My Objective is : I want to test a piece of code (or function) performance, just like how I test the correctness of that function in a unit-test, let say that the output of this benchmarking process is a "function performance index" which is "portable"
My Problem is : we usually benchmarking a code by using a timer to count elapsed time during execution of that code. and that method is depend on the hardware or O/S or other thing.
My Question is : is there a method to get a "function performance index" that is independent to the performance of the host (CPU/OS/etc..), or if not "independent" lets say it is "relative" to some fixed value. so that somehow the value of "function performance index" is still valid on any platform or hardware performance.
for example: that FPI value is could be measured in
number of arithmetic instruction needed to execute a single call
float value compared to benchmark function, for example function B has rating index of 1.345 (which is the performance is slower 1.345 times than the benchmark function)
or other value.
note that the FPI value doesn't need to be scientifically correct, exact or accurate, I just need a value to give a rough overview of that function performance compared to other function which was tested by the same method.
I think you are in search of the impossible here, because the performance of a modern computer is a complex blend of CPU, cache, memory controller, memory, etc.
So one (hypothetical) computer system might reward the use of enormous look-up tables to simplify an algorithm, so that there were very few cpu instructions processed. Whereas another system might have memory much slower relative to the CPU core, so an algorithm which did a lot of processing but touched very little memory would be favoured.
So a single 'figure of merit' for these two algorithms could not even convey which was the better one on all systems, let alone by how much it was better.
Probably what you really need is a tcov-like tool.
man tcov says:
Each basic block of code (or each
line if the -a option to tcov is specified) is prefixed with
the number of times it has been executed; lines that have
not been executed are prefixed with "#####". A basic block
is a contiguous section of code that has no branches: each
statement in a basic block is executed the same number of
times.
No, there is no such thing. Different hardware performs differently. You can have two different pieces of code X and Y such that hardware A runs X faster than Y but hardware B runs Y faster than X. There is no absolute scale of performance, it depends entirely on the hardware (not to mention other things like the operating system and other environmental considerations).
It sounds like what you want is a program that calculates the Big-O Notation of a piece of code. I don't know if it's possible to do that in an automated fashion (Halting problem, etc).
Like others have mentioned this is not a trivial task and may be impossible to get any sort of accurate results from. Considering a few methods:
Benchmark Functions -- While this seems promising I think you'll find that it won't work well as you try to compare different types of functions. For example, if your benchmark function is 100% CPU bound (as in some complex math computation) then it will compare/scale well with other CPU bound functions but fail when compared with, say, I/O or memory bound functions. Carefully matching a benchmark function to a small set of similar functions may work but is tedious/time consuming.
Number of Instructions -- For a very simple processor it may be possible to count the cycles of each instruction and get a reasonable value for the total number of cycles a block of code will take but with today's modern processors are anything but "simple". With branch prediction and parallel pipelines you can can't just add up instruction cycles and expect to get an accurate result.
Manual Counting -- This might be your best bet and while it is not automatic it may give better results faster than the other methods. Just look at things like the O() order of the code, how much memory the function reads/writes, how many file bytes are input/output etc.... By having a few stats like this for each function/module you should be able to get a rough comparison of their complexity.
Related
I am evaluating a network+rendering workload for my project.
The program continuously runs a main loop:
while (true) {
doSomething()
drawSomething()
doSomething2()
sendSomething()
}
The main loop runs more than 60 times per second.
I want to see the performance breakdown, how much time each procedure takes.
My concern is that if I print the time interval for every entrance and exit of each procedure,
It would incur huge performance overhead.
I am curious what is an idiomatic way of measuring the performance.
Printing of logging is good enough?
Generally: For repeated short things, you can just time the whole repeat loop. (But microbenchmarking is hard; easy to distort results unless you understand the implications of doing that; for very short things, throughput and latency are different, so measure both separately by making one iteration use the result of the previous or not. Also beware that branch prediction and caching can make something look fast in a microbenchmark when it would actually be costly if done one at a time between other work in a larger program.
e.g. loop unrolling and lookup tables often look good because there's no pressure on I-cache or D-cache from anything else.)
Or if you insist on timing each separate iteration, record the results in an array and print later; you don't want to invoke heavy-weight printing code inside your loop.
This question is way too broad to say anything more specific.
Many languages have benchmarking packages that will help you write microbenchmarks of a single function. Use them. e.g. for Java, JMH makes sure the function under test is warmed up and fully optimized by the JIT, and all that jazz, before doing timed runs. And runs it for a specified interval, counting how many iterations it completes. See How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? for that and more.
Beware common microbenchmark pitfalls
Failure to warm up code / data caches and stuff: page faults within the timed region for touching new memory, or code / data cache misses, that wouldn't be part of normal operation. (Example of noticing this effect: Performance: memset; or example of a wrong conclusion based on this mistake)
Never-written memory (obtained fresh from the kernel) gets all its pages copy-on-write mapped to the same system-wide physical page (4K or 2M) of zeros if you read without writing, at least on Linux. So you can get cache hits but TLB misses. e.g. A large allocation from new / calloc / malloc, or a zero-initialized array in static storage in .bss. Use a non-zero initializer or memset.
Failure to give the CPU time to ramp up to max turbo: modern CPUs clock down to idle speeds to save power, only clocking up after a few milliseconds. (Or longer depending on the OS / HW).
related: on modern x86, RDTSC counts reference cycles, not core clock cycles, so it's subject to the same CPU-frequency variation effects as wall-clock time.
Most integer and FP arithmetic asm instructions (except divide and square root which are already slower than others) have performance (latency and throughput) that doesn't depend on the actual data. Except for subnormal aka denormal floating point being very slow, and in some cases (e.g. legacy x87 but not SSE2) also producing NaN or Inf can be slow.
On modern CPUs with out-of-order execution, some things are too short to truly time meaningfully, see also this. Performance of a tiny block of assembly language (e.g. generated by a compiler for one function) can't be characterized by a single number, even if it doesn't branch or access memory (so no chance of mispredict or cache miss). It has latency from inputs to outputs, but different throughput if run repeatedly with independent inputs is higher. e.g. an add instruction on a Skylake CPU has 4/clock throughput, but 1 cycle latency. So dummy = foo(x) can be 4x faster than x = foo(x); in a loop. Floating-point instructions have higher latency than integer, so it's often a bigger deal. Memory access is also pipelined on most CPUs, so looping over an array (address for next load easy to calculate) is often much faster than walking a linked list (address for next load isn't available until the previous load completes).
Obviously performance can differ between CPUs; in the big picture usually it's rare for version A to be faster on Intel, version B to be faster on AMD, but that can easily happen in the small scale. When reporting / recording benchmark numbers, always note what CPU you tested on.
Related to the above and below points: you can't "benchmark the * operator" in C in general, for example. Some use-cases for it will compile very differently from others, e.g. tmp = foo * i; in a loop can often turn into tmp += foo (strength reduction), or if the multiplier is a constant power of 2 the compiler will just use a shift. The same operator in the source can compile to very different instructions, depending on surrounding code.
You need to compile with optimization enabled, but you also need to stop the compiler from optimizing away the work, or hoisting it out of a loop. Make sure you use the result (e.g. print it or store it to a volatile) so the compiler has to produce it. For an array, volatile double sink = output[argc]; is a useful trick: the compiler doesn't know the value of argc so it has to generate the whole array, but you don't need to read the whole array or even call an RNG function. (Unless the compiler aggressively transforms to only calculate the one output selected by argc, but that tends not to be a problem in practice.)
For inputs, use a random number or argc or something instead of a compile-time constant so your compiler can't do constant-propagation for things that won't be constants in your real use-case. In C you can sometimes use inline asm or volatile for this, e.g. the stuff this question is asking about. A good benchmarking package like Google Benchmark will include functions for this.
If the real use-case for a function lets it inline into callers where some inputs are constant, or the operations can be optimized into other work, it's not very useful to benchmark it on its own.
Big complicated functions with special handling for lots of special cases can look fast in a microbenchmark when you run them repeatedly, especially with the same input every time. In real life use-cases, branch prediction often won't be primed for that function with that input. Also, a massively unrolled loop can look good in a microbenchmark, but in real life it slows everything else down with its big instruction-cache footprint leading to eviction of other code.
Related to that last point: Don't tune only for huge inputs, if the real use-case for a function includes a lot of small inputs. e.g. a memcpy implementation that's great for huge inputs but takes too long to figure out which strategy to use for small inputs might not be good. It's a tradeoff; make sure it's good enough for large inputs (for an appropriate definition of "enough"), but also keep overhead low for small inputs.
Litmus tests:
If you're benchmarking two functions in one program: if reversing the order of testing changes the results, your benchmark isn't fair. e.g. function A might only look slow because you're testing it first, with insufficient warm-up. example: Why is std::vector slower than an array? (it's not, whichever loop runs first has to pay for all the page faults and cache misses; the 2nd just zooms through filling the same memory.)
Increasing the iteration count of a repeat loop should linearly increase the total time, and not affect the calculated time-per-call. If not, then you have non-negligible measurement overhead or your code optimized away (e.g. hoisted out of the loop and runs only once instead of N times).
Vary other test parameters as a sanity check.
For C / C++, see also Simple for() loop benchmark takes the same time with any loop bound where I went into some more detail about microbenchmarking and using volatile or asm to stop important work from optimizing away with gcc/clang.
I am evaluating a network+rendering workload for my project.
The program continuously runs a main loop:
while (true) {
doSomething()
drawSomething()
doSomething2()
sendSomething()
}
The main loop runs more than 60 times per second.
I want to see the performance breakdown, how much time each procedure takes.
My concern is that if I print the time interval for every entrance and exit of each procedure,
It would incur huge performance overhead.
I am curious what is an idiomatic way of measuring the performance.
Printing of logging is good enough?
Generally: For repeated short things, you can just time the whole repeat loop. (But microbenchmarking is hard; easy to distort results unless you understand the implications of doing that; for very short things, throughput and latency are different, so measure both separately by making one iteration use the result of the previous or not. Also beware that branch prediction and caching can make something look fast in a microbenchmark when it would actually be costly if done one at a time between other work in a larger program.
e.g. loop unrolling and lookup tables often look good because there's no pressure on I-cache or D-cache from anything else.)
Or if you insist on timing each separate iteration, record the results in an array and print later; you don't want to invoke heavy-weight printing code inside your loop.
This question is way too broad to say anything more specific.
Many languages have benchmarking packages that will help you write microbenchmarks of a single function. Use them. e.g. for Java, JMH makes sure the function under test is warmed up and fully optimized by the JIT, and all that jazz, before doing timed runs. And runs it for a specified interval, counting how many iterations it completes. See How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? for that and more.
Beware common microbenchmark pitfalls
Failure to warm up code / data caches and stuff: page faults within the timed region for touching new memory, or code / data cache misses, that wouldn't be part of normal operation. (Example of noticing this effect: Performance: memset; or example of a wrong conclusion based on this mistake)
Never-written memory (obtained fresh from the kernel) gets all its pages copy-on-write mapped to the same system-wide physical page (4K or 2M) of zeros if you read without writing, at least on Linux. So you can get cache hits but TLB misses. e.g. A large allocation from new / calloc / malloc, or a zero-initialized array in static storage in .bss. Use a non-zero initializer or memset.
Failure to give the CPU time to ramp up to max turbo: modern CPUs clock down to idle speeds to save power, only clocking up after a few milliseconds. (Or longer depending on the OS / HW).
related: on modern x86, RDTSC counts reference cycles, not core clock cycles, so it's subject to the same CPU-frequency variation effects as wall-clock time.
Most integer and FP arithmetic asm instructions (except divide and square root which are already slower than others) have performance (latency and throughput) that doesn't depend on the actual data. Except for subnormal aka denormal floating point being very slow, and in some cases (e.g. legacy x87 but not SSE2) also producing NaN or Inf can be slow.
On modern CPUs with out-of-order execution, some things are too short to truly time meaningfully, see also this. Performance of a tiny block of assembly language (e.g. generated by a compiler for one function) can't be characterized by a single number, even if it doesn't branch or access memory (so no chance of mispredict or cache miss). It has latency from inputs to outputs, but different throughput if run repeatedly with independent inputs is higher. e.g. an add instruction on a Skylake CPU has 4/clock throughput, but 1 cycle latency. So dummy = foo(x) can be 4x faster than x = foo(x); in a loop. Floating-point instructions have higher latency than integer, so it's often a bigger deal. Memory access is also pipelined on most CPUs, so looping over an array (address for next load easy to calculate) is often much faster than walking a linked list (address for next load isn't available until the previous load completes).
Obviously performance can differ between CPUs; in the big picture usually it's rare for version A to be faster on Intel, version B to be faster on AMD, but that can easily happen in the small scale. When reporting / recording benchmark numbers, always note what CPU you tested on.
Related to the above and below points: you can't "benchmark the * operator" in C in general, for example. Some use-cases for it will compile very differently from others, e.g. tmp = foo * i; in a loop can often turn into tmp += foo (strength reduction), or if the multiplier is a constant power of 2 the compiler will just use a shift. The same operator in the source can compile to very different instructions, depending on surrounding code.
You need to compile with optimization enabled, but you also need to stop the compiler from optimizing away the work, or hoisting it out of a loop. Make sure you use the result (e.g. print it or store it to a volatile) so the compiler has to produce it. For an array, volatile double sink = output[argc]; is a useful trick: the compiler doesn't know the value of argc so it has to generate the whole array, but you don't need to read the whole array or even call an RNG function. (Unless the compiler aggressively transforms to only calculate the one output selected by argc, but that tends not to be a problem in practice.)
For inputs, use a random number or argc or something instead of a compile-time constant so your compiler can't do constant-propagation for things that won't be constants in your real use-case. In C you can sometimes use inline asm or volatile for this, e.g. the stuff this question is asking about. A good benchmarking package like Google Benchmark will include functions for this.
If the real use-case for a function lets it inline into callers where some inputs are constant, or the operations can be optimized into other work, it's not very useful to benchmark it on its own.
Big complicated functions with special handling for lots of special cases can look fast in a microbenchmark when you run them repeatedly, especially with the same input every time. In real life use-cases, branch prediction often won't be primed for that function with that input. Also, a massively unrolled loop can look good in a microbenchmark, but in real life it slows everything else down with its big instruction-cache footprint leading to eviction of other code.
Related to that last point: Don't tune only for huge inputs, if the real use-case for a function includes a lot of small inputs. e.g. a memcpy implementation that's great for huge inputs but takes too long to figure out which strategy to use for small inputs might not be good. It's a tradeoff; make sure it's good enough for large inputs (for an appropriate definition of "enough"), but also keep overhead low for small inputs.
Litmus tests:
If you're benchmarking two functions in one program: if reversing the order of testing changes the results, your benchmark isn't fair. e.g. function A might only look slow because you're testing it first, with insufficient warm-up. example: Why is std::vector slower than an array? (it's not, whichever loop runs first has to pay for all the page faults and cache misses; the 2nd just zooms through filling the same memory.)
Increasing the iteration count of a repeat loop should linearly increase the total time, and not affect the calculated time-per-call. If not, then you have non-negligible measurement overhead or your code optimized away (e.g. hoisted out of the loop and runs only once instead of N times).
Vary other test parameters as a sanity check.
For C / C++, see also Simple for() loop benchmark takes the same time with any loop bound where I went into some more detail about microbenchmarking and using volatile or asm to stop important work from optimizing away with gcc/clang.
I am evaluating a network+rendering workload for my project.
The program continuously runs a main loop:
while (true) {
doSomething()
drawSomething()
doSomething2()
sendSomething()
}
The main loop runs more than 60 times per second.
I want to see the performance breakdown, how much time each procedure takes.
My concern is that if I print the time interval for every entrance and exit of each procedure,
It would incur huge performance overhead.
I am curious what is an idiomatic way of measuring the performance.
Printing of logging is good enough?
Generally: For repeated short things, you can just time the whole repeat loop. (But microbenchmarking is hard; easy to distort results unless you understand the implications of doing that; for very short things, throughput and latency are different, so measure both separately by making one iteration use the result of the previous or not. Also beware that branch prediction and caching can make something look fast in a microbenchmark when it would actually be costly if done one at a time between other work in a larger program.
e.g. loop unrolling and lookup tables often look good because there's no pressure on I-cache or D-cache from anything else.)
Or if you insist on timing each separate iteration, record the results in an array and print later; you don't want to invoke heavy-weight printing code inside your loop.
This question is way too broad to say anything more specific.
Many languages have benchmarking packages that will help you write microbenchmarks of a single function. Use them. e.g. for Java, JMH makes sure the function under test is warmed up and fully optimized by the JIT, and all that jazz, before doing timed runs. And runs it for a specified interval, counting how many iterations it completes. See How do I write a correct micro-benchmark in Java? for that and more.
Beware common microbenchmark pitfalls
Failure to warm up code / data caches and stuff: page faults within the timed region for touching new memory, or code / data cache misses, that wouldn't be part of normal operation. (Example of noticing this effect: Performance: memset; or example of a wrong conclusion based on this mistake)
Never-written memory (obtained fresh from the kernel) gets all its pages copy-on-write mapped to the same system-wide physical page (4K or 2M) of zeros if you read without writing, at least on Linux. So you can get cache hits but TLB misses. e.g. A large allocation from new / calloc / malloc, or a zero-initialized array in static storage in .bss. Use a non-zero initializer or memset.
Failure to give the CPU time to ramp up to max turbo: modern CPUs clock down to idle speeds to save power, only clocking up after a few milliseconds. (Or longer depending on the OS / HW).
related: on modern x86, RDTSC counts reference cycles, not core clock cycles, so it's subject to the same CPU-frequency variation effects as wall-clock time.
Most integer and FP arithmetic asm instructions (except divide and square root which are already slower than others) have performance (latency and throughput) that doesn't depend on the actual data. Except for subnormal aka denormal floating point being very slow, and in some cases (e.g. legacy x87 but not SSE2) also producing NaN or Inf can be slow.
On modern CPUs with out-of-order execution, some things are too short to truly time meaningfully, see also this. Performance of a tiny block of assembly language (e.g. generated by a compiler for one function) can't be characterized by a single number, even if it doesn't branch or access memory (so no chance of mispredict or cache miss). It has latency from inputs to outputs, but different throughput if run repeatedly with independent inputs is higher. e.g. an add instruction on a Skylake CPU has 4/clock throughput, but 1 cycle latency. So dummy = foo(x) can be 4x faster than x = foo(x); in a loop. Floating-point instructions have higher latency than integer, so it's often a bigger deal. Memory access is also pipelined on most CPUs, so looping over an array (address for next load easy to calculate) is often much faster than walking a linked list (address for next load isn't available until the previous load completes).
Obviously performance can differ between CPUs; in the big picture usually it's rare for version A to be faster on Intel, version B to be faster on AMD, but that can easily happen in the small scale. When reporting / recording benchmark numbers, always note what CPU you tested on.
Related to the above and below points: you can't "benchmark the * operator" in C in general, for example. Some use-cases for it will compile very differently from others, e.g. tmp = foo * i; in a loop can often turn into tmp += foo (strength reduction), or if the multiplier is a constant power of 2 the compiler will just use a shift. The same operator in the source can compile to very different instructions, depending on surrounding code.
You need to compile with optimization enabled, but you also need to stop the compiler from optimizing away the work, or hoisting it out of a loop. Make sure you use the result (e.g. print it or store it to a volatile) so the compiler has to produce it. For an array, volatile double sink = output[argc]; is a useful trick: the compiler doesn't know the value of argc so it has to generate the whole array, but you don't need to read the whole array or even call an RNG function. (Unless the compiler aggressively transforms to only calculate the one output selected by argc, but that tends not to be a problem in practice.)
For inputs, use a random number or argc or something instead of a compile-time constant so your compiler can't do constant-propagation for things that won't be constants in your real use-case. In C you can sometimes use inline asm or volatile for this, e.g. the stuff this question is asking about. A good benchmarking package like Google Benchmark will include functions for this.
If the real use-case for a function lets it inline into callers where some inputs are constant, or the operations can be optimized into other work, it's not very useful to benchmark it on its own.
Big complicated functions with special handling for lots of special cases can look fast in a microbenchmark when you run them repeatedly, especially with the same input every time. In real life use-cases, branch prediction often won't be primed for that function with that input. Also, a massively unrolled loop can look good in a microbenchmark, but in real life it slows everything else down with its big instruction-cache footprint leading to eviction of other code.
Related to that last point: Don't tune only for huge inputs, if the real use-case for a function includes a lot of small inputs. e.g. a memcpy implementation that's great for huge inputs but takes too long to figure out which strategy to use for small inputs might not be good. It's a tradeoff; make sure it's good enough for large inputs (for an appropriate definition of "enough"), but also keep overhead low for small inputs.
Litmus tests:
If you're benchmarking two functions in one program: if reversing the order of testing changes the results, your benchmark isn't fair. e.g. function A might only look slow because you're testing it first, with insufficient warm-up. example: Why is std::vector slower than an array? (it's not, whichever loop runs first has to pay for all the page faults and cache misses; the 2nd just zooms through filling the same memory.)
Increasing the iteration count of a repeat loop should linearly increase the total time, and not affect the calculated time-per-call. If not, then you have non-negligible measurement overhead or your code optimized away (e.g. hoisted out of the loop and runs only once instead of N times).
Vary other test parameters as a sanity check.
For C / C++, see also Simple for() loop benchmark takes the same time with any loop bound where I went into some more detail about microbenchmarking and using volatile or asm to stop important work from optimizing away with gcc/clang.
Say that we have two C++ code segments, for doing the same task. How can we determine which code will run faster?
As an example lets say there is this global array "some_struct_type numbers[]". Inside a function, I can read a location of this array in two ways(I do not want to alter the content of the array)
some_struct_type val = numbers[i];
some_struct_type* val = &numbers[i]
I assume the second one is faster. but I can't measure the time to make sure because it will be a negligible difference.
So in this type of a situation, how do I figure out which code segment runs faster? Is there a way to compile a single line of code or set of lines and view
how many lines of assembly instructions are there?
I would appreciate your thoughts on this matter.
The basics are to run the piece of code so many times that it takes a few seconds at least to complete, and measure the time.
But it's hard, very hard, to get any meaningful figures this way, for many reasons:
Todays compilers are very good at optimizing code, but the optimizations depend on the context. It often does not make sense to look at a single line and try to optimize it. When the same line appears in a different context, the optimizations applied may be different.
Short pieces of code can be much faster than the surrounding looping code.
Not only the compiler makes optimizations, the processor has a cache, an instruction pipeline, and tries to predict branching code. A value which has been read before will be read much faster the next time, for example.
...
Because of this, it's usually better to leave the code in its place in your program, and use a profiling tool to see which parts of your code use the most processing resources. Then, you can change these parts and profile again.
While writing new code, prefer readable code to seemingly optimal code. Choose the right algorithm, this also depends on your input sizes. For example, insertion sort can be faster than quicksort, if the input is very small. But don't write your own sorting code, if your input is not special, use the libraries available in general. And don't optimize prematurely.
Eugene Sh. is correct that these two lines aren't doing the same thing - the first one copies the value of numbers[i] into a local variable, whereas the second one stores the address of numbers[i] into a pointer local variable. If you can do what you need using just the address of numbers[i] and referring back to numbers[i], it's likely that will be faster than doing a wholesale copy of the value, although it depends on a lot of factors like the size of the struct, etc.
Regarding the general optimization question, here are some things to consider...
Use a Profiler
The best way to measure the speed of your code is to use a profiling tool. There are a number of different tools available, depending on your target platform - see (for example) How can I profile C++ code running in Linux? and What's the best free C++ profiler for Windows?.
You really want to use a profiler for this because it's notoriously difficult to tell just from looking what the costliest parts of a program will be, for a number of reasons...
# of Instructions != # of Processor Cycles
One reason to use a profiler is that it's often difficult to tell from looking at two pieces of code which one will run faster. Even in assembly code, you can't simply count the number of instructions, because many instructions take multiple processor cycles to complete. This varies considerably by target platform. For example, on some platforms the fastest way to load the value 1 to a CPU register is something straightforward like this:
MOV r0, #1
Whereas on other platforms the fastest approach is actually to clear the register and then increment it, like this:
CLR r0
INC r0
The second case has more instruction lines, but that doesn't necessarily mean that it's slower.
Other Complications
Another reason that it's difficult to tell which pieces of code will most need optimizing is that most modern computers employ fairly sophisticated caches that can dramatically improve performance. Executing a cached loop several times is often less expensive than loading a single piece of data from a location that isn't cached. It can be very difficult to predict exactly what will cause a cache miss, but when using a profiler you don't have to predict - it makes the measurements for you.
Avoid Premature Optimization
For most projects, optimizing your code is best left until relatively late in the process. If you start optimizing too early, you may find that you spend a lot of time optimizing a feature that turns out to be relatively inexpensive compared to your program's other features. That said, there are some notable counterexamples - if you're building a large-scale database tool you might reasonably expect that performance is going to be an important selling point.
I'm working on a physics engine and feel it would help having a better understanding of the speed and performance effects of performing many simple or complex math operations.
A large part of a physics engine is weeding out the unnecessary computations, but at what point are the computations small enough that a comparative checks aren't necessary?
eg: Testing if two line segments intersect. Should there be check on if they're near each other before just going straight into the simple math, or would the extra operation slow down the process in the long run?
How much time do different mathematical calculations take
eg: (3+8) vs (5x4) vs (log(8)) etc.
How much time do inequality checks take?
eg: >, <, =
You'll have to do profiling.
Basic operations, like additions or multiplications should only take one asm instructions.
EDIT: As per the comments, although taking one asm instruction, multiplications can expand to microinstructions.
Logarithms take longer.
Also one asm instruction.
Unless you profile your code, there's no way to tell where your bottlenecks are.
Unless you call math operations millions of times (and probably even if you do), a good choice of algorithms or some other high-level optimization will results in a bigger speed gain than optimizing the small stuff.
You should write code that is easy to read and easy to modify, and only if you're not satisfied with the performance then, start optimizing - first high-level, and only afterwards low-level.
You might also want to try dynamic programming or caching.
As regards 2 and 3, I could refer you to the Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual. Appendix C presents the latencies and the throughput of various instructions.
However, unless you hand-code assembly code, your compiler will apply its own optimizations, so using this information directly would be rather difficult.
More importantly, you could use SIMD to vectorize your code and run computations in parallel. Also, memory performance can be a bottleneck if your memory layout is not ideal. The document I linked to has chapters on both issues.
However, as #Ph0en1x said, the first step would be choosing (or writing) an efficient algorithm, making it work for your problem. Only then should you start wondering about low-level optimizations.
As for 1, in a general case I'd say that if your algorithm works in such a way that it has some adjustable thresholds for when to execute certain tests, you could do some profiling and print out a performance graph of some kind, and determine the optimal values for those thresholds.
Well, this depends on your hardware. Very nice tables with instruction latency are http://www.agner.org/optimize/instruction_tables.pdf
1. it depends on the code a lot. Also don't forget it doesn't depend only on computations, but how well the comparison results can be predicted.
2. Generally addition/subtraction is very fast, multiplication of floats is a bit slower. Float division is rather slow (if you need to divide by a constant c, it's often better to precompute 1/c and multiply by it). The library functions are usually (I'd dare to say always) slower than simple operators, unless the compiler decides to use SSE. For example sqrt() and 1/sqrt() can be computed using one SSE instruction.
3. From about one cycle to several dozens of cycles. The current processors does the prediction on conditions. If the prediction is right right, it will be fast. However, if the prediction is wrong, the processor has to throw away all the preloaded instructions (IIRC Sandy Bridge preloads up to 30 instructions) and start processing new instructions.
That means if you have a code, where a condition is met most of the time, it will be fast. Similarly if you have code where the condition is not met most the time, it will be fast. Simple alternating conditions (TFTFTF…) are usually fast too.
This depends on the scenario you are trying to simulate. How many objects do you have and how close are they? Are they clustered or distributed evenly? Do your objects move around alot, or are they static? You will have to run tests. Possible data-structures for fast checking of proximity are kd-trees or locality-sensitive hashes (there may be others). I am not sure if these are appropriate for your application, you'd have to check if the maintenance of the data-structure and the lookup-cost are OK for you.
You will have to run tests. Consider checking if you can use vectorization, or if you can even run some of the computations in a GPU using CUDA or something like that.
Same as above - you have to test.
You can generally consider inequality checks, increment, decrement, bit shifts, addition and subtraction to be really cheap. Multiplication and division are generally a little more expensive. Complex math operations like logarithms are much more expensive.
Benchmark on your platform to be sure. Be careful about benchmarking using artificial tests with tight loops -- that tends to give you misleading results. Try to benchmark in code that's as realistic as possible. Ideally, profile the actual code under realistic conditions.
As for the optimizations for things like line intersection, it depends on the data set. If you do a lot of checks and most of your lines are short, it may be worth a quick check to rule out cases where the X or Y ranges don't overlap.
as much as I know all "inequality checks" take the same time.
regarding the rest calculations, I would advice you to run some tests like
take time stamp A
make 1,000,000 "+" calculation (or any other).
take time stamp B
calculate the diff between A and B.
then you can compare the calculations.
take in mind:
using different mathematical lib may change it (some math lib are more performance oriented and some more precision oriented)
the compiler optimization may change it.
each processor is doing it differently.