Related
I'm coding a physics simulation and I'm now feeling the need for optimizing it. I'm thinking about improving one point: one of the methods of one of my class (which I call a billion times in several cases) defines everytime a probability distribution. Here is the code:
void myClass::myMethod(){ //called billions of times in several cases
uniform_real_distribution<> probd(0,1);
uniform_int_distribution<> probh(1,h-2);
uniform_int_distribution<> probv(1,v-2);
//rest of the code
}
Could I pass the distribution as member of the class so that I won't have to define them everytime? And just initialize them in the constructor and redefine them when h and v change? Can it be a good optimizing progress? And last question, could it be something that is already corrected by the compiler (g++ in my case) when compiled with flag -O3 or -O2?
Thank you in advance!
Update: I coded it and timed both: the program turned actually a bit slower (a few percents) so I'm back at what I started with: creating the probability distributions at each loop
Answer A: I shouldn't think so, for a uniform distribution it's just going to copy the parameter values into place, maybe with a small amount of arithmetic, and that will be well optimized.
However, I believe distribution objects can have state. They can use part of the random data from a call to the generator, and are permitted save the rest of the randomness to use next time the distribution is used, in order to reduce the total number of calls to the generator. So when you destroy a distribution object you might be discarding some possibly-costly random data.
Answer B: stop guessing and test it.
Time your code, then add static to the definition of probd and time it again.
Yes
Yes
Well, there may be some advantage, but AFAIK those objects aren't really heavyweight/expensive to construct. Also, with locals you may gain something in data locality and in assumptions the optimizer can make.
I don't think they are automatically moved as class variables (especially if your class is POD - in that case I doubt the compiler will dare to modify its layout); most probably, instead, they are completely optimized away - only the code of the called methods - in particular operator() - may remain, referring directly to h and v. But this must be checked by looking at the generated assembly.
Incidentally, if you have a performance problem, besides optimizing obvious points (non-optimal algorithms used in inner loops, continuous memory allocations, removing useless copies of big objects, ...) you should really try to use a profiler to find the real "hot spots" in your code, and concentrate to optimize them instead of going randomly through all the code.
uniform_real_distribution maintains a state of type param_type which is two double values (using default template parameters). The constructor assigns to these and is otherwise trivial, the destructor is trivial.
Therefore, constructing a temporary within your function has an overhead of storing 2 double values as compared to initializing 1 pointer (or reference) or going through an indirection via this. In theory, it might therefore be faster (though, what appears to be faster, or what would make sense to run faster isn't necessary any faster). Since it's not much work, it's certainly worth trying and timing whether there's a difference, even if it is a micro-optimization.
Some 3-4 extra cycles are normally neglegible, but since you're saying "billions of times" it may of course very well make a measurable difference. 3 cycles times one billion is 1 second on a 3GHz machine.
Of course, optimization without profiling is always somewhat... awkward. You might very well find that a different part in your code that's called billions of times saves a lot more cycles.
EDIT:
Since you're not going to modify it, and since the first distribution is initialized with literal values, you might actually make it a constant (such as a constexpr or namespace level static const). That should, regardless of the other two, allow the compiler to generate the most efficient code in any case for that one.
So, there's this rule to try to pull if statements out of high repetition loops:
for( int i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i++ )
{
if( someModeSettingOn ) doThis( data[i] ) ;
else doThat( data[i] ) ;
}
They say, it's better to break it up, to put the if statement outside:
if( someModeSettingOn )
for( int i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i++ )
doThis( data[i] ) ;
else
for( int i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i++ )
doThat( data[i] ) ;
(In case you're saying "Ho! Don't optimize that yourself! The compiler will do it!") Sure the optimizer might do this for you. But in Typical C++ Bullshit (which I don't agree with all his points, eg his attitude towards virtual functions) Mike Acton says "Why make the compiler guess at something you know? Pretty much best point of those stickies, for me.
So why not use a function pointer instead?
FunctionPointer *fp ;
if( someModeSettingOn ) fp = func1 ;
else fp = func2 ;
for( int i = 0 ; i < 10000 ; i++ )
{
fp( data[i] ) ;
}
Is there some kind of hidden overhead to function pointers? Is it is efficient as calling a straight function?
In this example it's impossible to say which case will be faster. You need to profile this code on target platform/compiler to estimate it.
And in general, in 99% case such code need not to be optimized. It's example of evil premature optimization.
Write human-readable code and optimize it only if need after profiling.
Don't guess, measure.
But, if I absolutely had to guess, I'd say the third variant (function pointer) is going to be slower than the second variant (if outside loops), which I suspect might play with CPU's branch prediction better.
The first variant may or may not be equivalent to the second one, depending on how smart the compiler is, as you have already noted.
Why make the compiler guess at something you know?
Because you may complicate the code for future maintainers without providing any tangible benefit to the users of your code. This change smells strongly of premature optimization and only after profiling would I consider anything other than the obvious (if inside loop) implementation.
Given that profiling shows it to be a problem then as a guess I believe pulling the if out of the loop would be faster than the function pointer because the pointer may add a level of indirection that the compiler can't optimize away. It will also decrease the likelihood that the compiler can inline any calls.
However I would also consider an alternate design using an abstract interface instead of an if within the loop. Then each data object already knows what to do automatically.
My bet would be on the second version to be the fastest with the if/else outside the loop provided that I get a refund when we tie and test this across the widest range of compilers. :-D I make this bet with quite a number of years with VTune in hand.
That said, I would actually be happy if I lost the bet. I think it's very feasible that many compilers nowadays could optimize the first version to rival the second, detecting that you're repeatedly checking a variable which doesn't change inside the loop and therefore effectively hoisting the branching to occur outside the loop.
However, I haven't encountered a case yet where I've seen an optimizer do the analogical equivalent of inlining an indirect function call... though if there was a case where an optimizer could do this, yours would definitely be the easiest since it assigns the addresses to the functions to call in the same function in which it calls those functions through the function pointers. I'd be really pleasantly surprised if optimizers can do that now, especially because I like your third version best from a maintainability standpoint (easiest one to change if we want to add new conditions which lead to different functions to call, e.g.).
Still, if it fails to inline, then the function pointer solution will have a tendency to be the most costly, not only because of the long jump and potentially the additional stack spills and so forth, but also because the optimizer will lack information -- there's an optimizer barrier when it doesn't know what function is going to be called through a pointer. At that point it can no longer coalesce all this information in IR and do the best job of instruction selection, register allocation, etc. This compiler design aspect of indirect function calls isn't discussed quite as often, but is potentially the most expensive part of calling a function indirectly.
Not sure if it qualifies as "hidden", but of course using a function pointer requires one more level of indirection.
The compiler has to generate code to dereference the pointer, and then jump to the resulting address, as opposed to code that just directly jumps to a constant address, for a normal function call.
You have three cases:
If inside the loop, function pointer de-ref inside the loop, if outside the loop.
Of the three, WITH NO COMPILER OPTIMIZATION, the third is going to be the best. The first does a conditional and the second does a pointer de-reference on top of the code you want to run, while the third just runs what you want it to.
If you want to optimize yourself do NOT do the function pointer version! If you don't trust the compiler to optimize, then the extra indirection might end up costing you, and it's a lot easier to break accidentally in the future (in my opinion).
You have to measure which is faster - but I very much doubt the function pointer answer will be faster. Checking a flag probalby has zero latency on modern processors with deep multiple pipelines. Whereas a function pointer will make it likely that the compiler will be forced to do an actual function call, pushing registers etc.
"Why make the compiler guess at something you know?"
Both you and the compiler know some things at compile time - but the processor knows even more things at run time - like if there are empty pipelines in that inner loop. The days of doing this kind of optimization are gone outside of embedded systems and graphics shaders.
The others all raise very valid points, most notably that you have to measure. I want to add three things:
One important aspect is that using function pointers often prevents inlining, which can kill the performance of your code. But it definitely depends. Try to play around with the godbolt compiler explorer and have a look at the assembly generated:
https://godbolt.org/g/85ZzpK
Note than when doThis and doThat are not defined, e.g. as could happen across DSO boundaries, there won't be much of a difference.
The second point is related to the branch prediction. Have a look at https://danluu.com/branch-prediction/. It should make it clear that the code you have here is actually an ideal case for the branch predictor and thus you probably don't have to bother. Again, a good profiler like perf or VTune will tell you whether you are suffering from branch mispredictions or not.
Finally, there was at least one scenario I've seen where hoisting out the conditionals form a loop made a huge difference, despite the above reasoning. This was in a tight mathematical loop, which was not getting auto-vectorized due to the conditionals. GCC and Clang can both output reports about what loop gets vectorized, or why that wasn't done. In my case, a conditional was indeed the issue for the autovectorizer. This was with GCC 4.8 though, so things may have changed since then. With Godbolt, it's pretty easy to check whether this is an issue for you. Again, always measure on your target machine and check whether you are affected or not.
Consider the example with for loop:
for(int i = 0; i <= NUM; i++); // forward
for(int i = NUM; i >= 0; i--); // reverse
I tested this loops with gcc (linux-64). Without any optimization flag, forward loop was faster and with optimization to O3/O4, reverse loop was faster.
Somewhere I heard that due to better cache replacement techniques, forward loop is faster.
Personally I think, reverse loop should be faster (whether NUM is a constant or variable). Because any microprocessor will have single instruction for comparison with 0, i >= 0 (i.e. JLZ (jump if less than zero) and equivalent).
Is there any deterministic answer to this ?
No, there is absolutely no deterministic answer for this. You're looking at two different levels of abstraction.
C++ has absolutely nothing to say about what happens under the covers, performance-wise. It specifies a virtual machine which executes C++ code and, while it covers functionality, it does not cover performance of the underlying environment (a).
Which of those is faster will depend on a variety of factors. You may find yourself running on a CPU which makes no distinction between comparing with an arbitrary value and comparing with zero.
You may find an architecture where incrementing a register is ten times faster than decrementing one, bizarre though that may seem.
You may even find a brain-dead architecture that has no decrement, add or subtract instructions at all, and you have to emulate decrement by calling increment 2n-1 times (where n is the word size).
Bottom line: you can't presume to know what's going on under the hood unless you want to look at a very specific CPU, compiler, etc.
You should optimise your code for readability first. If you need to process things in an increasing manner, use the first option. If a decreasing manner, use the latter. If either way seems equally natural, then choose the fastest one, discovered by benchmarking or analysis of the underlying architecture and assembler code. But only do this if you have a specific performance problem, otherwise you're wasting effort.
In any case, since you're almost certainly going to be using i for something, it's likely that whatever tiny increase in performance you get by going the fastest way will be more than swamped by the fact that you now have to calculate NUM-i inside the loop (unless, of course, the compiler is smarter than the developer which, based on what I've seen from gcc, is quite possible).
(a) It does specify certain performance-related things such as the time complexity of some things in the containers library, but not specifically the thing you're asking about, whether forward loops or reverse ones are faster.
The cache replacement techniques only come in effect if there is a conflict. Perhaps NUM isn't big enough for it to have an effect, or perhaps the mapping of virtual to physical memory happens to be favorable for the cache replacement algorithm.
Trying to potentially save a single machine instruction is showing lack of trust for the compiler. If it was that easy, surely the optimizer would know that!
Maybe incrementing a loop variable is so much more common that CPU's branch prediction works better on those.
With the compiler optimization, you loop might be just unrolled—given that I correctly assume, your NUM is a #define constant—and therefore faster.
Although it doesn't really answer your question, but a thought. How about this loop:
int i = NUM + 1;
while ( i --> 0 )//it looks as if i goes to zero (like in calculus)!
{
}
I'm trying to optimize 'in the small' on a project of mine.
There's a series of array accesses that are individually tiny, but profiling has revealed that these array accesses are where the vast majority of my program is spending its time. So, time to make things faster, since the program takes about an hour to run.
I've moved the following type of access:
const float theValOld1 = image(x, y, z);
const float theValOld2 = image(x, y+1, z);
const float theValOld3 = image(x, y-1, z);
const float theValOld4 = image(x-1, y, z);
etc, for 28 accesses around the current pixel.
where image thunks down to
float image(const int x, const int y, const int z) const {
return data[z*xsize*ysize + y*xsize + x];
}
and I've replaced it with
const int yindex = y*xsize;
const int zindex = z*xsize*ysize;
const float* thePtr = &(data[z*xsize*ysize + y*xsize + x]);
const float theVal1 = *(thePtr);
const float theVal2 = *(thePtr + yindex);
const float theVal3 = *(thePtr - yindex);
const float theVal4 = *(thePtr - 1);
etc, for the same number of operations.
I would expect that, if the compiler were totally awesome, that this change would do nothing to the speed. If the compiler is not awesome, then I'd say that the second version should be faster, if only because I'm avoiding the implict pointer addition that comes with the [] thunk, as well as removing the multiplications for the y and z indeces.
To make it even more lopsided, I've moved the z operations into their own section that only gets hit if zindex != 0, so effectively, the second version only has 9 accesses. So by that metric, the second version should definitely be faster.
To measure performance, I'm using QueryPerformanceCounter.
What's odd to me is that the order of operations matters!
If I leave the operations as described and compare the timings (as well as the results, to make sure that the same value is calculated after optimization), then the older code takes about 45 ticks per pixel and the new code takes 10 ticks per pixel. If I reverse the operations, then the old code takes about 14 ticks per pixel and the new code takes about 30 ticks per pixel (with lots of noise in there, these are averages over about 100 pixels).
Why should the order matter? Is there caching or something happening? The variables are all named different things, so I wouldn't think that would matter. If there is some caching happening, is there any way I can take advantage of it from pixel to pixel?
Corollary: To compare speed, I'm supposing that the right way is to run the two versions independently of one another, and then compare the results from different runs. I'd like to have the two comparisons next to each other make sense, but there's obviously something happening here that prevents that. Is there a way to salvage this side-by-side run to get a reasonable speed comparison from a single run, so I can make sure that the results are identical as well (easily)?
EDIT: To clarify.
I have both new and old code in the same function, so I can make sure that the results are identical.
If I run old code and then new code, new code runs faster than old.
If I run new code and then old code, old code runs faster than new.
The z hit is required by the math, and the if statement cannot be removed, and is present in both. For the new code, I've just moved more z-specific code into the z section, and the test code I'm using is 100% 2D. When I move to 3D testing, then I'm sure I'll see more of the effect of branching.
You may (possibly) be running into some sort of readahead or cacheline boundary issue. Generally speaking, when you load a single value and it isn't "hot" (in cache), the CPU will pull in a cache line (32, 64, or 128 bytes are pretty typical, depending on processor). Subsequent reads to the same line will be much faster.
If you change the order of operations, you may just be seeing stalls due to how the lines are being loaded and evicted.
The best way to figure something like this out is to open "Disassembly" view and spend some quality time with your processor's reference manual.
If you're lucky, the changes that the code reordering causes will be obvious (the compiler may be generating extra instructions or branches). Less lucky, it will be a stall somewhere in the processor -- during the decode pipeline or due to a memory fetch...
A good profiler that can count stalls and cache misses may help here too (AMD has CodeAnalyst, for example).
If you're not under a time crunch, it's really worthwhile to dive into the disasm -- at the very least, you'll probably end up learning something you didn't know before about how your CPU, machine architecture, compiler, libraries, etc work. (I almost always end up going "huh" when studying disasm.)
If both the new and old versions run on the same data array, then yes, the last run will almost certainly get a speed bump due to caching. Even if the code is different, it'll be accessing data that was already touched by the previous version, so depending on data size, it might be in L1 cache, will probably be in L2 cache, and if a L3 cache exists, almost certainly in that. There'll probably also be some overlap in the code, meaning that the instruction cache will further boost performance of the second version.
A common way to benchmark is to run the algorithm once first, without timing it, simply to ensure that that's going to be cached, is cached, and then run it again a large number of times with timing enabled. (Don't trust a single execution, unless it takes at least a second or two. Otherwise small variations in system load, cache, OS interrupts or page faults can cause the measured time to vary). To eliminate the noise, measure the combined time taken for several runs of the algorithm, and obviously with no output in between. The fact that you're seeing spikes of 3x the usual time means that you're measuring at a way too fine-grained level. Which basically makes your timings useless.
Why should the order matter? Is there caching or something happening? The variables are all named different things, so I wouldn't think that would matter. If there is some caching happening, is there any way I can take advantage of it from pixel to pixel?
The naming doesn't matter. When the code is compiled, variables are translated into memory addresses or register id's. But when you run through your image array, you're loading it all into CPU cache, so it can be read faster the next time you run through it.
And yes, you can and should take advantage of it.
The computer tries very hard to exploit spatial and temporal locality -- that is, if you access a memory address X at time T, it assumes that you're going to need address X+1 very soon (spatial locality), and that you'll probably also need X again, at time T+1 (temporal locality). It tries to speed up those cases in every way possible (primarily by caching), so you should try to exploit it.
To make it even more lopsided, I've moved the z operations into their own section that only gets hit if zindex != 0, so effectively, the second version only has 9 accesses. So by that metric, the second version should definitely be faster.
I don't know where you placed that if statement, but if it's in a frequently evaluated block of code, the cost of the branch might hurt you more than you're saving. Branches can be expensive, and they inhibit the compiler's and CPU's ability to reorder and schedule instructions. So you may be better off without it. You should probably do this as a separate optimization that can be benchmarked in isolation.
I don't know which algorithm you're implementing, but I'm guessing you need to do this for every pixel?
If so, you should try to cache your lookups. Once you've got image(x, y, z), that'll be the next pixel's image(x+1, y, z), so cache it in the loop so the next pixel won't have to look it up from scratch. That would potentially allow you to reduce your 9 accesses in the X/Y plane down to three (use 3 cached values from the last iteration, 3 from the one before it, and 3 we just loaded in this iteration)
If you're updating the value of each pixel as a result of its neighbors values, a better approach may be to run the algorithm in a checkerboard pattern. Update every other pixel in the first iteration, using only values from their neighbors (which you're not updating), and then run a second pass where you update the pixels you read from before, based on the values of the pixels you updated before. This allows you to eliminate dependencies between neighboring pixels, so their evaluation can be pipelined and parallelized efficiently.
In the loop that performs all the lookups, unroll it a few times, and try to place all the memory reads at the top, and all the computations further down, to give the CPU a chance to overlap the two (since data reads are a lot slower, get them started, and while they're running, the CPU will try to find other instructions it can evaluate).
For any constant values, try to precompute them as much as possible. (rather than z*xsize*ysize, precompute xsize*ysize, and multiply z with the result of that.
Another thing that may help is to prefer local variables over globals or class members. You may gain something simply by, at the start of the function, making local copies of the class members you're going to need. The compiler can always optimize the extra variables out again if it wants to, but you make it clear that it shouldn't worry about underlying changes to the object state (which might otherwise force it to reload the members every time you access them)
And finally, study the generated assembly in detail. See where it's performing unnecessary store/loads, where operations are being repeated even though they could be cached, and where the ordering of instructions is inefficient, or where the compiler fails to inline as much as you'd hoped.
I honestly wouldn't expect your changes to the lookup function to have much effect though. An array access with the operator[] is easily convertible to the equivalent pointer arithmetic, and the compiler can optimize that pretty efficiently, as long as the offsets you're adding don't change.
Usually, the key to low-level optimizations is, somewhat ironically, not to look at individual lines of code, but at whole functions, and at loops. You need a certain amount of instructions in a block so you have something to work with, since a lot of optimizations deal with breaking dependencies between chains of instructions, reordering to hide instruction latency, and with caching individual values to avoid memory load/stores. That's almost impossible to do on individual array lookups, but there's almost certainly a lot gained if you consider a couple of pixels at a time.
Of course, as with almost all microoptimizations, there are no always true answers. Some of the above might be useful to you, or they might not.
If you tell us more about the access pattern (which pixels are you accessing, is there any required order, and are you just reading, or writing as well? If writing, when and where are the updated values used?)
If you give us a bit more information, we'll be able to offer much more specific (and likely to be effective) suggestions
When optimising, examining the data access pattern is essential.
for example:
assuming a width of 240
for a pixel at <x,y,z> 10,10,0
with original access pattern would give you:
a. data[0+ 10*240 + 10] -> data[2410]
b. data[0+ 11*240 + 10] -> data[2650]
c. data[0+ 9*240 + 10] -> data[2170]
d. data[0+ 10*240 + 9] -> data[2409]
Notice the indices which are in arbitrary order.
Memory controller makes aligned accesses to the main memory to fill the cache lines.
If you order your operations so that accesses are to ascending memory addresses
(e.g. c,d,a,b ) then the memory controller would be able to stream the data in to
the cache lines.
Missing cache on read would be expensive as it has to search down the cache
hierarchy down to the main memory. Main memory access could be 100x slower than
cache. Minimising main memory access will improve the speed of your operation.
To make it even more lopsided, I've moved the z operations into their own section that only gets hit if zindex != 0, so effectively, the second version only has 9 accesses. So by that metric, the second version should definitely be faster.
Did you actually measure that? Because I'd be pretty surprised if that were true. An if statement in the inner loop of your program can add a surprising amount of overhead -- see Is "IF" expensive?. I'd be willing to bet that the overhead of the extra multiply is a lot less than the overhead of the branching, unless z happens to be zero 99% of the time.
What's odd to me is that the order of operations matters!
The order of what operations? It's not clear to me what you're reordering here. Please give some more snippets of what you're trying to do.
Many years ago, C compilers were not particularly smart. As a workaround K&R invented the register keyword, to hint to the compiler, that maybe it would be a good idea to keep this variable in an internal register. They also made the tertiary operator to help generate better code.
As time passed, the compilers matured. They became very smart in that their flow analysis allowing them to make better decisions about what values to hold in registers than you could possibly do. The register keyword became unimportant.
FORTRAN can be faster than C for some sorts of operations, due to alias issues. In theory with careful coding, one can get around this restriction to enable the optimizer to generate faster code.
What coding practices are available that may enable the compiler/optimizer to generate faster code?
Identifying the platform and compiler you use, would be appreciated.
Why does the technique seem to work?
Sample code is encouraged.
Here is a related question
[Edit] This question is not about the overall process to profile, and optimize. Assume that the program has been written correctly, compiled with full optimization, tested and put into production. There may be constructs in your code that prohibit the optimizer from doing the best job that it can. What can you do to refactor that will remove these prohibitions, and allow the optimizer to generate even faster code?
[Edit] Offset related link
Here's a coding practice to help the compiler create fast code—any language, any platform, any compiler, any problem:
Do not use any clever tricks which force, or even encourage, the compiler to lay variables out in memory (including cache and registers) as you think best. First write a program which is correct and maintainable.
Next, profile your code.
Then, and only then, you might want to start investigating the effects of telling the compiler how to use memory. Make 1 change at a time and measure its impact.
Expect to be disappointed and to have to work very hard indeed for small performance improvements. Modern compilers for mature languages such as Fortran and C are very, very good. If you read an account of a 'trick' to get better performance out of code, bear in mind that the compiler writers have also read about it and, if it is worth doing, probably implemented it. They probably wrote what you read in the first place.
Write to local variables and not output arguments! This can be a huge help for getting around aliasing slowdowns. For example, if your code looks like
void DoSomething(const Foo& foo1, const Foo* foo2, int numFoo, Foo& barOut)
{
for (int i=0; i<numFoo, i++)
{
barOut.munge(foo1, foo2[i]);
}
}
the compiler doesn't know that foo1 != barOut, and thus has to reload foo1 each time through the loop. It also can't read foo2[i] until the write to barOut is finished. You could start messing around with restricted pointers, but it's just as effective (and much clearer) to do this:
void DoSomethingFaster(const Foo& foo1, const Foo* foo2, int numFoo, Foo& barOut)
{
Foo barTemp = barOut;
for (int i=0; i<numFoo, i++)
{
barTemp.munge(foo1, foo2[i]);
}
barOut = barTemp;
}
It sounds silly, but the compiler can be much smarter dealing with the local variable, since it can't possibly overlap in memory with any of the arguments. This can help you avoid the dreaded load-hit-store (mentioned by Francis Boivin in this thread).
The order you traverse memory can have profound impacts on performance and compilers aren't really good at figuring that out and fixing it. You have to be conscientious of cache locality concerns when you write code if you care about performance. For example two-dimensional arrays in C are allocated in row-major format. Traversing arrays in column major format will tend to make you have more cache misses and make your program more memory bound than processor bound:
#define N 1000000;
int matrix[N][N] = { ... };
//awesomely fast
long sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++){
for(int j = 0; j < N; j++){
sum += matrix[i][j];
}
}
//painfully slow
long sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; i++){
for(int j = 0; j < N; j++){
sum += matrix[j][i];
}
}
Generic Optimizations
Here as some of my favorite optimizations. I have actually increased execution times and reduced program sizes by using these.
Declare small functions as inline or macros
Each call to a function (or method) incurs overhead, such as pushing variables onto the stack. Some functions may incur an overhead on return as well. An inefficient function or method has fewer statements in its content than the combined overhead. These are good candidates for inlining, whether it be as #define macros or inline functions. (Yes, I know inline is only a suggestion, but in this case I consider it as a reminder to the compiler.)
Remove dead and redundant code
If the code isn't used or does not contribute to the program's result, get rid of it.
Simplify design of algorithms
I once removed a lot of assembly code and execution time from a program by writing down the algebraic equation it was calculating and then simplified the algebraic expression. The implementation of the simplified algebraic expression took up less room and time than the original function.
Loop Unrolling
Each loop has an overhead of incrementing and termination checking. To get an estimate of the performance factor, count the number of instructions in the overhead (minimum 3: increment, check, goto start of loop) and divide by the number of statements inside the loop. The lower the number the better.
Edit: provide an example of loop unrolling
Before:
unsigned int sum = 0;
for (size_t i; i < BYTES_TO_CHECKSUM; ++i)
{
sum += *buffer++;
}
After unrolling:
unsigned int sum = 0;
size_t i = 0;
**const size_t STATEMENTS_PER_LOOP = 8;**
for (i = 0; i < BYTES_TO_CHECKSUM; **i = i / STATEMENTS_PER_LOOP**)
{
sum += *buffer++; // 1
sum += *buffer++; // 2
sum += *buffer++; // 3
sum += *buffer++; // 4
sum += *buffer++; // 5
sum += *buffer++; // 6
sum += *buffer++; // 7
sum += *buffer++; // 8
}
// Handle the remainder:
for (; i < BYTES_TO_CHECKSUM; ++i)
{
sum += *buffer++;
}
In this advantage, a secondary benefit is gained: more statements are executed before the processor has to reload the instruction cache.
I've had amazing results when I unrolled a loop to 32 statements. This was one of the bottlenecks since the program had to calculate a checksum on a 2GB file. This optimization combined with block reading improved performance from 1 hour to 5 minutes. Loop unrolling provided excellent performance in assembly language too, my memcpy was a lot faster than the compiler's memcpy. -- T.M.
Reduction of if statements
Processors hate branches, or jumps, since it forces the processor to reload its queue of instructions.
Boolean Arithmetic (Edited: applied code format to code fragment, added example)
Convert if statements into boolean assignments. Some processors can conditionally execute instructions without branching:
bool status = true;
status = status && /* first test */;
status = status && /* second test */;
The short circuiting of the Logical AND operator (&&) prevents execution of the tests if the status is false.
Example:
struct Reader_Interface
{
virtual bool write(unsigned int value) = 0;
};
struct Rectangle
{
unsigned int origin_x;
unsigned int origin_y;
unsigned int height;
unsigned int width;
bool write(Reader_Interface * p_reader)
{
bool status = false;
if (p_reader)
{
status = p_reader->write(origin_x);
status = status && p_reader->write(origin_y);
status = status && p_reader->write(height);
status = status && p_reader->write(width);
}
return status;
};
Factor Variable Allocation outside of loops
If a variable is created on the fly inside a loop, move the creation / allocation to before the loop. In most instances, the variable doesn't need to be allocated during each iteration.
Factor constant expressions outside of loops
If a calculation or variable value does not depend on the loop index, move it outside (before) the loop.
I/O in blocks
Read and write data in large chunks (blocks). The bigger the better. For example, reading one octect at a time is less efficient than reading 1024 octets with one read.
Example:
static const char Menu_Text[] = "\n"
"1) Print\n"
"2) Insert new customer\n"
"3) Destroy\n"
"4) Launch Nasal Demons\n"
"Enter selection: ";
static const size_t Menu_Text_Length = sizeof(Menu_Text) - sizeof('\0');
//...
std::cout.write(Menu_Text, Menu_Text_Length);
The efficiency of this technique can be visually demonstrated. :-)
Don't use printf family for constant data
Constant data can be output using a block write. Formatted write will waste time scanning the text for formatting characters or processing formatting commands. See above code example.
Format to memory, then write
Format to a char array using multiple sprintf, then use fwrite. This also allows the data layout to be broken up into "constant sections" and variable sections. Think of mail-merge.
Declare constant text (string literals) as static const
When variables are declared without the static, some compilers may allocate space on the stack and copy the data from ROM. These are two unnecessary operations. This can be fixed by using the static prefix.
Lastly, Code like the compiler would
Sometimes, the compiler can optimize several small statements better than one complicated version. Also, writing code to help the compiler optimize helps too. If I want the compiler to use special block transfer instructions, I will write code that looks like it should use the special instructions.
The optimizer isn't really in control of the performance of your program, you are. Use appropriate algorithms and structures and profile, profile, profile.
That said, you shouldn't inner-loop on a small function from one file in another file, as that stops it from being inlined.
Avoid taking the address of a variable if possible. Asking for a pointer isn't "free" as it means the variable needs to be kept in memory. Even an array can be kept in registers if you avoid pointers — this is essential for vectorizing.
Which leads to the next point, read the ^#$# manual! GCC can vectorize plain C code if you sprinkle a __restrict__ here and an __attribute__( __aligned__ ) there. If you want something very specific from the optimizer, you might have to be specific.
On most modern processors, the biggest bottleneck is memory.
Aliasing: Load-Hit-Store can be devastating in a tight loop. If you're reading one memory location and writing to another and know that they are disjoint, carefully putting an alias keyword on the function parameters can really help the compiler generate faster code. However if the memory regions do overlap and you used 'alias', you're in for a good debugging session of undefined behaviors!
Cache-miss: Not really sure how you can help the compiler since it's mostly algorithmic, but there are intrinsics to prefetch memory.
Also don't try to convert floating point values to int and vice versa too much since they use different registers and converting from one type to another means calling the actual conversion instruction, writing the value to memory and reading it back in the proper register set.
The vast majority of code that people write will be I/O bound (I believe all the code I have written for money in the last 30 years has been so bound), so the activities of the optimiser for most folks will be academic.
However, I would remind people that for the code to be optimised you have to tell the compiler to to optimise it - lots of people (including me when I forget) post C++ benchmarks here that are meaningless without the optimiser being enabled.
use const correctness as much as possible in your code. It allows the compiler to optimize much better.
In this document are loads of other optimization tips: CPP optimizations (a bit old document though)
highlights:
use constructor initialization lists
use prefix operators
use explicit constructors
inline functions
avoid temporary objects
be aware of the cost of virtual functions
return objects via reference parameters
consider per class allocation
consider stl container allocators
the 'empty member' optimization
etc
Attempt to program using static single assignment as much as possible. SSA is exactly the same as what you end up with in most functional programming languages, and that's what most compilers convert your code to to do their optimizations because it's easier to work with. By doing this places where the compiler might get confused are brought to light. It also makes all but the worst register allocators work as good as the best register allocators, and allows you to debug more easily because you almost never have to wonder where a variable got it's value from as there was only one place it was assigned.
Avoid global variables.
When working with data by reference or pointer pull that into local variables, do your work, and then copy it back. (unless you have a good reason not to)
Make use of the almost free comparison against 0 that most processors give you when doing math or logic operations. You almost always get a flag for ==0 and <0, from which you can easily get 3 conditions:
x= f();
if(!x){
a();
} else if (x<0){
b();
} else {
c();
}
is almost always cheaper than testing for other constants.
Another trick is to use subtraction to eliminate one compare in range testing.
#define FOO_MIN 8
#define FOO_MAX 199
int good_foo(int foo) {
unsigned int bar = foo-FOO_MIN;
int rc = ((FOO_MAX-FOO_MIN) < bar) ? 1 : 0;
return rc;
}
This can very often avoid a jump in languages that do short circuiting on boolean expressions and avoids the compiler having to try to figure out how to handle keeping
up with the result of the first comparison while doing the second and then combining them.
This may look like it has the potential to use up an extra register, but it almost never does. Often you don't need foo anymore anyway, and if you do rc isn't used yet so it can go there.
When using the string functions in c (strcpy, memcpy, ...) remember what they return -- the destination! You can often get better code by 'forgetting' your copy of the pointer to destination and just grab it back from the return of these functions.
Never overlook the oppurtunity to return exactly the same thing the last function you called returned. Compilers are not so great at picking up that:
foo_t * make_foo(int a, int b, int c) {
foo_t * x = malloc(sizeof(foo));
if (!x) {
// return NULL;
return x; // x is NULL, already in the register used for returns, so duh
}
x->a= a;
x->b = b;
x->c = c;
return x;
}
Of course, you could reverse the logic on that if and only have one return point.
(tricks I recalled later)
Declaring functions as static when you can is always a good idea. If the compiler can prove to itself that it has accounted for every caller of a particular function then it can break the calling conventions for that function in the name of optimization. Compilers can often avoid moving parameters into registers or stack positions that called functions usually expect their parameters to be in (it has to deviate in both the called function and the location of all callers to do this). The compiler can also often take advantage of knowing what memory and registers the called function will need and avoid generating code to preserve variable values that are in registers or memory locations that the called function doesn't disturb. This works particularly well when there are few calls to a function. This gets much of the benifit of inlining code, but without actually inlining.
I wrote an optimizing C compiler and here are some very useful things to consider:
Make most functions static. This allows interprocedural constant propagation and alias analysis to do its job, otherwise the compiler needs to presume that the function can be called from outside the translation unit with completely unknown values for the paramters. If you look at the well-known open-source libraries they all mark functions static except the ones that really need to be extern.
If global variables are used, mark them static and constant if possible. If they are initialized once (read-only), it's better to use an initializer list like static const int VAL[] = {1,2,3,4}, otherwise the compiler might not discover that the variables are actually initialized constants and will fail to replace loads from the variable with the constants.
NEVER use a goto to the inside of a loop, the loop will not be recognized anymore by most compilers and none of the most important optimizations will be applied.
Use pointer parameters only if necessary, and mark them restrict if possible. This helps alias analysis a lot because the programmer guarantees there is no alias (the interprocedural alias analysis is usually very primitive). Very small struct objects should be passed by value, not by reference.
Use arrays instead of pointers whenever possible, especially inside loops (a[i]). An array usually offers more information for alias analysis and after some optimizations the same code will be generated anyway (search for loop strength reduction if curious). This also increases the chance for loop-invariant code motion to be applied.
Try to hoist outside the loop calls to large functions or external functions that don't have side-effects (don't depend on the current loop iteration). Small functions are in many cases inlined or converted to intrinsics that are easy to hoist, but large functions might seem for the compiler to have side-effects when they actually don't. Side-effects for external functions are completely unknown, with the exception of some functions from the standard library which are sometimes modeled by some compilers, making loop-invariant code motion possible.
When writing tests with multiple conditions place the most likely one first. if(a || b || c) should be if(b || a || c) if b is more likely to be true than the others. Compilers usually don't know anything about the possible values of the conditions and which branches are taken more (they could be known by using profile information, but few programmers use it).
Using a switch is faster than doing a test like if(a || b || ... || z). Check first if your compiler does this automatically, some do and it's more readable to have the if though.
In the case of embedded systems and code written in C/C++, I try and avoid dynamic memory allocation as much as possible. The main reason I do this is not necessarily performance but this rule of thumb does have performance implications.
Algorithms used to manage the heap are notoriously slow in some platforms (e.g., vxworks). Even worse, the time that it takes to return from a call to malloc is highly dependent on the current state of the heap. Therefore, any function that calls malloc is going to take a performance hit that cannot be easily accounted for. That performance hit may be minimal if the heap is still clean but after that device runs for a while the heap can become fragmented. The calls are going to take longer and you cannot easily calculate how performance will degrade over time. You cannot really produce a worse case estimate. The optimizer cannot provide you with any help in this case either. To make matters even worse, if the heap becomes too heavily fragmented, the calls will start failing altogether. The solution is to use memory pools (e.g., glib slices ) instead of the heap. The allocation calls are going to be much faster and deterministic if you do it right.
A dumb little tip, but one that will save you some microscopic amounts of speed and code.
Always pass function arguments in the same order.
If you have f_1(x, y, z) which calls f_2, declare f_2 as f_2(x, y, z). Do not declare it as f_2(x, z, y).
The reason for this is that C/C++ platform ABI (AKA calling convention) promises to pass arguments in particular registers and stack locations. When the arguments are already in the correct registers then it does not have to move them around.
While reading disassembled code I've seen some ridiculous register shuffling because people didn't follow this rule.
Two coding technics I didn't saw in the above list:
Bypass linker by writing code as an unique source
While separate compilation is really nice for compiling time, it is very bad when you speak of optimization. Basically the compiler can't optimize beyond compilation unit, that is linker reserved domain.
But if you design well your program you can can also compile it through an unique common source. That is instead of compiling unit1.c and unit2.c then link both objects, compile all.c that merely #include unit1.c and unit2.c. Thus you will benefit from all the compiler optimizations.
It's very like writing headers only programs in C++ (and even easier to do in C).
This technique is easy enough if you write your program to enable it from the beginning, but you must also be aware it change part of C semantic and you can meet some problems like static variables or macro collision. For most programs it's easy enough to overcome the small problems that occurs. Also be aware that compiling as an unique source is way slower and may takes huge amount of memory (usually not a problem with modern systems).
Using this simple technique I happened to make some programs I wrote ten times faster!
Like the register keyword, this trick could also become obsolete soon. Optimizing through linker begin to be supported by compilers gcc: Link time optimization.
Separate atomic tasks in loops
This one is more tricky. It's about interaction between algorithm design and the way optimizer manage cache and register allocation. Quite often programs have to loop over some data structure and for each item perform some actions. Quite often the actions performed can be splitted between two logically independent tasks. If that is the case you can write exactly the same program with two loops on the same boundary performing exactly one task. In some case writing it this way can be faster than the unique loop (details are more complex, but an explanation can be that with the simple task case all variables can be kept in processor registers and with the more complex one it's not possible and some registers must be written to memory and read back later and the cost is higher than additional flow control).
Be careful with this one (profile performances using this trick or not) as like using register it may as well give lesser performances than improved ones.
I've actually seen this done in SQLite and they claim it results in performance boosts ~5%: Put all your code in one file or use the preprocessor to do the equivalent to this. This way the optimizer will have access to the entire program and can do more interprocedural optimizations.
Most modern compilers should do a good job speeding up tail recursion, because the function calls can be optimized out.
Example:
int fac2(int x, int cur) {
if (x == 1) return cur;
return fac2(x - 1, cur * x);
}
int fac(int x) {
return fac2(x, 1);
}
Of course this example doesn't have any bounds checking.
Late Edit
While I have no direct knowledge of the code; it seems clear that the requirements of using CTEs on SQL Server were specifically designed so that it can optimize via tail-end recursion.
Don't do the same work over and over again!
A common antipattern that I see goes along these lines:
void Function()
{
MySingleton::GetInstance()->GetAggregatedObject()->DoSomething();
MySingleton::GetInstance()->GetAggregatedObject()->DoSomethingElse();
MySingleton::GetInstance()->GetAggregatedObject()->DoSomethingCool();
MySingleton::GetInstance()->GetAggregatedObject()->DoSomethingReallyNeat();
MySingleton::GetInstance()->GetAggregatedObject()->DoSomethingYetAgain();
}
The compiler actually has to call all of those functions all of the time. Assuming you, the programmer, knows that the aggregated object isn't changing over the course of these calls, for the love of all that is holy...
void Function()
{
MySingleton* s = MySingleton::GetInstance();
AggregatedObject* ao = s->GetAggregatedObject();
ao->DoSomething();
ao->DoSomethingElse();
ao->DoSomethingCool();
ao->DoSomethingReallyNeat();
ao->DoSomethingYetAgain();
}
In the case of the singleton getter the calls may not be too costly, but it is certainly a cost (typically, "check to see if the object has been created, if it hasn't, create it, then return it). The more complicated this chain of getters becomes, the more wasted time we'll have.
Use the most local scope possible for all variable declarations.
Use const whenever possible
Dont use register unless you plan to profile both with and without it
The first 2 of these, especially #1 one help the optimizer analyze the code. It will especially help it to make good choices about what variables to keep in registers.
Blindly using the register keyword is as likely to help as hurt your optimization, It's just too hard to know what will matter until you look at the assembly output or profile.
There are other things that matter to getting good performance out of code; designing your data structures to maximize cache coherency for instance. But the question was about the optimizer.
Align your data to native/natural boundaries.
I was reminded of something that I encountered once, where the symptom was simply that we were running out of memory, but the result was substantially increased performance (as well as huge reductions in memory footprint).
The problem in this case was that the software we were using made tons of little allocations. Like, allocating four bytes here, six bytes there, etc. A lot of little objects, too, running in the 8-12 byte range. The problem wasn't so much that the program needed lots of little things, it's that it allocated lots of little things individually, which bloated each allocation out to (on this particular platform) 32 bytes.
Part of the solution was to put together an Alexandrescu-style small object pool, but extend it so I could allocate arrays of small objects as well as individual items. This helped immensely in performance as well since more items fit in the cache at any one time.
The other part of the solution was to replace the rampant use of manually-managed char* members with an SSO (small-string optimization) string. The minimum allocation being 32 bytes, I built a string class that had an embedded 28-character buffer behind a char*, so 95% of our strings didn't need to do an additional allocation (and then I manually replaced almost every appearance of char* in this library with this new class, that was fun or not). This helped a ton with memory fragmentation as well, which then increased the locality of reference for other pointed-to objects, and similarly there were performance gains.
A neat technique I learned from #MSalters comment on this answer allows compilers to do copy elision even when returning different objects according to some condition:
// before
BigObject a, b;
if(condition)
return a;
else
return b;
// after
BigObject a, b;
if(condition)
swap(a,b);
return a;
If you've got small functions you call repeatedly, i have in the past got large gains by putting them in headers as "static inline". Function calls on the ix86 are surprisingly expensive.
Reimplementing recursive functions in a non-recursive way using an explicit stack can also gain a lot, but then you really are in the realm of development time vs gain.
Here's my second piece of optimisation advice. As with my first piece of advice this is general purpose, not language or processor specific.
Read the compiler manual thoroughly and understand what it is telling you. Use the compiler to its utmost.
I agree with one or two of the other respondents who have identified selecting the right algorithm as critical to squeezing performance out of a program. Beyond that the rate of return (measured in code execution improvement) on the time you invest in using the compiler is far higher than the rate of return in tweaking the code.
Yes, compiler writers are not from a race of coding giants and compilers contain mistakes and what should, according to the manual and according to compiler theory, make things faster sometimes makes things slower. That's why you have to take one step at a time and measure before- and after-tweak performance.
And yes, ultimately, you might be faced with a combinatorial explosion of compiler flags so you need to have a script or two to run make with various compiler flags, queue the jobs on the large cluster and gather the run time statistics. If it's just you and Visual Studio on a PC you will run out of interest long before you have tried enough combinations of enough compiler flags.
Regards
Mark
When I first pick up a piece of code I can usually get a factor of 1.4 -- 2.0 times more performance (ie the new version of the code runs in 1/1.4 or 1/2 of the time of the old version) within a day or two by fiddling with compiler flags. Granted, that may be a comment on the lack of compiler savvy among the scientists who originate much of the code I work on, rather than a symptom of my excellence. Having set the compiler flags to max (and it's rarely just -O3) it can take months of hard work to get another factor of 1.05 or 1.1
When DEC came out with its alpha processors, there was a recommendation to keep the number of arguments to a function under 7, as the compiler would always try to put up to 6 arguments in registers automatically.
For performance, focus first on writing maintenable code - componentized, loosely coupled, etc, so when you have to isolate a part either to rewrite, optimize or simply profile, you can do it without much effort.
Optimizer will help your program's performance marginally.
You're getting good answers here, but they assume your program is pretty close to optimal to begin with, and you say
Assume that the program has been
written correctly, compiled with full
optimization, tested and put into
production.
In my experience, a program may be written correctly, but that does not mean it is near optimal. It takes extra work to get to that point.
If I can give an example, this answer shows how a perfectly reasonable-looking program was made over 40 times faster by macro-optimization. Big speedups can't be done in every program as first written, but in many (except for very small programs), it can, in my experience.
After that is done, micro-optimization (of the hot-spots) can give you a good payoff.
i use intel compiler. on both Windows and Linux.
when more or less done i profile the code. then hang on the hotspots and trying to change the code to allow compiler make a better job.
if a code is a computational one and contain a lot of loops - vectorization report in intel compiler is very helpful - look for 'vec-report' in help.
so the main idea - polish the performance critical code. as for the rest - priority to be correct and maintainable - short functions, clear code that could be understood 1 year later.
One optimization i have used in C++ is creating a constructor that does nothing. One must manually call an init() in order to put the object into a working state.
This has benefit in the case where I need a large vector of these classes.
I call reserve() to allocate the space for the vector, but the constructor does not actually touch the page of memory the object is on. So I have spent some address space, but not actually consumed a lot of physical memory. I avoid the page faults associated the associated construction costs.
As i generate objects to fill the vector, I set them using init(). This limits my total page faults, and avoids the need to resize() the vector while filling it.
One thing I've done is try to keep expensive actions to places where the user might expect the program to delay a bit. Overall performance is related to responsiveness, but isn't quite the same, and for many things responsiveness is the more important part of performance.
The last time I really had to do improvements in overall performance, I kept an eye out for suboptimal algorithms, and looked for places that were likely to have cache problems. I profiled and measured performance first, and again after each change. Then the company collapsed, but it was interesting and instructive work anyway.
I have long suspected, but never proved that declaring arrays so that they hold a power of 2, as the number of elements, enables the optimizer to do a strength reduction by replacing a multiply by a shift by a number of bits, when looking up individual elements.
Put small and/or frequently called functions at the top of the source file. That makes it easier for the compiler to find opportunities for inlining.