {
SetThreadAffinityMask(GetCurrentThread(), mask);
for (uint64_t i = 0; i < loop; ++i) {
*addr += b;
}
}
void test1(uint64_t a, uint64_t b) {
thread t1{ func, &n.x, a, 1<<core_a };
thread t2{ func, &n.y, b, 1<<core_b };
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
void test2(uint64_t a, uint64_t b) {
thread t1{ func, &p.x, a, 1<<core_a };
thread t2{ func, &p.y, b, 1<<core_b };
t1.join();
t2.join();
}
int main() {
uint64_t a, b;
cin >> a >> b;
auto start = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
//test1(a, b);
//test2(a, b);
auto end = std::chrono::system_clock::now();
cout << (end - start).count();
}
The result was mostly as follow:
x86 x64
cores test1 test2 cores test1 test2
debug release debug release debug release debug release
0-0 4.0s 2.8s 4.0s 2.8s 0-0 2.8s 2.8s 2.8s 2.8s
0-1 5.6s 6.1s 3.0s 1.5s 0-1 4.2s 7.8s 2.1s 1.5s
0-2 6.2s 1.8s 2.0s 1.4s 0-2 3.5s 2.0s 1.4s 1.4s
0-3 6.2s 1.8s 2.0s 1.4s 0-3 3.5s 2.0s 1.4s 1.4s
0-5 6.5s 1.8s 2.0s 1.4s 0-5 3.5s 2.0s 1.4s 1.4s
test result in image
My CPU is intel core i7-9750h. 'core0' and 'core1' are of a physical core, and so does 'core2' and 'core3' and others. MSVC 14.24 was used as the compiler.
The time recorded was an approximate value of the best score in several runs since there were tons of background tasks. I think this was fair enough since the results can be clearly divided into groups and 0.1s~0.3s error did not affect such division.
Test2 was quite easy to explain. As x and y are in different cache lines, running on 2 physical core can gain 2 times performance boost(the cost of context switch when running 2 threads on a single core is ignorable here), and running on one core with SMT is less efficient than 2 physical cores, limited by the throughput of coffee-lake(believe Ryzen can do slightly better), and more efficient than temporal multithreading. It seems 64bit mode is more efficient here.
But the result of test1 is confusing to me.
First, in debug mode, 0-2, 0-3, and 0-5 are slower than 0-0, which makes sense. I explained this as certain data was moved from L1 to L3 and L3 to L1 repeatedly since the cache must stay coherent among 2 cores, while it would always stay in L1 when running on a single core. But this theory conflicts with the fact that 0-1 pair is always the slowest. Technically, the two threads should share the same L1 cache. 0-1 should run 2 times as fast as 0-0.
Second, in release mode, 0-2, 0-3, and 0-5 were faster than 0-0, which disproved the theory above.
Last, 0-1 runs slower in release than in debug in both 64bit and 32bit mode. That's what I can't understand most. I read the generated assembly code and did not find anything helpful.
#PeterCordes Thank you for your analysis and advice.
I finally profiled the program using Vtune and it turns out your expectation was correct.
When running on SMT threads of the same core, machine_clear consumes lots of time, and it was more severe in Release than in Debug. This happens on both 32bit and 64bit mode.
When running on different physical cores the bottleneck was memory(store latency and false sharing),and Release was always faster since it contains significantly fewer memory access than Debug in critical part, as shown in Debug assembly(godbolt) and Release assembly(godbolt). The total instruction retired is also fewer in Release, which strengthens this point. It seems the assembly I found in Visual Studio yesterday was not correct.
This might be explained by hyper-threading. Cores being shared as 2 hyperthread cores do not get double the throughout like 2 entirely separate cores might. Instead you might get something like 1.7 times the performance.
Indeed, your processor has 6 cores and 12 threads, and core0/core1 are 2 threads on the same underlying core, if I am reading all this correctly.
In fact, if you picture in your mind how hyper-threading works, with the work of 2 separate cores interleaved, it is not surprising.
I was inspired by the fst package to try to write a C++ function to quickly serialize some data structures I have in R to disk.
But I am having trouble achieving the same write speed even on very simple objects. The code below is a simple example of writing a large 1 GB vector to disk.
Using custom C++ code, I achieve a write speed of 135 MB/s, which is the limit of my disk according to CrystalBench.
On the same data, write_fst achieves a write speed of 223 MB/s, which seems impossible since my disk can't write that fast. (Note, I am using fst::threads_fst(1) and compress=0 settings, and the files have the same data size.)
What am I missing?
How can I get the C++ function to write to disk faster?
C++ Code:
#include <Rcpp.h>
#include <fstream>
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
// [[Rcpp::plugins(cpp11)]]
using namespace Rcpp;
// [[Rcpp::export]]
void test(SEXP x) {
char* d = reinterpret_cast<char*>(REAL(x));
long dl = Rf_xlength(x) * 8;
std::ofstream OutFile;
OutFile.open("/tmp/test.raw", std::ios::out | std::ios::binary);
OutFile.write(d, dl);
OutFile.close();
}
R Code:
library(microbenchmark)
library(Rcpp)
library(dplyr)
library(fst)
fst::threads_fst(1)
sourceCpp("test.cpp")
x <- runif(134217728) # 1 gigabyte
df <- data.frame(x)
microbenchmark(test(x), write_fst(df, "/tmp/test.fst", compress=0), times=3)
Unit: seconds
expr min lq mean median uq max neval
test(x) 6.549581 7.262408 7.559021 7.975235 8.063740 8.152246 3
write_fst(df, "/tmp/test.fst", compress = 0) 4.548579 4.570346 4.592398 4.592114 4.614307 4.636501 3
file.info("/tmp/test.fst")$size/1e6
# [1] 1073.742
file.info("/tmp/test.raw")$size/1e6
# [1] 1073.742
Benchmarking SSD write and read performance is a tricky business and hard to do right. There are many effects to take into account.
For example, many SSD's use techniques to accelerate data speeds (intelligently), such as DRAM caching. Those techniques can increase your write speed, especially in cases where an identical dataset is written to disk multiple times, as in your example. To avoid this effect, each iteration of the benchmark should write a unique dataset to disk.
The block sizes of write and read operations are also important: the default physical sector size of SSD's is 4KB. Writing smaller blocks hampers performance, but with fst I found that writing blocks of data larger than a few MB's also lowers performance, due to CPU cache effects. Because fst writes it's data to disk in relatively small chunks, it's usually faster than alternatives that write data in a single large block.
To facilitate this block-wise writing to SSD, you could modify your code:
Rcpp::cppFunction('
#include <fstream>
#include <cstring>
#include <iostream>
#define BLOCKSIZE 262144 // 2^18 bytes per block
long test_blocks(SEXP x, Rcpp::String path) {
char* d = reinterpret_cast<char*>(REAL(x));
std::ofstream outfile;
outfile.open(path.get_cstring(), std::ios::out | std::ios::binary);
long dl = Rf_xlength(x) * 8;
long nr_of_blocks = dl / BLOCKSIZE;
for (long block_nr = 0; block_nr < nr_of_blocks; block_nr++) {
outfile.write(&d[block_nr * BLOCKSIZE], BLOCKSIZE);
}
long remaining_bytes = dl % BLOCKSIZE;
outfile.write(&d[nr_of_blocks * BLOCKSIZE], remaining_bytes);
outfile.close();
return dl;
}
')
Now we can compare methods test, test_blocks and fst::write_fst in a single benchmark:
x <- runif(134217728) # 1 gigabyte
df <- data.frame(X = x)
fst::threads_fst(1) # use fst in single threaded mode
microbenchmark::microbenchmark(
test(x, "test.bin"),
test_blocks(x, "test.bin"),
fst::write_fst(df, "test.fst", compress = 0),
times = 10)
#> Unit: seconds
#> expr min lq mean
#> test(x, "test.bin") 1.473615 1.506019 1.590430
#> test_blocks(x, "test.bin") 1.018082 1.062673 1.134956
#> fst::write_fst(df, "test.fst", compress = 0) 1.127446 1.144039 1.249864
#> median uq max neval
#> 1.600055 1.635883 1.765512 10
#> 1.131631 1.204373 1.264220 10
#> 1.261269 1.327304 1.343248 10
As you can see, the modified method test_blocks is about 40 percent faster than the original method and even slightly faster than the fst package. This is expected, because fst has some overhead in storing column and table information, (possible) attributes, hashes and compression information.
Please note that the difference between fst and your initial test method is much less pronounced on my system, showing again the challenges in using benchmarks to optimize a system.
I want to write a program to get my cache size(L1, L2, L3). I know the general idea of it.
Allocate a big array
Access part of it of different size each time.
So I wrote a little program.
Here's my code:
#include <cstdio>
#include <time.h>
#include <sys/mman.h>
const int KB = 1024;
const int MB = 1024 * KB;
const int data_size = 32 * MB;
const int repeats = 64 * MB;
const int steps = 8 * MB;
const int times = 8;
long long clock_time() {
struct timespec tp;
clock_gettime(CLOCK_REALTIME, &tp);
return (long long)(tp.tv_nsec + (long long)tp.tv_sec * 1000000000ll);
}
int main() {
// allocate memory and lock
void* map = mmap(NULL, (size_t)data_size, PROT_READ | PROT_WRITE,
MAP_ANONYMOUS | MAP_PRIVATE, 0, 0);
if (map == MAP_FAILED) {
return 0;
}
int* data = (int*)map;
// write all to avoid paging on demand
for (int i = 0;i< data_size / sizeof(int);i++) {
data[i]++;
}
int steps[] = { 1*KB, 4*KB, 8*KB, 16*KB, 24 * KB, 32*KB, 64*KB, 128*KB,
128*KB*2, 128*KB*3, 512*KB, 1 * MB, 2 * MB, 3 * MB, 4 * MB,
5 * MB, 6 * MB, 7 * MB, 8 * MB, 9 * MB};
for (int i = 0; i <= sizeof(steps) / sizeof(int) - 1; i++) {
double totalTime = 0;
for (int k = 0; k < times; k++) {
int size_mask = steps[i] / sizeof(int) - 1;
long long start = clock_time();
for (int j = 0; j < repeats; j++) {
++data[ (j * 16) & size_mask ];
}
long long end = clock_time();
totalTime += (end - start) / 1000000000.0;
}
printf("%d time: %lf\n", steps[i] / KB, totalTime);
}
munmap(map, (size_t)data_size);
return 0;
}
However, the result is so weird:
1 time: 1.989998
4 time: 1.992945
8 time: 1.997071
16 time: 1.993442
24 time: 1.994212
32 time: 2.002103
64 time: 1.959601
128 time: 1.957994
256 time: 1.975517
384 time: 1.975143
512 time: 2.209696
1024 time: 2.437783
2048 time: 7.006168
3072 time: 5.306975
4096 time: 5.943510
5120 time: 2.396078
6144 time: 4.404022
7168 time: 4.900366
8192 time: 8.998624
9216 time: 6.574195
My CPU is Intel(R) Core(TM) i3-2350M. L1 Cache: 32K (for data), L2 Cache 256K, L3 Cache 3072K.
Seems like it doesn't follow any rule. I can't get information of cache size or cache level from that.
Could anybody give some help? Thanks in advance.
Update:
Follow #Leeor advice, I use j*64 instead of j*16. New results:
1 time: 1.996282
4 time: 2.002579
8 time: 2.002240
16 time: 1.993198
24 time: 1.995733
32 time: 2.000463
64 time: 1.968637
128 time: 1.956138
256 time: 1.978266
384 time: 1.991912
512 time: 2.192371
1024 time: 2.262387
2048 time: 3.019435
3072 time: 2.359423
4096 time: 5.874426
5120 time: 2.324901
6144 time: 4.135550
7168 time: 3.851972
8192 time: 7.417762
9216 time: 2.272929
10240 time: 3.441985
11264 time: 3.094753
Two peaks, 4096K and 8192K. Still weird.
I'm not sure if this is the only problem here, but it's definitely the biggest one - your code would very quickly trigger the HW stream prefetchers, making you almost always hit in L1 or L2 latencies.
More details can be found here - http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/optimizing-application-performance-on-intel-coret-microarchitecture-using-hardware-implemented-prefetchers
For your benchmark You should either disable them (through BIOS or any other means), or at least make your steps longer by replacing j*16 (* 4 bytes per int = 64B, one cache line - a classic unit stride for the stream detector), with j*64 (4 cache lines). The reason being - the prefetcher can issue 2 prefetches per stream request, so it runs ahead of your code when you do unit strides, may still get a bit ahead of you when your code is jumping over 2 lines, but become mostly useless with longer jumps (3 isn't good because of your modulu, you need a divider of step_size)
Update the questions with the new results and we can figure out if there's anything else here.
EDIT1:
Ok, I ran the fixed code and got -
1 time: 1.321001
4 time: 1.321998
8 time: 1.336288
16 time: 1.324994
24 time: 1.319742
32 time: 1.330685
64 time: 1.536644
128 time: 1.536933
256 time: 1.669329
384 time: 1.592145
512 time: 2.036315
1024 time: 2.214269
2048 time: 2.407584
3072 time: 2.259108
4096 time: 2.584872
5120 time: 2.203696
6144 time: 2.335194
7168 time: 2.322517
8192 time: 5.554941
9216 time: 2.230817
It makes much more sense if you ignore a few columns - you jump after the 32k (L1 size), but instead of jumping after 256k (L2 size), we get too good of a result for 384, and jump only at 512k. Last jump is at 8M (my LLC size), but 9k is broken again.
This allows us to spot the next error - ANDing with size mask only makes sense when it's a power of 2, otherwise you don't wrap around, but instead repeat some of the last addresses again (which ends up in optimistic results since it's fresh in the cache).
Try replacing the ... & size_mask with % steps[i]/sizeof(int), the modulu is more expensive but if you want to have these sizes you need it (or alternatively, a running index that gets zeroed whenever it exceeds the current size)
I think you'd be better off looking at the CPUID instruction. It's not trivial, but there should be information on the web.
Also, if you're on Windows, you can use GetLogicalProcessorInformation function. Mind you, it's only present in Windows XP SP3 and above. I know nothing about Linux/Unix.
If you're using GNU/Linux you can just read the content of the files /proc/cpuinfo and for further details /sys/devices/system/cpu/*. It is just common under UNIX not to define a API, where a plain file can do that job anyway.
I would also take a look at the source of util-linux, it contains a program named lscpu. This should be give you an example how to retrieve the required information.
// update
http://git.kernel.org/cgit/utils/util-linux/util-linux.git/tree/sys-utils/lscpu.c
If just taken a look at the source their. It basically reading from the file mentioned above, thats all. An therefore it is absolutely valid to read also from that files, they are provided by the kernel.