I'm currently profiling an implementation of binary search. Using some special instructions to measure this I noticed that the code has about a 20% misprediction rate. I'm curious if there is any way to check how many cycles I'm potentially losing due to this. It's a MIPS based architecture.
You're losing 0.2 * N cycles per iteration, where N is the number of cycles that it takes to flush the pipelines after a mispredicted branch. Suppose N = 10 then that means you are losing 2 clocks per iteration on aggregate. Unless you have a very small inner loop then this is probably not going to be a significant performance hit.
Look it up in the docs for your CPU. If you can't find this information specifically, the length of the CPU's pipeline is a fairly good estimate.
Given that it's MIPS and it's a 300MHz system, I'm going to guess that it's a fairly short pipeline. Probably 4-5 stages, so a cost of 3-4 cycles per mispredict is probably a reasonable guess.
On an in-order CPU you may be able to calculate the approximate mispredict cost as a product of the number of mispredicts and the mispredict cost (which is generally a function of some part of the pipeline)
On a modern out-of-order CPU, however, such a general calculation is usually not possible. There may be a large number of instructions in flight1, only some of which are flushed by a misprediction. The surrounding code may be latency bound by one or more chains of dependent instructions, or it may be throughput bound on resources like execution units, renaming throughput, etc, or it may be somewhere in-between.
On such a core, the penalty per misprediction is very difficult to determine, even with the help of performance counters. You can find entire papers dedicated to the topic: that one found a penalty size of ranging from 9 to 35 cycles averaged across entire benchmarks: if you look at some small piece of code the range will be even larger: a penalty of zero is easy to demonstrate, and you could create a scenario where the penalty is in the 100s of cycles.
Where does that leave you, just trying to determine the misprediction cost in your binary search? Well a simple approach is just to control the number of mispredictions and measure the difference! If you set up your benchmark input have a range of behavior, starting with always following the same branch pattern, all the way to having a random pattern, you can plot the misprediction count versus runtime degradation. If you do, share your result!
1Hundreds of instructions in-flight in the case of modern big cores such as those offered by the x86, ARM and POWER architectures.
Look at your specs for that info and if that fails, run it a billion times and time it external to your program (stop watch of something.) Then run it with without a miss and compare.
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.
I want to thoroughly measure and tune my C/C++ code to perform better with caches on a x86_64 system. I know how to measure time with a counter (QueryPerformanceCounter on my Windows machine) but I'm wondering how would one measure the instructions per cycle or reads/write per cycle with respect to the working set.
How should I proceed to measure these values?
Modern processors (i.e., those not very constrained that are less than some 20 years old) are superscalar, i.e., they execute more than one instruction at a time (given correct instruction ordering). Latest x86 processors translate the CISC instructions into internal RISC instructions, reorder them and execute the result, have even several regster banks so instructions using "the same registers" can be done in parallel. There isn't any reasonable way to define the "time the instruction execution takes" today.
The current CPUs are much faster than memory (a few hundred instructions is the typical cost of accessing memory), they are all heavily dependent on cache for performance. And then you have all kinds of funny effects of cores sharing (or not) parts of cache, ...
Tuning code for maximal performance starts with the software architecture, goes on to program organization, algorithm and data structure selection (here a modicum of cache/virtual memory awareness is useful too), careful programming and (as te most extreme measures to squeeze out the last 2% of performance) considerations like the ones you mention (and the other favorite, "rewrite in assembly"). And the ordering is that one because the first levels give more performance for the same cost. Measure before digging in, programmers are notoriously unreliable in finding bottlenecks. And consider the cost of reorganizing code for performance, both in the work itself, in convincing yourself this complex code is correct, and maintenance. Given the relative costs of computers and people, extreme performance tuning rarely makes any sense (perhaps for heavily travelled code paths in popular operating systems, in common code paths generated by a compiler, but almost nowhere else).
If you are really interested in where your code is hitting cache and where it is hitting memory, and the processor is less than about 10-15 years old in its design, then there are performance counters in the processor. You need driver level software to access these registers, so you probably don't want to write your own tools for this. Fortunately, you don't have to.
There is tools like VTune from Intel, CodeAnalyst from AMD and oprofile for Linux (works with both AMD and Intel processors).
There are a whole range of different registers that count the number of instructions actually completed, the number of cycles the processor is waiting for . You can also get a count of things like "number of memory reads", "number of cache misses", "number of TLB misses", "number of FPU instructions".
The next, more tricky part, is of course to try to fix any of these sort of issues, and as mentioned in another answer, programmers aren't always good at tweaking these sort of things - and it's certainly time consuming, not to mention that what works well on processor model X will not necessarily run fast on model Y (there were some tuning tricks for early Pentium 4 that works VERY badly on AMD processors - if on the other hand, you tune that code for AMD processors of that age, you get code that runs well on the same generation Intel processor too!)
You might be interested in the rdtsc x86 instruction, which reads a relative number of cycles.
See http://www.fftw.org/cycle.h for an implementation to read the counter in many compilers.
However, I'd suggest simply measuring using QueryPerformanceCounter. It is rare that the actual number of cycles is important, to tune code you typically only need to be able to compare relative time measurements, and rdtsc has many pitfalls (though probably not applicable to the situation you described):
On multiprocessor systems, there is not a single coherent cycle counter value.
Modern processors often adjust the frequency, changing the rate of change in time with respect to the rate of change in cycles.
In his talk a few days ago at Facebook - slides, video, Andrei Alexandrescu talks about common intuitions that might prove us wrong. For me one very interesting point came up on Slide 7 where he states that the assumption "Fewer instructions = faster code" is not true and more instructions will not necessarily mean slower code.
Here comes my problem: The audio quality of his talk (around 6:20min) is not that well and I don't understand the explanation very well, but from what I get is that he is comparing retired instructions with optimality of an algorithm on a performance level.
However, from my understanding this cannot be done because these are two independent structural levels. Instructions (especially actually retired instructions) are one very important measure and basically, gives you an idea about performance to achieve a goal. If we leave out the latency of an instruction, we can generalize that fewer retired instructions = faster code. Now, of course there are cases where an algorithm that performs complex calculations inside a loop will yield better performance even though it is performed inside the loop, because it will break the loop earlier (think graph traversal). But wouldn't it be more useful to compare to algorithms on a complexity level rather than saying this loop has more instructions and is better than the other? From my point of view, the better algorithm will have less retired instructions in the end.
Can someone please help me to understand where he was going with his example, and how can there be a case where (significantly) more retired instructions lead to better performance?
The quality is indeed bad, but I think he leads to the fact that CPUs are good for calculations, but suffer from bad performance for memory seek (RAM is much slower then CPU), and branches (because CPU works as a pipeline, and branches might cause the pipeline to break).
Here are some cases where more instructions are faster:
Branch prediction - even if we need to do more instructions, but it causes for a better branch prediction, the pipeline of the CPU will be full more time, and less ops will be "thrown out" of it, which ultimately leads to better performance. This thread for example, shows how doing the same thing, but first sorting - improves performnce.
CPU Cache - If your code is more cache optimized, and follows the principle of locality - it is more likely to be faster then a code who doesn't, even if the code that doesn't do half the amount of instructions. This thread gives an example for a small cache optimization - that the same number of instructions might result in much slower code if it is not cache optimized.
It also matters which instructions are done. Sometimes - some instructions might be slower to perform then others, for example - divide might be slower then integer addition.
Note: All of the above are machine dependent and how/if they actually change the performance might vary from one architecture to the other.
The number of instructions is not a good measure in itself.
Fewer retired instructions (because there is nothing more to do) = faster code.
Fewer retired instructions (because they have to wait for dependencies) = slower code.
It can sometimes be that more instructions in the code also means more retired instructions, because they can use up execution slots that would otherwise be wasted in case 2.