This is my requirement, I know that certain algorithms makes good use of Cache, some do not, some do more I/O than others on particular data set, etc. I would like to see and analyze that happening myself.
So I was wondering if there was a way I could know how a certain memory/variable is read, i.e. is it from cache, or was there a cache miss. Further if there was a page fault while retrieving this value etc.
Thanks a lot!
If you really want to know when your caches are hitting/missing, modern processors have performance counters that you can use for exactly this purpose. I have used them extensively for academic research. The easiest way to use them is through perfmon2. Perfmon2 has both a library you can link into your program or a stand-alone program that will monitor an existing program. For example, here's the stand-alone program recording all level 1 data cache read requests and misses:
pfmon -eL1D_CACHE_LD:MESI,L1D_CACHE_LD:I_STATE your_program
For reference, Appendix A of this document (PDF) lists Intel's documentation on what hardware counters are available.
I would try using the valgrind cachegrind tool, it can print out annotated source lines with the number of hits/misses in which cache for that line.
I don't know if AMD CodeAnalyst can show that level of granularity but it wouldn't hurt to check.
Depends on the specific compiler, the OS, and the specific model of processor you're running on. Nothing (that I'm aware of) in the C/C++ language give you access to what's happening at the cache level.
There are various measurement tools, but they would be largely independent of the language.
There are some "rules" for minimizing cache and paging issues, though it would take me some time to think of a reasonably comprehensive list.
Related
Is there a performance counter available for code written in the Halide language? I would like to know how many loads, stores, and ALU operations are performed by my code.
The Halide tutorial for scheduling multi-stage pipelines compares different schedules by comparing the amount of allocated memory, loads, stores, and calls to halide Funcs, but I don't see how this information was collected. I suppose it might be possible to use trace_stores, trace_loads, and trace_realizations to print to the console every time one of these operations occurs. This isn't a great option though because it would greatly slow down the program's execution and would require some kind of counting script to compile the long list of console outputs into the desired counts for loads, stores, and ALU operations.
I'm pretty sure they just used the trace_xxx output and ran some scripts/programs on it.
If you're looking for real performance numbers on a X86 platform, I would go with Intel VTune Amplifier. It's pretty expensive, but may be free if you're in academia (student, teacher, researcher) or it's for an open source project.
Other than that, look at the lowered statement code by setting HL_DEBUG_CODEGEN=1 in the environment and you can get a better idea of the loop structure and data use. Note that this output goes to stderr, not stdout.
EDIT: For Linux, there's perf.
We do not have any perf counter based support at present. It is fairly difficult to make it portable. (And on mobile devices, often the OS simply doesn't allow access to the hardware.) The support in Profiling.cpp and src/profiling.cpp could likely be used to drive perf counter operation. The profiling lowering pass adds code to call routines in the runtime which update information about Func and Pipeline execution. This information is collected and aggregated by another thread.
If tracing is run to a file (e.g. using HL_TRACE_FILE) a binary format is used and it is a bit more efficient. See utils/HalideTraceViz for a tool to work with the binary format. This is generally how analyses are done within the team.
There was a small amount of investigation of OProfile, which looked promising but I don't think we ever got code working.
Is there a way I could write a "tool" which could analyse the produced x86 assembly language from a C/C++ program and measure the performance in such a way, that it wouldnt matter if I ran it on a 1GHz or 3GHz processor?
I am thinking more along the lines of instruction throughput? How could I write such a tool? Would it be possible?
I'm pretty sure this has to be equivalent to the halting problem, in which case it can't be done. Things such as branch prediction, memory accesses, and memory caching will all change performance irrespective of the speed of the CPU upon which the program is run.
Well, you could, but it would have very limited relevance. You can't tell the running time by just looking at the instructions.
What about cache usage? A "longer" code can be more cache-friendly, and thus faster.
Certain CPU instructions can be executed in parallel and out-of-order, but the final behaviour depends a lot on the hardware.
If you really want to try it, I would recommend writing a tool for valgrind. You would essentially run the program under a simulated environment, making sure you can replicate the behaviour of real-world CPUs (that's the challenging part).
EDIT: just to be clear, I'm assuming you want dynamic analysis, extracted from real inputs. IF you want static analysis you'll be in "undecidable land" as the other answer pointed out (you can't even detect if a given code loops forever).
EDIT 2: forgot to include the out-of-order case in the second point.
It's possible, but only if the tool knows all the internals of the processor for which it is projecting performance. Since knowing 'all' the internals is tantamount to building your own processor, you would correctly guess that this is not an easy task. So instead, you'll need to make a lot of assumptions, and hope that they don't affect your answer too much. Unfortunately, for anything longer than a few hundred instructions, these assumptions (for example, all memory reads are found in L1 data cache and have 4 cycle latency; all instructions are in L1 instruction cache but in trace cache thereafter) affect your answer a lot. Clock speed is probably the easiest variable to handle, but the details for all the rest that differ greatly from processor to processor.
Current processors are "speculative", "superscalar", and "out-of-order". Speculative means that they choose their code path before the correct choice is computed, and then go back and start over from the branch if their guess is wrong. Superscalar means that multiple instructions that don't depend on each other can sometimes be executed simultaneously -- but only in certain combinations. Out-of-order means that there is a pool of instructions waiting to be executed, and the processor chooses when to execute them based on when their inputs are ready.
Making things even worse, instructions don't execute instantaneously, and the number of cycles they do take (and the resources they occupy during this time) vary also. Accuracy of branch prediction is hard to predict, and it takes different numbers of cycles for processors to recover. Caches are different sizes, take different times to access, and have different algorithms for decided what to cache. There simply is no meaningful concept of 'how fast assembly executes' without reference to the processor it is executing on.
This doesn't mean you can't reason about it, though. And the more you can narrow down the processor you are targetting, and the more you constrain the code you are evaluating, the better you can predict how code will execute. Agner Fog has a good mid-level introduction to the differences and similarities of the current generation of x86 processors:
http://www.agner.org/optimize/microarchitecture.pdf
Additionally, Intel offers for free a very useful (and surprisingly unknown) tool that answers a lot of these questions for recent generations of their processors. If you are trying to measure the performance and interaction of a few dozen instructions in a tight loop, IACA may already do what you want. There are all sorts of improvements that could be made to the interface and presentation of data, but it's definitely worth checking out before trying to write your own:
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-architecture-code-analyzer
To my knowledge, there isn't an AMD equivalent, but if there is I'd love to hear about it.
Is there a way to determine exactly what values, memory addresses, and/or other information currently resides in the CPU cache (L1, L2, etc.) - for current or all processes?
I've been doing quite a bit a reading which shows how to optimize programs to utilize the CPU cache more effectively. However, I'm looking for a way to truly determine if certain approaches are effective.
Bottom line: is it possible to be 100% certain what does and does not make it into the CPU cache.
Searching for this topic returns several results on how to determine the cache size, but not contents.
Edit: To clarify some of the comments below: Since software would undoubtedly alter the cache, do CPU manufactures have a tool / hardware diagnostic system (built-in) which provides this functionality?
Without using specialized hardware, you cannot directly inspect what is in the CPU cache. The act of running any software to inspect the CPU cache would alter the state of the cache.
The best approach I have found is simply to identify real hot spots in your application and benchmark alternative algorithms on hardware the code will run on in production (or on a range of likely hardware if you do not have control over the production environment).
In addition to Eric J.'s answer, I'll add that while I'm sure the big chip manufacturers do have such tools it's unlikely that such a "debug" facility would be made available to regular mortals like you and I, but even if it were, it wouldn't really be of much help.
Why? It's unlikely that you are having performance issues that you've traced to cache and which cannot be solved using the well-known and "common sense" techniques for maintaining high cache-hit ratios.
Have you really optimized all other hotspots in the code and poor cache behavior by the CPU is the problem? I very much doubt that.
Additionally, as food for thought: do you really want to optimize your program's behavior to only one or two particular CPUs? After all, caching algorithms change all the time, as do the parameters of the caches, sometimes dramatically.
If you have a relatively modern processor running Windows then take a look at
http://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-performance-counter-monitor-a-better-way-to-measure-cpu-utilization
and see if that might provide some of what you are looking for.
To optimize for one specific CPU cache size is usually in vain since this optimization will break when your assumptions about the CPU cache sizes are wrong when you execute on a different CPU.
But there is a way out there. You should optimize for certain access patterns to allow the CPU to easily predict what memory locations should be read next (the most obvious one is a linear increasing read). To be able to fully utilize a CPU you should read about cache oblivious algorithms where most of them follow a divide and conquer strategy where a problem is divided into sub parts to a certain extent until all memory accesses fit completly into the CPU cache.
It is also noteworthy to mention that you have a code and data cache which are separate. Herb Sutter has a nice video online where he talks about the CPU internals in depth.
The Visual Studio Profiler can collect CPU counters dealing with memory and L2 counters. These options are available when you select instrumentation profiling.
Intel has also a paper online which talks in greater detail about these CPU counters and what the task manager of Windows and Linux do show you and how wrong it is for todays CPUs which do work internally asynchronous and parallel at many diffent levels. Unfortunatley there is no tool from intel to display this stuff directly. The only tool I do know is the VS profiler. Perhaps VTune has similar capabilities.
If you have gone this far to optimize your code you might look as well into GPU programming. You need at least a PHD to get your head around SIMD instructions, cache locality, ... to get perhaps a factor 5 over your original design. But by porting your algorithm to a GPU you get a factor 100 with much less effort ony a decent graphics card. NVidia GPUs which do support CUDA (all today sold cards do support it) can be very nicely programmed in a C dialect. There are even wrapper for managed code (.NET) to take advantage of the full power of GPUs.
You can stay platform agnostic by using OpenCL but NVidia OpenCL support is very bad. The OpenCL drivers are at least 8 times slower than its CUDA counterpart.
Almost everything you do will be in the cache at the moment when you use it, unless you are reading memory that has been configured as "uncacheable" - typically, that's frame buffer memory of your graphics card. The other way to "not hit the cache" is to use specific load and store instructions that are "non-temporal". Everything else is read into the L1 cache before it reaches the target registers inside the CPU itself.
For nearly all cases, CPU's do have a fairly good system of knowing what to keep and what to throw away in the cache, and the cache is nearly always "full" - not necessarily of useful stuff, if, for example you are working your way through an enormous array, it will just contain a lot of "old array" [this is where the "non-temporal" memory operations come in handy, as they allow you to read and/or write data that won't be stored in the cache, since next time you get back to the same point, it won't be in the cache ANYWAYS].
And yes, processors usually have special registers [that can be accessed in kernel drivers] that can inspect the contents of the cache. But they are quite tricky to use without at the same time losing the content of the cache(s). And they are definitely not useful as "how much of array A is in the cache" type checking. They are specifically for "Hmm, it looks like cache-line 1234 is broken, I'd better read the cached data to see if it's really the value it should be" when processors aren't working as they should.
As DanS says, there are performance counters that you can read from suitable software [need to be in the kernel to use those registers too, so you need some sort of "driver" software for that]. In Linux, there's "perf". And AMD has a similar set of performance counters that can be used to find out, for example "how many cache misses have we had over this period of time" or "how many cache hits in L" have we had, etc.
I need to evaluate the time taken by a C++ function in a bunch of hypothesis about memory hierarchy efficiency (e.g: time taken when we have a cache miss, a cache hit or page fault when reading a portion of an array), so I'd like to have some libraries that let me count the cache miss / page faults in order to be capable of auto-generating a performance summary.
I know there are some tools like cachegrind that gives some related statistics on a given application execution, but I'd like a library, as I've already said.
edit Oh, I forgot: I'm using Linux and I'm not interested in portability, it's an academic thing.
Any suggestion is welcome!
Most recent CPUs (both AMD and Intel) have performance monitor registers that can be used for this kind of job. For Intel, they're covered in the programmer's reference manual, volume 3B, chapter 30. For AMD, it's in the BIOS and Kernel Developer's Guide.
Either way, you can count things like cache hits, cache misses, memory requests, data prefetches, etc. They have pretty specific selectors, so you could get a count of (for example) the number of reads on the L2 cache to fill lines in the L1 instruction cache (while still excluding L2 reads to fill lines in the L1 data cache).
There is a Linux kernel module to give access to MSRs (Model-specific registers). Offhand, I don't know whether it gives access to the performance monitor registers, but I'd expect it probably does.
It looks like now there is exactly what I was searching for: perf_event_open.
It lets you do interesting things like initializing/enabling/disabling some performance counters for subsequently fetching their values through an uniform and intuitive API (it gives you a special file descriptor which hosts a struct containing the previously requested informations).
It is a linux-only solution and the functionalities varies depending on the kernel version, so be careful :)
Intel VTune is a performance tuning tool that does exactly what you are asking for;
Of course it works with Intel processors, as it access the internal processor counters, as explained by Jerry Coffin, so this probably not work on an AMD processor.
It expose literally undreds of counters, like cache hit/misses, branch prediction rates, etc. the real issue with it is understanding which counters to check ;)
The cache misses cannot be just counted easily. Most tools or profilers simulate the memory access by redirecting memory accesses to a function that provides this feature. That means these kind of tools instrument the code at all places where a memory access is done and makes your code run awfully slowly. This is not what your intent is I guess.
However depending on the hardware you might have some other possibilities. But even if this is the case the OS should support it (because otherwise you would get system global stats not the ones related to a process or thread)
EDIT: I could find this interesting article that may help you: http://lwn.net/Articles/417979/
is there a way in C++ to determine the CPU's cache size? i have an algorithm that processes a lot of data and i'd like to break this data down into chunks such that they fit into the cache. Is this possible?
Can you give me any other hints on programming with cache-size in mind (especially in regard to multithreaded/multicore data processing)?
Thanks!
According to "What every programmer should know about memory", by Ulrich Drepper you can do the following on Linux:
Once we have a formula for the memory
requirement we can compare it with the
cache size. As mentioned before, the
cache might be shared with multiple
other cores. Currently {There
definitely will sometime soon be a
better way!} the only way to get
correct information without hardcoding
knowledge is through the /sys
filesystem. In Table 5.2 we have seen
the what the kernel publishes about
the hardware. A program has to find
the directory:
/sys/devices/system/cpu/cpu*/cache
This is listed in Section 6: What Programmers Can Do.
He also describes a short test right under Figure 6.5 which can be used to determine L1D cache size if you can't get it from the OS.
There is one more thing I ran across in his paper: sysconf(_SC_LEVEL2_CACHE_SIZE) is a system call on Linux which is supposed to return the L2 cache size although it doesn't seem to be well documented.
C++ itself doesn't "care" about CPU caches, so there's no support for querying cache-sizes built into the language. If you are developing for Windows, then there's the GetLogicalProcessorInformation()-function, which can be used to query information about the CPU caches.
Preallocate a large array. Then access each element sequentially and record the time for each access. Ideally there will be a jump in access time when cache miss occurs. Then you can calculate your L1 Cache. It might not work but worth trying.
read the cpuid of the cpu (x86) and then determine the cache-size by a look-up-table. The table has to be filled with the cache sizes the manufacturer of the cpu publishes in its programming manuals.
Depending on what you're trying to do, you might also leave it to some library. Since you mention multicore processing, you might want to have a look at Intel Threading Building Blocks.
TBB includes cache aware memory allocators. More specifically, check cache_aligned_allocator (in the reference documentation, I couldn't find any direct link).
Interestingly enough, I wrote a program to do this awhile ago (in C though, but I'm sure it will be easy to incorporate in C++ code).
http://github.com/wowus/CacheLineDetection/blob/master/Cache%20Line%20Detection/cache.c
The get_cache_line function is the interesting one, which returns the location of right before the biggest spike in timing data of array accesses. It correctly guessed on my machine! If anything else, it can help you make your own.
It's based off of this article, which originally piqued my interest: http://igoro.com/archive/gallery-of-processor-cache-effects/
You can see this thread: http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/296674
The short answer is in this other thread:
On modern IA-32 hardware, the cache line size is 64. The value 128 is
a legacy of the Intel Netburst Microarchitecture (e.g. Intel Pentium
D) where 64-byte lines are paired into 128-byte sectors. When a line
in a sector is fetched, the hardware automatically fetches the other
line in the sector too. So from a false sharing perspective, the
effective line size is 128 bytes on the Netburst processors. (http://software.intel.com/en-us/forums/topic/292721)
IIRC, GCC has a __builtin_prefetch hint.
http://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc-3.3.6/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
has an excellent section on this. Basically, it suggests:
__builtin_prefetch (&array[i + LookAhead], rw, locality);
where rw is a 0 (prepare for read) or 1 (prepare for a write) value, and locality uses the number 0-3, where zero is no locality, and 3 is very strong locality.
Both are optional. LookAhead would be the number of elements to look ahead to. If memory access were 100 cycles, and the unrolled loops are two cycles apart, LookAhead could be set to 50 or 51.
There are two cases that need to be distinguished. Do you need to know the cache sizes at compile time or at runtime?
Determining the cache-size at compile-time
For some applications, you know the exact architecture that your code will run on, for example, if you can compile the code directly on the host machine. In that case, simplify looking up the size and hard-coding it is an option (could be automated in the build system). On most machines today, the L1 cache line should be 64 bytes.
If you want to avoid that complexity or if you need to support compilation on unknown architectures, you can use the C++17 feature std::hardware_constructive_interference_size as a good fallback. It will provide a compile-time estimation for the cache line, but be aware of its limitations. Note that the compiler cannot guess perfectly when it creates the binary, as the size of the cache-line is, in general, architecture dependent.
Determining the cache-size at runtime
At runtime, you have the advantage that you know the exact machine, but you will need platform specific code to read the information from the OS. A good starting point is the code snippet from this answer, which supports the major platforms (Windows, Linux, MacOS). In a similar fashion, you can also read the L2 cache size at runtime.
I would advise against trying to guess the cache line by running benchmarks at startup and measuring which one performed best. It might well work, but it is also error-prone if the CPU is used by other processes.
Combining both approaches
If you have to ship one binary and the machines that it will later run on features a range of different architectures with varying cache sizes, you could create specialized code parts for each cache size, and then dynamically (at application startup) choose the best fitting one.
The cache will usually do the right thing. The only real worry for normal programmer is false sharing, and you can't take care of that at runtime because it requires compiler directives.