Related
I was reading a blog post by a game coder for Introversion and he is busily trying to squeeze every CPU tick he can out of the code. One trick he mentions off-hand is to
"re-order the member variables of a
class into most used and least used."
I'm not familiar with C++, nor with how it compiles, but I was wondering if
This statement is accurate?
How/Why?
Does it apply to other (compiled/scripting) languages?
I'm aware that the amount of (CPU) time saved by this trick would be minimal, it's not a deal-breaker. But on the other hand, in most functions it would be fairly easy to identify which variables are going to be the most commonly used, and just start coding this way by default.
Two issues here:
Whether and when keeping certain fields together is an optimization.
How to do actually do it.
The reason that it might help, is that memory is loaded into the CPU cache in chunks called "cache lines". This takes time, and generally speaking the more cache lines loaded for your object, the longer it takes. Also, the more other stuff gets thrown out of the cache to make room, which slows down other code in an unpredictable way.
The size of a cache line depends on the processor. If it is large compared with the size of your objects, then very few objects are going to span a cache line boundary, so the whole optimization is pretty irrelevant. Otherwise, you might get away with sometimes only having part of your object in cache, and the rest in main memory (or L2 cache, perhaps). It's a good thing if your most common operations (the ones which access the commonly-used fields) use as little cache as possible for the object, so grouping those fields together gives you a better chance of this happening.
The general principle is called "locality of reference". The closer together the different memory addresses are that your program accesses, the better your chances of getting good cache behaviour. It's often difficult to predict performance in advance: different processor models of the same architecture can behave differently, multi-threading means you often don't know what's going to be in the cache, etc. But it's possible to talk about what's likely to happen, most of the time. If you want to know anything, you generally have to measure it.
Please note that there are some gotchas here. If you are using CPU-based atomic operations (which the atomic types in C++0x generally will), then you may find that the CPU locks the entire cache line in order to lock the field. Then, if you have several atomic fields close together, with different threads running on different cores and operating on different fields at the same time, you will find that all those atomic operations are serialised because they all lock the same memory location even though they're operating on different fields. Had they been operating on different cache lines then they would have worked in parallel, and run faster. In fact, as Glen (via Herb Sutter) points out in his answer, on a coherent-cache architecture this happens even without atomic operations, and can utterly ruin your day. So locality of reference is not necessarily a good thing where multiple cores are involved, even if they share cache. You can expect it to be, on grounds that cache misses usually are a source of lost speed, but be horribly wrong in your particular case.
Now, quite aside from distinguishing between commonly-used and less-used fields, the smaller an object is, the less memory (and hence less cache) it occupies. This is pretty much good news all around, at least where you don't have heavy contention. The size of an object depends on the fields in it, and on any padding which has to be inserted between fields in order to ensure they are correctly aligned for the architecture. C++ (sometimes) puts constraints on the order which fields must appear in an object, based on the order they are declared. This is to make low-level programming easier. So, if your object contains:
an int (4 bytes, 4-aligned)
followed by a char (1 byte, any alignment)
followed by an int (4 bytes, 4-aligned)
followed by a char (1 byte, any alignment)
then chances are this will occupy 16 bytes in memory. The size and alignment of int isn't the same on every platform, by the way, but 4 is very common and this is just an example.
In this case, the compiler will insert 3 bytes of padding before the second int, to correctly align it, and 3 bytes of padding at the end. An object's size has to be a multiple of its alignment, so that objects of the same type can be placed adjacent in memory. That's all an array is in C/C++, adjacent objects in memory. Had the struct been int, int, char, char, then the same object could have been 12 bytes, because char has no alignment requirement.
I said that whether int is 4-aligned is platform-dependent: on ARM it absolutely has to be, since unaligned access throws a hardware exception. On x86 you can access ints unaligned, but it's generally slower and IIRC non-atomic. So compilers usually (always?) 4-align ints on x86.
The rule of thumb when writing code, if you care about packing, is to look at the alignment requirement of each member of the struct. Then order the fields with the biggest-aligned types first, then the next smallest, and so on down to members with no aligment requirement. For example if I'm trying to write portable code I might come up with this:
struct some_stuff {
double d; // I expect double is 64bit IEEE, it might not be
uint64_t l; // 8 bytes, could be 8-aligned or 4-aligned, I don't know
uint32_t i; // 4 bytes, usually 4-aligned
int32_t j; // same
short s; // usually 2 bytes, could be 2-aligned or unaligned, I don't know
char c[4]; // array 4 chars, 4 bytes big but "never" needs 4-alignment
char d; // 1 byte, any alignment
};
If you don't know the alignment of a field, or you're writing portable code but want to do the best you can without major trickery, then you assume that the alignment requirement is the largest requirement of any fundamental type in the structure, and that the alignment requirement of fundamental types is their size. So, if your struct contains a uint64_t, or a long long, then the best guess is it's 8-aligned. Sometimes you'll be wrong, but you'll be right a lot of the time.
Note that games programmers like your blogger often know everything about their processor and hardware, and thus they don't have to guess. They know the cache line size, they know the size and alignment of every type, and they know the struct layout rules used by their compiler (for POD and non-POD types). If they support multiple platforms, then they can special-case for each one if necessary. They also spend a lot of time thinking about which objects in their game will benefit from performance improvements, and using profilers to find out where the real bottlenecks are. But even so, it's not such a bad idea to have a few rules of thumb that you apply whether the object needs it or not. As long as it won't make the code unclear, "put commonly-used fields at the start of the object" and "sort by alignment requirement" are two good rules.
Depending on the type of program you're running this advice may result in increased performance or it may slow things down drastically.
Doing this in a multi-threaded program means you're going to increase the chances of 'false-sharing'.
Check out Herb Sutters articles on the subject here
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The only real way to get a real performance increase is to measure your code, and use tools to identify the real bottle neck instead of arbitrarily changing stuff in your code base.
It is one of the ways of optimizing the working set size. There is a good article by John Robbins on how you can speed up the application performance by optimizing the working set size. Of course it involves careful selection of most frequent use cases the end user is likely to perform with the application.
We have slightly different guidelines for members here (ARM architecture target, mostly THUMB 16-bit codegen for various reasons):
group by alignment requirements (or, for newbies, "group by size" usually does the trick)
smallest first
"group by alignment" is somewhat obvious, and outside the scope of this question; it avoids padding, uses less memory, etc.
The second bullet, though, derives from the small 5-bit "immediate" field size on the THUMB LDRB (Load Register Byte), LDRH (Load Register Halfword), and LDR (Load Register) instructions.
5 bits means offsets of 0-31 can be encoded. Effectively, assuming "this" is handy in a register (which it usually is):
8-bit bytes can be loaded in one instruction if they exist at this+0 through this+31
16-bit halfwords if they exist at this+0 through this+62;
32-bit machine words if they exist at this+0 through this+124.
If they're outside this range, multiple instructions have to be generated: either a sequence of ADDs with immediates to accumulate the appropriate address in a register, or worse yet, a load from the literal pool at the end of the function.
If we do hit the literal pool, it hurts: the literal pool goes through the d-cache, not the i-cache; this means at least a cacheline worth of loads from main memory for the first literal pool access, and then a host of potential eviction and invalidation issues between the d-cache and i-cache if the literal pool doesn't start on its own cache line (i.e. if the actual code doesn't end at the end of a cache line).
(If I had a few wishes for the compiler we're working with, a way to force literal pools to start on cacheline boundaries would be one of them.)
(Unrelatedly, one of the things we do to avoid literal pool usage is keep all of our "globals" in a single table. This means one literal pool lookup for the "GlobalTable", rather than multiple lookups for each global. If you're really clever you might be able to keep your GlobalTable in some sort of memory that can be accessed without loading a literal pool entry -- was it .sbss?)
While locality of reference to improve the cache behavior of data accesses is often a relevant consideration, there are a couple other reasons for controlling layout when optimization is required - particularly in embedded systems, even though the CPUs used on many embedded systems do not even have a cache.
- Memory alignment of the fields in structures
Alignment considerations are pretty well understood by many programmers, so I won't go into too much detail here.
On most CPU architectures, fields in a structure must be accessed at a native alignment for efficiency. This means that if you mix various sized fields the compiler has to add padding between the fields to keep the alignment requirements correct. So to optimize the memory used by a structure it's important to keep this in mind and lay out the fields such that the largest fields are followed by smaller fields to keep the required padding to a minimum. If a structure is to be 'packed' to prevent padding, accessing unaligned fields comes at a high runtime cost as the compiler has to access unaligned fields using a series of accesses to smaller parts of the field along with shifts and masks to assemble the field value in a register.
- Offset of frequently used fields in a structure
Another consideration that can be important on many embedded systems is to have frequently accessed fields at the start of a structure.
Some architectures have a limited number of bits available in an instruction to encode an offset to a pointer access, so if you access a field whose offset exceeds that number of bits the compiler will have to use multiple instructions to form a pointer to the field. For example, the ARM's Thumb architecture has 5 bits to encode an offset, so it can access a word-sized field in a single instruction only if the field is within 124 bytes from the start. So if you have a large structure an optimization that an embedded engineer might want to keep in mind is to place frequently used fields at the beginning of a structure's layout.
Well the first member doesn't need an offset added to the pointer to access it.
In C#, the order of the member is determined by the compiler unless you put the attribute [LayoutKind.Sequential/Explicit] which forces the compiler to lay out the structure/class the way you tell it to.
As far as I can tell, the compiler seems to minimize packing while aligning the data types on their natural order (i.e. 4 bytes int start on 4 byte addresses).
I'm focusing on performance, execution speed, not memory usage.
The compiler, without any optimizing switch, will map the variable storage area using the same order of declarations in code.
Imagine
unsigned char a;
unsigned char b;
long c;
Big mess-up? without align switches, low-memory ops. et al, we're going to have an unsigned char using a 64bits word on your DDR3 dimm, and another 64bits word for the other, and yet the unavoidable one for the long.
So, that's a fetch per each variable.
However, packing it, or re-ordering it, will cause one fetch and one AND masking to be able to use the unsigned chars.
So speed-wise, on a current 64bits word-memory machine, aligns, reorderings, etc, are no-nos. I do microcontroller stuff, and there the differences in packed/non-packed are reallllly noticeable (talking about <10MIPS processors, 8bit word-memories)
On the side, it's long known that the engineering effort required to tweak code for performance other than what a good algorithm instructs you to do, and what the compiler is able to optimize, often results in burning rubber with no real effects. That and a write-only piece of syntaxically dubius code.
The last step-forward in optimization I saw (in uPs, don't think it's doable for PC apps) is to compile your program as a single module, have the compiler optimize it (much more general view of speed/pointer resolution/memory packing, etc), and have the linker trash non-called library functions, methods, etc.
In theory, it could reduce cache misses if you have big objects. But it's usually better to group members of the same size together so you have tighter memory packing.
I highly doubt that would have any bearing in CPU improvements - maybe readability. You can optimize the executable code if the commonly executed basic blocks that are executed within a given frame are in the same set of pages. This is the same idea but would not know how create basic blocks within the code. My guess is the compiler puts the functions in the order it sees them with no optimization here so you could try and place common functionality together.
Try and run a profiler/optimizer. First you compile with some profiling option then run your program. Once the profiled exe is complete it will dump some profiled information. Take this dump and run it through the optimizer as input.
I have been away from this line of work for years but not much has changed how they work.
(I'm referring to Intel CPUs and mainly with GCC, but poss ICC or MSVC)
Is it true using int8_t, int16_t or int64_t is less efficient compared with int32_tdue to additional instructions generated to to convert between the CPU word size and the chosen variable size?
I would be interested if anybody has any examples or best practices for this? I sometimes use smaller variable sizes to reduce cacheline loads, but say I only consumed 50 bytes of a cacheline with one variable being 8-bit int, it may be quicker processing by using the remaining cacheline space and promote the 8-bit int to a 32-bit int etc?
You can stuff more uint8_ts into a cache line, so loading N uint8_ts will be faster than loading N uint32_ts.
In addition, if you are using a modern Intel chip with SIMD instructions, a smart compiler will vectorize what it can. Again, using a small variable in your code will allow the compiler to stuff more lanes into a SIMD register.
I think it is best to use the smallest size you can, and leave the details up to the compiler. The compiler is probably smarter than you (and me) when it comes to stuff like this. For many operations (say unsigned addition), the compiler can use the same code for uint8, uint16 or uint32 (and just ignore the upper bits), so there is no speed difference.
The bottom line is that a cache miss is WAY more expensive than any arithmetic or logical operation, so it is nearly always better to worry about cache (and thus data size) than simple arithmetic.
(It used to be true a long time again that on Sun workstation, using double was significantly faster than float, because the hardware only supported double. I don't think that is true any more for modern x86, as the SIMD hardware (SSE, etc) have direct support for both single and double precision).
Mark Lakata answer points in the right direction.
I would like to add some points.
A wonderful resource for understanding and taking optimization decision are the Agner documents.
The Instruction Tables document has the latency for the most common instructions. You can see that some of them perform better in the native size version.
A mov for example may be eliminated, a mul have less latency.
However here we are talking about gaining 1 clock, we would have to execute a lot of instruction to compensate for a cache miss.
If this were the whole story it would have not worth it.
The real problems comes with the decoders.
When you use some length-changing prefixes (and you will by using non native size word) the decoder takes extra cycles.
The operand size prefix therefore changes the length of the rest of the instruction. The predecoders are unable to resolve this problem in a single clock cycle. It takes 6 clock cycles to recover from this error. It is therefore very important to avoid such length-changing prefixes.
In, nowadays, no longer more recent (but still present) microarchs the penalty was severe, specially with some kind arithmetic instructions.
In later microarchs this has been mitigated but the penalty it is still present.
Another aspect to consider is that using non native size requires to prefix the instructions and thereby generating larger code.
This is the closest as possible to the statement "additional instructions [are] generated to to convert between the CPU word size and the chosen variable size" as Intel CPU can handle non native word sizes.
With other, specially RISC, CPUs this is not generally true and more instruction can be generated.
So while you are making an optimal use of the data cache, you are also making a bad use of the instruction cache.
It is also worth nothing that on the common x64 ABI the stack must be aligned on 16 byte boundary and that usually the compiler saves local vars in the native word size or a close one (e.g. a DWORD on 64 bit system).
Only if you are allocating a sufficient number of local vars or if you are using array or packed structs you can gain benefits from using small variable size.
If you declare a single uint16_t var, it will probably takes the same stack space of a single uint64_t, so it is best to go for the fastest size.
Furthermore when it come to the data cache it is the locality that matters, rather than the data size alone.
So, what to do?
Luckily, you don't have to decide between having small data or small code.
If you have a considerable quantity of data this is usually handled with arrays or pointers and by the use of intermediate variables. An example being this line of code.
t = my_big_data[i];
Here my approach is:
Keep the external representation of data, i.e. the my_big_data array, as small as possible. For example if that array store temperatures use a coded uint8_t for each element.
Keep the internal representation of data, i.e. the t variable, as close as possible to the CPU word size. For example t could be a uint32_t or uint64_t.
This way you program optimize both caches and use the native word size.
As a bonus you may later decide to switch to SIMD instructions without have to repack the my_big_data memory layout.
The real problem is that programmers have spent far too much time worrying about efficiency in the wrong places and at the wrong times; premature optimization is the root of all evil (or at least most of it) in programming.
D. Knuth
When you design your structures memory layout be problem driven. For example, age values need 8 bit, city distances in miles need 16 bits.
When you code the algorithms use the fastest type the compiler is known to have for that scope. For example integers are faster than floating point numbers, uint_fast8_t is no slower than uint8_t.
When then it is time to improve the performance start by changing the algorithm (by using faster types, eliminating redundant operations, and so on) and then if it is needed the data structures (by aligning, padding, packing and so on).
I've heard that malloc() aligns memory based on the type that is being allocated. For example, from the book Understanding and Using C Pointers:
The memory allocated will be aligned according to the pointer's data type. Fore example, a four-byte integer would be allocated on an address boundary evenly divisible by four.
If I follow, this means that
int *integer=malloc(sizeof(int)); will be allocated on an address boundary evenly divisible by four. Even without casting (int *) on malloc.
I was working on a chat server; I read of a similar effect with structs.
And I have to ask: logically, why does it matter what the address boundary itself is divisible on? What's wrong with allocating a group of memory to the tune of n*sizeof(int) using an integer on address 129?
I know how pointer arithmetic works *(integer+1), but I can't work out the importance of boundaries...
The memory allocated will be aligned according to the pointer's data
type.
If you are talking about malloc, this is false. malloc doesn't care what you do with the data and will allocate memory aligned to fit the most stringent native type of the implementation.
From the standard:
The pointer returned if the allocation succeeds is suitably aligned so
that it may be assigned to a pointer to any type of object with a
fundamental alignment requirement and then used to access such an
object or an array of such objects in the space allocated (until the
space is explicitly deallocated)
And:
Logically, why does it matter what the address boundary itself is
divisible on
Due to the workings of the underlying machine, accessing unaligned data might be more expensive (e.g. x86) or illegal (e.g. arm). This lets the hardware take shortcuts that improve performance / simplify implementation.
In many processors, data that isn't aligned will cause a "trap" or "exception" (this is a different form of exception than those understood by the C++ compiler. Even on processors that don't trap when data isn't aligned, it is typically slower (twice as slow, for example) when the data is not correctly aligned. So it's in the compiler's/runtime library's best interest to ensure that things are nicely aligned.
And by the way, malloc (typically) doesn't know what you are allocating. Insteat, malloc will align ALL data, no matter what size it is, to some suitable boundary that is "good enough" for general data-access - typically 8 or 16 bytes in modern OS/processor combinations, 4 bytes in older systems.
This is because malloc won't know if you do char* p = malloc(1000); or double* p = malloc(1000);, so it has to assume you are storing double or whatever is the item with the largest alignment requirement.
The importance of alignment is not a language issue but a hardware issue. Some machines are incapable of reading a data value that is not properly aligned. Others can do it but do so less efficiently, e.g., requiring two reads to read one misaligned value.
The book quote is wrong; the memory returned by malloc is guaranteed to be aligned correctly for any type. Even if you write char *ch = malloc(37);, it is still aligned for int or any other type.
You seem to be asking "What is alignment?" If so, there are several questions on SO about this already, e.g. here, or a good explanation from IBM here.
It depends on the hardware. Even assuming int is 32 bits, malloc(sizeof(int)) could return an address divisible by 1, 2, or 4. Different processors handle unaligned access differently.
Processors don't read directly from RAM any more, that's too slow (it takes hundreds of cycles). So when they do grab RAM, they grab it in big chunks, like 64 bytes at a time. If your address isn't aligned, the 4-byte integer might straddle two 64-byte cache lines, so your processor has to do two loads and fix up the result. Or maybe the engineers decided that building the hardware to fix up unaligned loads isn't necessary, so the processor signals an exception: either your program crashes, or the operating system catches the exception and fixes up the operation (hundreds of wasted cycles).
Aligning addresses means your program plays nicely with hardware.
Because it's more fast; Most processor likes data which is aligned. Even, Some processor CANNOT access data which is not aligned! (If you try to access this data, processor may occur fault)
I understand the padding that takes place between the members of a struct to ensure correct alignment of individual types. However, why does the data structure have to be a multiple of alignment of largest member? I don't understand the padding is needed at the end.
Reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure_alignment
Good question. Consider this hypothetical type:
struct A {
int n;
bool flag;
};
So, an object of type A should take five bytes (four for the int plus one for the bool), but in fact it takes eight. Why?
The answer is seen if you use the type like this:
const size_t N = 100;
A a[N];
If each A were only five bytes, then a[0] would align but a[1], a[2] and most of the other elements would not.
But why does alignment even matter? There are several reasons, all hardware-related. One reason is that recently/frequently used memory is cached in cache lines on the CPU silicon for rapid access. An aligned object smaller than a cache line always fits in a single line (but see the interesting comments appended below), but an unaligned object may straddle two lines, wasting cache.
There are actually even more fundamental hardware reasons, having to do with the way byte-addressable data is transferred down a 32- or 64-bit data bus, quite apart from cache lines. Not only will misalignment clog the bus with extra fetches (due as before to straddling), but it will also force registers to shift bytes as they come in. Even worse, misalignment tends to confuse optimization logic (at least, Intel's optimization manual says that it does, though I have no personal knowledge of this last point). So, misalignment is very bad from a performance standpoint.
It usually is worth it to waste the padding bytes for these reasons.
Update: The comments below are all useful. I recommend them.
Depending on the hardware, alignment might be necessary or just help speeding up execution.
There is a certain number of processors (ARM I believe) in which an unaligned access leads to a hardware exception. Plain and simple.
Even though typical x86 processors are more lenient, there is still a penalty in accessing unaligned fundamental types, as the processor has to do more work to bring the bits into the register before being able to operate on it. Compilers usually offer specific attributes/pragmas when packing is desirable nonetheless.
Because of virtual addressing.
"...aligning a page on a page-sized boundary lets the
hardware map a virtual address to a physical address by substituting
the higher bits in the address, rather than doing complex arithmetic."
By the way, I found the Wikipedia page on this quite well written.
If the register size of the CPU is 32 bits, then it can grab memory that is on 32 bit boundaries with a single assembly instruction. It is slower to grab 32 bits, and then get the byte that starts at bit 8.
BTW: There doesn't have to be padding. You can ask that structures be packed.
I was reading a blog post by a game coder for Introversion and he is busily trying to squeeze every CPU tick he can out of the code. One trick he mentions off-hand is to
"re-order the member variables of a
class into most used and least used."
I'm not familiar with C++, nor with how it compiles, but I was wondering if
This statement is accurate?
How/Why?
Does it apply to other (compiled/scripting) languages?
I'm aware that the amount of (CPU) time saved by this trick would be minimal, it's not a deal-breaker. But on the other hand, in most functions it would be fairly easy to identify which variables are going to be the most commonly used, and just start coding this way by default.
Two issues here:
Whether and when keeping certain fields together is an optimization.
How to do actually do it.
The reason that it might help, is that memory is loaded into the CPU cache in chunks called "cache lines". This takes time, and generally speaking the more cache lines loaded for your object, the longer it takes. Also, the more other stuff gets thrown out of the cache to make room, which slows down other code in an unpredictable way.
The size of a cache line depends on the processor. If it is large compared with the size of your objects, then very few objects are going to span a cache line boundary, so the whole optimization is pretty irrelevant. Otherwise, you might get away with sometimes only having part of your object in cache, and the rest in main memory (or L2 cache, perhaps). It's a good thing if your most common operations (the ones which access the commonly-used fields) use as little cache as possible for the object, so grouping those fields together gives you a better chance of this happening.
The general principle is called "locality of reference". The closer together the different memory addresses are that your program accesses, the better your chances of getting good cache behaviour. It's often difficult to predict performance in advance: different processor models of the same architecture can behave differently, multi-threading means you often don't know what's going to be in the cache, etc. But it's possible to talk about what's likely to happen, most of the time. If you want to know anything, you generally have to measure it.
Please note that there are some gotchas here. If you are using CPU-based atomic operations (which the atomic types in C++0x generally will), then you may find that the CPU locks the entire cache line in order to lock the field. Then, if you have several atomic fields close together, with different threads running on different cores and operating on different fields at the same time, you will find that all those atomic operations are serialised because they all lock the same memory location even though they're operating on different fields. Had they been operating on different cache lines then they would have worked in parallel, and run faster. In fact, as Glen (via Herb Sutter) points out in his answer, on a coherent-cache architecture this happens even without atomic operations, and can utterly ruin your day. So locality of reference is not necessarily a good thing where multiple cores are involved, even if they share cache. You can expect it to be, on grounds that cache misses usually are a source of lost speed, but be horribly wrong in your particular case.
Now, quite aside from distinguishing between commonly-used and less-used fields, the smaller an object is, the less memory (and hence less cache) it occupies. This is pretty much good news all around, at least where you don't have heavy contention. The size of an object depends on the fields in it, and on any padding which has to be inserted between fields in order to ensure they are correctly aligned for the architecture. C++ (sometimes) puts constraints on the order which fields must appear in an object, based on the order they are declared. This is to make low-level programming easier. So, if your object contains:
an int (4 bytes, 4-aligned)
followed by a char (1 byte, any alignment)
followed by an int (4 bytes, 4-aligned)
followed by a char (1 byte, any alignment)
then chances are this will occupy 16 bytes in memory. The size and alignment of int isn't the same on every platform, by the way, but 4 is very common and this is just an example.
In this case, the compiler will insert 3 bytes of padding before the second int, to correctly align it, and 3 bytes of padding at the end. An object's size has to be a multiple of its alignment, so that objects of the same type can be placed adjacent in memory. That's all an array is in C/C++, adjacent objects in memory. Had the struct been int, int, char, char, then the same object could have been 12 bytes, because char has no alignment requirement.
I said that whether int is 4-aligned is platform-dependent: on ARM it absolutely has to be, since unaligned access throws a hardware exception. On x86 you can access ints unaligned, but it's generally slower and IIRC non-atomic. So compilers usually (always?) 4-align ints on x86.
The rule of thumb when writing code, if you care about packing, is to look at the alignment requirement of each member of the struct. Then order the fields with the biggest-aligned types first, then the next smallest, and so on down to members with no aligment requirement. For example if I'm trying to write portable code I might come up with this:
struct some_stuff {
double d; // I expect double is 64bit IEEE, it might not be
uint64_t l; // 8 bytes, could be 8-aligned or 4-aligned, I don't know
uint32_t i; // 4 bytes, usually 4-aligned
int32_t j; // same
short s; // usually 2 bytes, could be 2-aligned or unaligned, I don't know
char c[4]; // array 4 chars, 4 bytes big but "never" needs 4-alignment
char d; // 1 byte, any alignment
};
If you don't know the alignment of a field, or you're writing portable code but want to do the best you can without major trickery, then you assume that the alignment requirement is the largest requirement of any fundamental type in the structure, and that the alignment requirement of fundamental types is their size. So, if your struct contains a uint64_t, or a long long, then the best guess is it's 8-aligned. Sometimes you'll be wrong, but you'll be right a lot of the time.
Note that games programmers like your blogger often know everything about their processor and hardware, and thus they don't have to guess. They know the cache line size, they know the size and alignment of every type, and they know the struct layout rules used by their compiler (for POD and non-POD types). If they support multiple platforms, then they can special-case for each one if necessary. They also spend a lot of time thinking about which objects in their game will benefit from performance improvements, and using profilers to find out where the real bottlenecks are. But even so, it's not such a bad idea to have a few rules of thumb that you apply whether the object needs it or not. As long as it won't make the code unclear, "put commonly-used fields at the start of the object" and "sort by alignment requirement" are two good rules.
Depending on the type of program you're running this advice may result in increased performance or it may slow things down drastically.
Doing this in a multi-threaded program means you're going to increase the chances of 'false-sharing'.
Check out Herb Sutters articles on the subject here
I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The only real way to get a real performance increase is to measure your code, and use tools to identify the real bottle neck instead of arbitrarily changing stuff in your code base.
It is one of the ways of optimizing the working set size. There is a good article by John Robbins on how you can speed up the application performance by optimizing the working set size. Of course it involves careful selection of most frequent use cases the end user is likely to perform with the application.
We have slightly different guidelines for members here (ARM architecture target, mostly THUMB 16-bit codegen for various reasons):
group by alignment requirements (or, for newbies, "group by size" usually does the trick)
smallest first
"group by alignment" is somewhat obvious, and outside the scope of this question; it avoids padding, uses less memory, etc.
The second bullet, though, derives from the small 5-bit "immediate" field size on the THUMB LDRB (Load Register Byte), LDRH (Load Register Halfword), and LDR (Load Register) instructions.
5 bits means offsets of 0-31 can be encoded. Effectively, assuming "this" is handy in a register (which it usually is):
8-bit bytes can be loaded in one instruction if they exist at this+0 through this+31
16-bit halfwords if they exist at this+0 through this+62;
32-bit machine words if they exist at this+0 through this+124.
If they're outside this range, multiple instructions have to be generated: either a sequence of ADDs with immediates to accumulate the appropriate address in a register, or worse yet, a load from the literal pool at the end of the function.
If we do hit the literal pool, it hurts: the literal pool goes through the d-cache, not the i-cache; this means at least a cacheline worth of loads from main memory for the first literal pool access, and then a host of potential eviction and invalidation issues between the d-cache and i-cache if the literal pool doesn't start on its own cache line (i.e. if the actual code doesn't end at the end of a cache line).
(If I had a few wishes for the compiler we're working with, a way to force literal pools to start on cacheline boundaries would be one of them.)
(Unrelatedly, one of the things we do to avoid literal pool usage is keep all of our "globals" in a single table. This means one literal pool lookup for the "GlobalTable", rather than multiple lookups for each global. If you're really clever you might be able to keep your GlobalTable in some sort of memory that can be accessed without loading a literal pool entry -- was it .sbss?)
While locality of reference to improve the cache behavior of data accesses is often a relevant consideration, there are a couple other reasons for controlling layout when optimization is required - particularly in embedded systems, even though the CPUs used on many embedded systems do not even have a cache.
- Memory alignment of the fields in structures
Alignment considerations are pretty well understood by many programmers, so I won't go into too much detail here.
On most CPU architectures, fields in a structure must be accessed at a native alignment for efficiency. This means that if you mix various sized fields the compiler has to add padding between the fields to keep the alignment requirements correct. So to optimize the memory used by a structure it's important to keep this in mind and lay out the fields such that the largest fields are followed by smaller fields to keep the required padding to a minimum. If a structure is to be 'packed' to prevent padding, accessing unaligned fields comes at a high runtime cost as the compiler has to access unaligned fields using a series of accesses to smaller parts of the field along with shifts and masks to assemble the field value in a register.
- Offset of frequently used fields in a structure
Another consideration that can be important on many embedded systems is to have frequently accessed fields at the start of a structure.
Some architectures have a limited number of bits available in an instruction to encode an offset to a pointer access, so if you access a field whose offset exceeds that number of bits the compiler will have to use multiple instructions to form a pointer to the field. For example, the ARM's Thumb architecture has 5 bits to encode an offset, so it can access a word-sized field in a single instruction only if the field is within 124 bytes from the start. So if you have a large structure an optimization that an embedded engineer might want to keep in mind is to place frequently used fields at the beginning of a structure's layout.
Well the first member doesn't need an offset added to the pointer to access it.
In C#, the order of the member is determined by the compiler unless you put the attribute [LayoutKind.Sequential/Explicit] which forces the compiler to lay out the structure/class the way you tell it to.
As far as I can tell, the compiler seems to minimize packing while aligning the data types on their natural order (i.e. 4 bytes int start on 4 byte addresses).
I'm focusing on performance, execution speed, not memory usage.
The compiler, without any optimizing switch, will map the variable storage area using the same order of declarations in code.
Imagine
unsigned char a;
unsigned char b;
long c;
Big mess-up? without align switches, low-memory ops. et al, we're going to have an unsigned char using a 64bits word on your DDR3 dimm, and another 64bits word for the other, and yet the unavoidable one for the long.
So, that's a fetch per each variable.
However, packing it, or re-ordering it, will cause one fetch and one AND masking to be able to use the unsigned chars.
So speed-wise, on a current 64bits word-memory machine, aligns, reorderings, etc, are no-nos. I do microcontroller stuff, and there the differences in packed/non-packed are reallllly noticeable (talking about <10MIPS processors, 8bit word-memories)
On the side, it's long known that the engineering effort required to tweak code for performance other than what a good algorithm instructs you to do, and what the compiler is able to optimize, often results in burning rubber with no real effects. That and a write-only piece of syntaxically dubius code.
The last step-forward in optimization I saw (in uPs, don't think it's doable for PC apps) is to compile your program as a single module, have the compiler optimize it (much more general view of speed/pointer resolution/memory packing, etc), and have the linker trash non-called library functions, methods, etc.
In theory, it could reduce cache misses if you have big objects. But it's usually better to group members of the same size together so you have tighter memory packing.
I highly doubt that would have any bearing in CPU improvements - maybe readability. You can optimize the executable code if the commonly executed basic blocks that are executed within a given frame are in the same set of pages. This is the same idea but would not know how create basic blocks within the code. My guess is the compiler puts the functions in the order it sees them with no optimization here so you could try and place common functionality together.
Try and run a profiler/optimizer. First you compile with some profiling option then run your program. Once the profiled exe is complete it will dump some profiled information. Take this dump and run it through the optimizer as input.
I have been away from this line of work for years but not much has changed how they work.