Performance with matrix class in C++ - c++

Question

I was performance profiling our library and noticed that most time is spent in matrix manipulations.
I wanted to see whether I could improve performance by changing the order of the matrix loops or by changing the matrix class definition from row major to column major.
Questions:
Below I test 2 cases. Test case 1 is always the fastest, no matter whether my matrix is row or columns major. Why is that?
Turning on vectorization improves Test case 1 with a factor 2, why is that?
Performance profiling is done with Very Sleepy.
I used Visual Studio 2019 – platformtoolset v142, and compiled in 32-bit.
Our library defines a matrix template where the underlying is a dynamic array where the ordering is column major (full code follows below):
Type& operator()(int row, int col)
{
return pArr[row + col * m_rows];
}
Type operator()(int row, int col) const
{
return pArr[row + col * m_rows];
}
We also have a matrix class specific for doubles:
class DMatrix : public TMatrix<double>
{
public:
// Constructors:
DMatrix() : TMatrix<double>() { }
DMatrix(int rows, int cols) : TMatrix<double>(rows, cols, true) {}
};
I ran 2 test cases that perform nested loop operations on randomly filled matrices. The difference between Test case 1 and 2 is the order of the inner loops.
int nrep = 10000; // Large number of calculations
int nstate = 400;
int nstep = 400;
int nsec = 3; // 100 times smaller than nstate and nstep
DMatrix value(nstate, nsec);
DMatrix Rc(nstate, 3 * nstep);
DMatrix rhs(nstate, nsec);
// Test case 1
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int n = 0; n < nstep; n++) {
int diag = 3 * n + 1;
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) {
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - Rc(i, diag - 1) * value(i - 1, j)) / Rc(i, diag);
}
}
}
}
// Test case 2
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int n = 0; n < nstep; n++) {
int diag = 3 * n + 1;
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) {
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) {
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - Rc(i, diag - 1) * value(i - 1, j)) / Rc(i, diag);
}
}
}
}
Since the matrix is column major, I expected that I would get the best performance when the inner loop follows a column, due to nearby elements being CPU cached, but instead it is doing the opposite. Note that nstep and nstate are typically 100 times larger than nsec.
When I turn on vectorization:
“Advanced Vector Extensions 2” in Code Generation/Enable Enhanced Instruction Set, the performance difference gets even larger:
When I turn off the vectorization and make the matrix row major:
Type& operator()(int row, int col)
{
return pArr[col + row*m_cols];
}
Type operator()(int row, int col) const
{
return pArr[col + row*m_cols];
}
I don’t get any difference in performance compared to when the matrix was column major:
With vector optimizations:
The full code. matrix.h:
#ifndef __MATRIX_H
#define __MATRIX_H
#include <assert.h>
#include <iostream>
template<class Type>
class TMatrix
{
public:
TMatrix(); // Default constructor
TMatrix(int rows, int cols, bool init = false); // Constructor with dimensions + flag to default initialize or not
TMatrix(const TMatrix& mat); // Copy constructor
TMatrix& operator=(const TMatrix& mat); // Assignment operator
~TMatrix(); // Destructor
// Move constructor/assignment
TMatrix(TMatrix&& mat) noexcept;
TMatrix& operator=(TMatrix&& mat) noexcept;
// Get matrix dimensions
int no_rows() const { return m_rows; }
int no_columns() const { return m_cols; }
Type& operator()(int row, int col)
{
assert(row >= 0 && row < m_rows&& col >= 0 && col < m_cols);
return pArr[row + col * m_rows]; // elements in a column lay next to each other
//return pArr[col + row*m_cols]; // elements in a row lay next to each other
}
Type operator()(int row, int col) const
{
assert(row >= 0 && row < m_rows&& col >= 0 && col < m_cols);
return pArr[row + col * m_rows];
// return pArr[col + row*m_cols];
}
protected:
void clear();
Type* pArr;
int m_rows, m_cols;
};
//**************************************************************
// Implementation of TMatrix
//**************************************************************
// Default constructor
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>::TMatrix()
{
m_rows = 0;
m_cols = 0;
pArr = 0;
}
// Constructor with matrix dimensions (rows, cols)
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>::TMatrix(int rows, int cols, bool init)
{
pArr = 0;
m_rows = rows;
m_cols = cols;
if (m_rows > 0 && m_cols > 0)
if (init)
pArr = new Type[m_rows * m_cols]();
else
pArr = new Type[m_rows * m_cols]; // TODO: check for p = NULL (memory allocation error, which will triger a GPF)
else
{
m_rows = 0;
m_cols = 0;
}
}
// Copy constructor
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>::TMatrix(const TMatrix& mat)
{
pArr = 0;
m_rows = mat.m_rows;
m_cols = mat.m_cols;
if (m_rows > 0 && m_cols > 0)
{
int dim = m_rows * m_cols;
pArr = new Type[dim];
for (int i = 0; i < dim; i++)
pArr[i] = mat.pArr[i];
}
else
{
m_rows = m_cols = 0;
}
}
// Move constructors
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>::TMatrix(TMatrix&& mat) noexcept
{
m_rows = mat.m_rows;
m_cols = mat.m_cols;
if (m_rows > 0 && m_cols > 0)
{
pArr = mat.pArr;
}
else
{
m_rows = m_cols = 0;
pArr = 0;
}
mat.pArr = 0;
}
// Clear the matrix
template<class Type>
void TMatrix<Type>::clear()
{
delete[] pArr;
pArr = 0;
m_rows = m_cols = 0;
}
// Destructor
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>::~TMatrix()
{
clear();
}
// Move assignment
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>& TMatrix<Type>::operator=(TMatrix&& mat) noexcept
{
if (this != &mat) // Check for self assignment
{
clear();
m_rows = mat.m_rows;
m_cols = mat.m_cols;
if (m_rows > 0 && m_cols > 0)
{
pArr = mat.pArr;
}
else
{
m_rows = m_cols = 0;
}
mat.pArr = nullptr;
}
return *this;
}
// Assignment operator with check for self-assignment
template<class Type>
TMatrix<Type>& TMatrix<Type>::operator=(const TMatrix& mat)
{
if (this != &mat) // Guard against self assignment
{
clear();
m_rows = mat.m_rows;
m_cols = mat.m_cols;
if (m_rows > 0 && m_cols > 0)
{
int dim = m_rows * m_cols;
pArr = new Type[dim];
for (int i = 0; i < dim; i++)
pArr[i] = mat.pArr[i];
}
else
{
m_rows = m_cols = 0;
}
}
return *this;
}
#endif
dmatrix.h:
#ifndef __DMATRIX_H
#define __DMATRIX_H
#include "matrix.h"
class DMatrix : public TMatrix<double>
{
public:
// Constructors:
DMatrix() : TMatrix<double>() { }
DMatrix(int rows, int cols) : TMatrix<double>(rows, cols, true) {}
};
#endif
Main:
#include <iostream>
#include "dmatrix.h"
int main()
{
int nrep = 10000; // Large number of calculations
int nstate = 400;
int nstep = 400;
int nsec = 3; // 100 times smaller than nstate and nstep
DMatrix value(nstate, nsec);
DMatrix Rc(nstate, 3 * nstep);
DMatrix rhs(nstate, nsec);
// Give some random input
for (int i = 0; i < Rc.no_rows(); i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < Rc.no_columns(); j++) {
Rc(i, j) = double(std::rand()) / RAND_MAX;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < value.no_rows(); i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < value.no_columns(); j++) {
value(i, j) = 1 + double(std::rand()) / RAND_MAX;
}
}
for (int i = 0; i < rhs.no_rows(); i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < rhs.no_columns(); j++) {
rhs(i, j) = 1 + double(std::rand()) / RAND_MAX;
}
}
// Test case 1
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int n = 0; n < nstep; n++) {
int diag = 3 * n + 1;
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) { // Expectation: this is fast - inner loop follows row
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - Rc(i, diag - 1) * value(i - 1, j)) / Rc(i, diag);
}
}
}
}
// Test case 2
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int n = 0; n < nstep; n++) {
int diag = 3 * n + 1;
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) {
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) { // Expectation: this is slow - inner loop walks down column
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - Rc(i, diag - 1) * value(i - 1, j)) / Rc(i, diag);
}
}
}
}
return 0;
}
Thanks in advance for your help.
Best regards,
Nele

Answer 1

As I mentioned in a comment, after some testing:
Rc is the largest matrix here (by roughly a factor of 100), and it is reasonable to assume that most of the running time is spent on handling it. When the inner loop is on j, you get significant improvement because Rc(i, diag - 1) and Rc(i, diag) can be reused in all iterations of the inner loop.
To make sure that this is the case, I changed the loops to the following:
// Test case 1
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) {
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) { // Expectation: this is fast - inner loop follows row
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - value(i - 1, j));
}
}
}
// Test case 2
for (int k = 0; k < nrep; k++) {
for (int j = 0; j < nsec; j++) {
for (int i = 1; i < nstate; i++) { // Expectation: this is slow - inner loop walks down column
value(i, j) = (rhs(i, j) - value(i - 1, j)) ;
}
}
}
With this calculation (and different matrix sizes - 2000 by 2000, for 200 repetitions), one test case runs 10 times faster than the other (no fancy profiling, but linux's time gives 18s vs. ~2s).
When I change row-major and column-major the trend is reversed.
EDIT:
Conclusion - you need to select row-major/column-major based on what workes best for Rc, and always use Test case 1 (if this represents the problems you're actually trying to solve).
Regarding vectorization - I'm not sure how this works. Maybe someone else can offer an explanation.