I am writing a C++ number crunching application, where the bottleneck is a function that has to calculate for double:
template<class T> inline T sqr(const T& x){return x*x;}
and another one that calculates
Base dist2(const Point& p) const
{ return sqr(x-p.x) + sqr(y-p.y) + sqr(z-p.z); }
These operations take 80% of the computation time. I wonder if you can suggest approaches to make it faster, even if there is some sort of accuracy loss
Thanks
First, make sure dist2 can be inlined (it's not clear from your post whether or not this is the case), having it defined in a header file if necessary (generally you'll need to do this - but if your compiler generates code at link time, then that's not necessarily the case).
Assuming x86 architecture, be sure to allow your compiler to generate code using SSE2 instructions (an example of an SIMD instruction set) if they are available on the target architecture. To give the compiler the best opportunity to optimize these, you can try to batch your sqr operations together (SSE2 instructions should be able to do up to 4 float or 2 double operations at a time depending on the instruction.. but of course it can only do this if you have the inputs to more than one operation on the ready). I wouldn't be too optimistic about the compiler's ability to figure out that it can batch them.. but you can at least set up your code so that it would be possible in theory.
If you're still not satisfied with the speed and you don't trust that your compiler is doing it best, you should look into using compiler intrinsics which will allow you to write potential parallel instructions explicitly.. or alternatively, you can go right ahead and write architecture-specific assembly code to take advantage of SSE2 or whichever instructions are most appropriate on your architecture. (Warning: if you hand-code the assembly, either take extra care that it still gets inlined, or make it into a large batch operation)
To take it even further, (and as glowcoder has already mentioned) you could perform these operations on a GPU. For your specific case, bear in mind that GPU's often don't support double precision floating point.. though if it's a good fit for what you're doing, you'll get orders of magnitude better performance this way. Google for GPGPU or whatnot and see what's best for you.
What is Base?
Is it a class with a non-explicit constructor? It's possible that you're creating a fair amount of temporary Base objects. That could be a big CPU hog.
template<class T> inline T sqr(const T& x){return x*x;}
Base dist2(const Point& p) const {
return sqr(x-p.x) + sqr(y-p.y) + sqr(z-p.z);
}
If p's member variables are of type Base, you could be calling sqr on Base objects, which will be creating temporaries for the subtracted coordinates, in sqr, and then for each added component.
(We can't tell without the class definitions)
You could probably speed it up by forcing the sqr calls to be on primitves and not using Base until you get to the return type of dist2.
Other performance improvement opportunities are to:
Use non-floating point operations, if you're ok with less precision.
Use algorithms which don't need to call dist2 so much, possibly caching or using the transitive property.
(this is probably obvious, but) Make sure you're compiling with optimization turned on.
I think optimising these functions might be difficult, you might be better off optimising the code that calls these functions to call them less, or to do things differently.
You don't say whether the calls to dist2 can be parallelised or not. If they can, then you could build a thread pool and split this work up into smaller chunks per thread.
What does your profiler tell you is happening inside dist2. Are you actually using 100% CPU all the time or are you cache missing and waiting for data to load?
To be honest, we really need more details to give you a definitive answer.
If sqr() is being used only on primitive types, you might try taking the argument by value instead of reference. That would save you an indirection.
If you can organise your data suitably then you may well be able to use SIMD optimisation here. For an efficient implementation you would probably want to pad your Point struct so that it has 4 elements (i.e. add a fourth dummy element for padding).
If you have a number of these to do, and you're doing graphics or "graphic like" tasks (thermal modeling, almost any 3d modeling) you might consider using OpenGL and offloading the tasks to a GPU. This would allow the computations to run in parallel, with highly optimized operational capacity. After all, you would expect something like distance or distancesq to have its own opcode on a GPU.
A researcher at a local univeristy offload almost all of his 3d-calculations for AI work to the GPU and achieved much faster results.
There are a lot of answers mentioning SSE already… but since nobody has mentioned how to use it, I'll throw another in…
Your code has most everything a vectorizer needs to work, except two constraints: aliasing and alignment.
Aliasing is the problem of two names referring two the same object. For example, my_point.dist2( my_point ) would operate on two copies of my_point. This messes with the vectorizer.
C99 defines the keyword restrict for pointers to specify that the referenced object is referenced uniquely: there will be no other restrict pointer to that object in the current scope. Most decent C++ compilers implement C99 as well, and import this feature somehow.
GCC calls it __restrict__. It may be applied to references or this.
MSVC calls it __restrict. I'd be surprised if support were any different from GCC.
(It is not in C++0x, though.)
#ifdef __GCC__
#define restrict __restrict__
#elif defined _MSC_VER
#define restrict __restrict
#endif
Base dist2(const Point& restrict p) const restrict
Most SIMD units require alignment to the size of the vector. C++ and C99 leave alignment implementation-defined, but C++0x wins this race by introducing [[align(16)]]. As that's still a bit in the future, you probably want your compiler's semi-portable support, a la restrict:
#ifdef __GCC__
#define align16 __attribute__((aligned (16)))
#elif defined _MSC_VER
#define align16 __declspec(align (16))
#endif
struct Point {
double align16 xyz[ 3 ]; // separate x,y,z might work; dunno
…
};
This isn't guaranteed to produce results; both GCC and MSVC implement helpful feedback to tell you what wasn't vectorized and why. Google your vectorizer to learn more.
If you really need all the dist2 values, then you have to compute them. It's already low level and cannot imagine speedups apart from distributing on multiple cores.
On the other side, if you're searching for closeness, then you can supply to the dist2() function your current miminum value. This way, if sqr(x-p.x) is already larger than your current minimum, you can avoid computing the remaining 2 squares.
Furthermore, you can avoid the first square by going deeper in the double representation. Comparing directly on the exponent value with your current miminum can save even more cycles.
Are you using Visual Studio? If so you may want to look at specifying the floating point unit control using /fp fast as a compile switch. Have a look at The fp:fast Mode for Floating-Point Semantics. GCC has a host of -fOPTION floating point optimisations you might want to consider (if, as you say, accuracy is not a huge concern).
I suggest two techniques:
Move the structure members into
local variables at the beginning.
Perform like operations together.
These techniques may not make a difference, but they are worth trying. Before making any changes, print the assembly language first. This will give you a baseline for comparison.
Here's the code:
Base dist2(const Point& p) const
{
// Load the cache with data values.
register x1 = p.x;
register y1 = p.y;
register z1 = p.z;
// Perform subtraction together
x1 = x - x1;
y1 = y - y1;
z1 = z - z2;
// Perform multiplication together
x1 *= x1;
y1 *= y1;
z1 *= z1;
// Perform final sum
x1 += y1;
x1 += z1;
// Return the final value
return x1;
}
The other alternative is to group by dimension. For example, perform all 'X' operations first, then Y and followed by Z. This may show the compiler that pieces are independent and it can delegate to another core or processor.
If you can't get any more performance out of this function, you should look elsewhere as other people have suggested. Also read up on Data Driven Design. There are examples where reorganizing the loading of data can speed up performance over 25%.
Also, you may want to investigate using other processors in the system. For example, the BOINC Project can delegate calculations to a graphics processor.
Hope this helps.
From an operation count, I don't see how this can be sped up without delving into hardware optimizations (like SSE) as others have pointed out. An alternative is to use a different norm, like the 1-norm is just the sum of the absolute values of the terms. Then no multiplications are necessary. However, this changes the underlying geometry of your space by rearranging the apparent spacing of the objects, but it may not matter for your application.
Floating point operations are quite often slower, maybe you can think about modifying the code to use only integer arithmetic and see if this helps?
EDIT: After the point made by Paul R I reworded my advice not to claim that floating point operations are always slower. Thanks.
Your best hope is to double-check that every dist2 call is actually needed: maybe the algorithm that calls it can be refactored to be more efficient? If some distances are computed multiple times, maybe they can be cached?
If you're sure all of the calls are necessary, you may be able to squeeze out a last drop of performance by using an architecture-aware compiler. I've had good results using Intel's compiler on x86s, for instance.
Just a few thoughts, however unlikely that I will add anything of value after 18 answers :)
If you are spending 80% time in these two functions I can imagine two typical scenarios:
Your algorithm is at least polynomial
As your data seem to be spatial maybe you can bring the O(n) down by introducing spatial indexes?
You are looping over certain set
If this set comes either from data on disk (sorted?) or from loop there might be possibility to cache, or use previous computations to calculate sqrt faster.
Also regarding the cache, you should define the required precision (and the input range) - maybe some sort of lookup/cache can be used?
(scratch that!!! sqr != sqrt )
See if the "Fast sqrt" is applicable in your case :
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_inverse_square_root
Look at the context. There's nothing you can do to optimize an operation as simple as x*x.
Instead you should look at a higher level: where is the function called from? How often? Why? Can you reduce the number of calls? Can you use SIMD instructions to perform the multiplication on multiple elements at a time?
Can you perhaps offload entire parts of the algorithm to the GPU?
Is the function defined so that it can be inlined? (basically, is its definition visible at the call sites)
Is the result needed immediately after the computation? If so, the latency of FP operations might hurt you. Try to arrange your code so dependency chains are broken up or interleaved with unrelated instructions.
And of course, examine the generated assembly and see if it's what you expect.
Is there a reason you are implementing your own sqr operator?
Have you tried the one in libm it should be highly optimized.
The first thing that occurs to me is memoization ( on-the-fly caching of function calls ), but both sqr and dist2 it would seem like they are too low level for the overhead associated with memoization to be made up for in savings due to memoization. However at a higher level, you may find it may work well for you.
I think a more detailed analysis of you data is called for. Saying that most of the time in the program is spent executing MOV and JUMp commands may be accurate, but it's not going to help yhou optimise much. The information is too low level. For example, if you know that integer arguments are good enough for dist2, and the values are between 0 and 9, then a pre-cached tabled would be 1000 elements--not to big. You can always use code to generate it.
Have you unrolled loops? Broken down matrix opration? Looked for places where you can get by with table lookup instead of actual calculation.
Most drastic would be to adopt the techniques described in:
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.115.8660&rep=rep1&type=pdf
though it is admittedly a hard read and you should get some help from someone who knows Common Lisp if you don't.
I'm curious why you made this a template when you said the computation is done using doubles?
Why not write a standard method, function, or just 'x * x' ?
If your inputs can be predictably constrained and you really need speed create an array that contains all the outputs your function can produce. Use the input as the index into the array (A sparse hash). A function evaluation then becomes a comparison (to test for array bounds), an addition, and a memory reference. It won't get a lot faster than that.
See the SUBPD, MULPD and DPPD instructions. (DPPD required SSE4)
Depends on your code, but in some cases a stucture-of-arrays layout might be more friendly to vectorization than an array-of-structures layout.
Related
I have some equations that involve multiple operations that I would like to run as fast as possible. Since the c++ compiler breaks it down in to machine code anyway does it matter if I break it up to multiple lines like
A=4*B+4*C;
D=3*E/F;
G=A*D;
vs
G=12*E*(B+C)/F;
My need is more complex than this but the i think it conveys the idea. Also if this is in a function that gets called is in a loop, does defining double A, D cost CPU time vs putting it in as a class variable?
Using a modern compiler, Clang/Gcc/VC++/Intel, it won't really matter, the best thing you should do is worry about how readable your code will be and turn on optimizations, compiler designers are well aware of issues like these and design their compilers to (for the most part) optimize according.
If I were to say which would be slower I would assume the first way since there would be 3 mov instructions, I could be wrong. but this isn't something you should worry about too much.
If these variables are integers, that second code fragment is not a valid optimization of the first. For B=1, C=1, E=1, F=6, you have:
A=4*B+4*C; // 8
D=3*E/F; // 0
G=A*D; // 0
and
G=12*E*(B+C)/F; // 4
If floating point, then it really depends on what compiler, what compiler options, and what cpu you have.
I am starting with dsp programming right now and am writing my first low level classes and functions.
Since I want the functions to be fast (or at last not inefficient), I often wonder what I should use and what I should avoid in functions which get called per sample.
I know that the speed of an instruction varies quite a bit but I think that some of you at least can share a rule of thumb or just experience. :)
conditional statements
If I have to use conditions, switch should be faster than an if / else if block, right?
Are there differences between using two if-statements or an if-else? Somewhere I read that else should be avoided but I don't know why.
Also, compared to a multiplication, is there a rude estimation how much more time an if-block takes? Because in some cases, using multiplications by zero could be used instead of if-statements:
//something could be an int either 1 or 0:
if(something) {
signal += something_else;
}
// or:
signa+ += something*something_else;
functions and function-pointers
Instead of using conditional statements, you could use function-pointer. Instead of using conditions in every call, the pointer could be redirected to a specific function. However, for every call, the pointer had to be interpreted in order to call the right function. So I don't know if this would help or not.
What I also wonder is if calling functions have an impact. If so, boxing functions should be avoided, right?
variables
I would think that defining and using many variables in a function doesn't realy have an impact, at least relative to calculations. Is this true? If not, reusing declared variables would be better than more declaration.
calculations
Is there an order of calculation-types in term of the time they take to execute? I am sure that this highly depends on the context but a rule of thumb would be nice. I often read that people only count the multiplication in an algorithm. Is this because additions are realtively fast?
Does it make a difference between multiplication and division? (*0.5 or /2.0)
I hope that you can share soem experience.
Cheers
here are part of the answers:
calculations (talking about native precision of the processor for example 32bits):
Most DSP microprocessors have single cycle multipliers, that means a
multiply costs exactly the same as an addition in term of cycles.
and multiplication it generally faster then division.
conditional statements:
if/else - when looking in the assembly code you can see that the memory of the if condition is usually loaded by default, so when using if else make sure that the condition that will happen more frequently will be in the if.
but generally if possible you should avoid if/else in a loop to improve the pipe lining.
good luck.
DSP compilers are typically good at optimizing for loops that do not contain function-calls.
Therefore, try to inline every function that you call from within a time-critical for loop.
If your DSP is a fixed-point processor, then floating-point operations are implemented by SW.
This means that every such operation is essentially replaced by the compiler with a library function.
So you should basically avoid performing floating-point operations inside time-critical for loops.
The preprocessor should provide a special #pragma for the number of iterations of a for loop:
Minimum number of iterations
Maximum number of iterations
Multiplicity of the number of iterations
Use this #pragma where possible, in order to help the compiler to perform loop-unrolling where possible.
Finally, DSPs usually support a set of unique operations for enhanced performance.
As an example, consider _dotpu4 on Texas Instruments C64xx, which computes the scalar-product of two integers src1 and src2: For each pair of 8-bit values in src1 and src2, the 8-bit value from src1 is multiplied with the 8-bit value from src2, and the four products are summed together.
Check the data-sheet of your DSP, and see if you can make use of any of these operations.
The compiler should generate an intermediate file, which you can explore in order to analyze the expected performance of each of the optimized for loops in your code.
Based on that, you can try different assembly operations that might yield better results.
I'm trying to calculate logab (and get a floating point back, not an integer). I was planning to do this as log(b)/log(a). Mathematically speaking, I can use any of the cmath log functions (base 2, e, or 10) to do this calculation; however, I will be running this calculation a lot during my program, so I was wondering if one of them is significantly faster than the others (or better yet, if there is a faster, but still simple, way to do this). If it matters, both a and b are integers.
First, precalculate 1.0/log(a) and multiply each log(b) by that expression instead.
Edit: I originally said that the natural logarithm (base e) would be fastest, but others state that base 2 is supported directly by the processor and would be fastest. I have no reason to doubt it.
Edit 2: I originally assumed that a was a constant, but in re-reading the question that is never stated. If so then there would be no benefit to precalculating. If it is however, you can maintain readability with an appropriate choice of variable names:
const double base_a = 1.0 / log(a);
for (int b = 0; b < bazillions; ++b)
double result = log(b) * base_a;
Strangely enough Microsoft doesn't supply a base 2 log function, which explains why I was unfamiliar with it. Also the x86 instruction for calculating logs includes a multiplication automatically, and the constants required for the different bases are also available via an optimized instruction, so I'd expect the 3 different log functions to have identical timing (even base 2 would have to multiply by 1).
Since b and a are integers, you can use all the glory of bit twiddling to find their logs to the base 2. Here are some:
Find the log base 2 of an integer with the MSB N set in O(N) operations (the obvious way)
Find the integer log base 2 of an integer with an 64-bit IEEE float
Find the log base 2 of an integer with a lookup table
Find the log base 2 of an N-bit integer in O(lg(N)) operations
Find the log base 2 of an N-bit integer in O(lg(N)) operations with multiply and lookup
I'll leave it to you to choose the best "fast-log" function for your needs.
On the platforms for which I have data, log2 is very slightly faster than the others, in line with my expectations. Note however, that the difference is extremely slight (only a couple percent). This is really not worth worrying about.
Write an implementation that is clear. Then measure the performance.
In the 8087 instruction set, there is only an instruction for the logarithm to base 2, so I would guess this one to be the fastest.
Of course this kind of question depends largely on your processor/architecture, so I would suggest to make a simple test and time it.
The answer is:
it depends
profile it
You don't even mention your CPU type, the variable type, the compiler flags, the data layout. If you need to do lot's of these in parallel, I'm sure there will be a SIMD option. Your compiler will optimize that as long as you use alignment and clear simple loops (or valarray if you like archaic approaches).
Chances are, the intel compiler has specific tricks for intel processors in this area.
If you really wanted you could use CUDA and leverage GPU.
I suppose, if you are unfortunate enough to lack these instruction sets you could go down at the bit fiddling level and write an algorithm that does a nice approximation. In this case, I can bet more than one apple-pie that 2-log is going to be faster than any other base-log
Recently I changed some code
double d0, d1;
// ... assign things to d0/d1 ...
double result = f(d0, d1)
to
double d[2];
// ... assign things to d[0]/d[1]
double result = f(d[0], d[1]);
I did not change any of the assignments to d, nor the calculations in f, nor anything else apart from the fact that the doubles are now stored in a fixed-length array.
However when compiling in release mode, with optimizations on, result changed.
My question is, why, and what should I know about how I should store doubles? Is one way more efficient, or better, than the other? Are there memory alignment issues? I'm looking for any information that would help me understand what's going on.
EDIT: I will try to get some code demonstrating the problem, however this is quite hard as the process that these numbers go through is huge (a lot of maths, numerical solvers, etc.).
However there is no change when compiled in Debug. I will double check this again to make sure but this is almost certain, i.e. the double values are identical in Debug between version 1 and version 2.
Comparing Debug to Release, results have never ever been the same between the two compilation modes, for various optimization reasons.
You probably have a 'fast math' compiler switch turned on, or are doing something in the "assign things" (which we can't see) which allows the compiler to legally reorder calculations. Even though the sequences are equivalent, it's likely the optimizer is treating them differently, so you end up with slightly different code generation. If it's reordered, you end up with slight differences in the least significant bits. Such is life with floating point.
You can prevent this by not using 'fast math' (if that's turned on), or forcing ordering thru the way you construct the formulas and intermediate values. Even that's hard (impossible?) to guarantee. The question is really "Why is the compiler generating different code for arrays vs numbered variables?", but that's basically an analysis of the code generator.
no these are equivalent - you have something else wrong.
Check the /fp:precise flags (or equivalent) the processor floating point hardware can run in more accuracy or more speed mode - it may have a different default in an optimized build
With regard to floating-point semantics, these are equivalent. However, it is conceivable that the compiler might decide to generate slightly different code sequences for the two, and that could result in differences in the result.
Can you post a complete code example that illustrates the difference? Without that to go on, anything anyone posts as an answer is just speculation.
To your concerns: memory alignment cannot effect the value of a double, and a compiler should be able to generate equivalent code for either example, so you don't need to worry that you're doing something wrong (at least, not in the limited example you posted).
The first way is more efficient, in a very theoretical way. It gives the compiler slightly more leeway in assigning stack slots and registers. In the second example, the compiler has to pick 2 consecutive slots - except of course if the compiler is smart enough to realize that you'd never notice.
It's quite possible that the double[2] causes the array to be allocated as two adjacent stack slots where it wasn't before, and that in turn can cause code reordering to improve memory access efficiency. IEEE754 floating point math doesn't obey the regular math rules, i.e. a+b+c != c+b+a
I have a loop written in C++ which is executed for each element of a big integer array. Inside the loop, I mask some bits of the integer and then find the min and max values. I heard that if I use SSE instructions for these operations it will run much faster compared to a normal loop written using bitwise AND , and if-else conditions. My question is should I go for these SSE instructions? Also, what happens if my code runs on a different processor? Will it still work or these instructions are processor specific?
SSE instructions are processor specific. You can look up which processor supports which SSE version on wikipedia.
If SSE code will be faster or not depends on many factors: The first is of course whether the problem is memory-bound or CPU-bound. If the memory bus is the bottleneck SSE will not help much. Try simplifying your integer calculations, if that makes the code faster, it's probably CPU-bound, and you have a good chance of speeding it up.
Be aware that writing SIMD-code is a lot harder than writing C++-code, and that the resulting code is much harder to change. Always keep the C++ code up to date, you'll want it as a comment and to check the correctness of your assembler code.
Think about using a library like the IPP, that implements common low-level SIMD operations optimized for various processors.
SIMD, of which SSE is an example, allows you to do the same operation on multiple chunks of data. So, you won't get any advantage to using SSE as a straight replacement for the integer operations, you will only get advantages if you can do the operations on multiple data items at once. This involves loading some data values that are contiguous in memory, doing the required processing and then stepping to the next set of values in the array.
Problems:
1 If the code path is dependant on the data being processed, SIMD becomes much harder to implement. For example:
a = array [index];
a &= mask;
a >>= shift;
if (a < somevalue)
{
a += 2;
array [index] = a;
}
++index;
is not easy to do as SIMD:
a1 = array [index] a2 = array [index+1] a3 = array [index+2] a4 = array [index+3]
a1 &= mask a2 &= mask a3 &= mask a4 &= mask
a1 >>= shift a2 >>= shift a3 >>= shift a4 >>= shift
if (a1<somevalue) if (a2<somevalue) if (a3<somevalue) if (a4<somevalue)
// help! can't conditionally perform this on each column, all columns must do the same thing
index += 4
2 If the data is not contigous then loading the data into the SIMD instructions is cumbersome
3 The code is processor specific. SSE is only on IA32 (Intel/AMD) and not all IA32 cpus support SSE.
You need to analyse the algorithm and the data to see if it can be SSE'd and that requires knowing how SSE works. There's plenty of documentation on Intel's website.
This kind of problem is a perfect example of where a good low level profiler is essential. (Something like VTune) It can give you a much more informed idea of where your hotspots lie.
My guess, from what you describe is that your hotspot will probably be branch prediction failures resulting from min/max calculations using if/else. Therefore, using SIMD intrinsics should allow you to use the min/max instructions, however, it might be worth just trying to use a branchless min/max caluculation instead. This might achieve most of the gains with less pain.
Something like this:
inline int
minimum(int a, int b)
{
int mask = (a - b) >> 31;
return ((a & mask) | (b & ~mask));
}
If you use SSE instructions, you're obviously limited to processors that support these.
That means x86, dating back to the Pentium 2 or so (can't remember exactly when they were introduced, but it's a long time ago)
SSE2, which, as far as I can recall, is the one that offers integer operations, is somewhat more recent (Pentium 3? Although the first AMD Athlon processors didn't support them)
In any case, you have two options for using these instructions. Either write the entire block of code in assembly (probably a bad idea. That makes it virtually impossible for the compiler to optimize your code, and it's very hard for a human to write efficient assembler).
Alternatively, use the intrinsics available with your compiler (if memory serves, they're usually defined in xmmintrin.h)
But again, the performance may not improve. SSE code poses additional requirements of the data it processes. Mainly, the one to keep in mind is that data must be aligned on 128-bit boundaries. There should also be few or no dependencies between the values loaded into the same register (a 128 bit SSE register can hold 4 ints. Adding the first and the second one together is not optimal. But adding all four ints to the corresponding 4 ints in another register will be fast)
It may be tempting to use a library that wraps all the low-level SSE fiddling, but that might also ruin any potential performance benefit.
I don't know how good SSE's integer operation support is, so that may also be a factor that can limit performance. SSE is mainly targeted at speeding up floating point operations.
If you intend to use Microsoft Visual C++, you should read this:
http://www.codeproject.com/KB/recipes/sseintro.aspx
We have implemented some image processing code, similar to what you describe but on a byte array, In SSE. The speedup compared to C code is considerable, depending on the exact algorithm more than a factor of 4, even in respect to the Intel compiler. However, as you already mentioned you have the following drawbacks:
Portability. The code will run on every Intel-like CPU, so also AMD, but not on other CPUs. That is not a problem for us because we control the target hardware. Switching compilers and even to a 64 bit OS can also be a problem.
You have a steep learning curve, but I found that after you grasp the principles writing new algorithms is not that hard.
Maintainability. Most C or C++ programmers have no knowledge of assembly/SSE.
My advice to you will be to go for it only if you really need the performance improvement, and you can't find a function for your problem in a library like the intel IPP, and if you can live with the portability issues.
I can tell from my experince that SSE brings a huge (4x and up) speedup over a plain c version of the code (no inline asm, no intrinsics used) but hand-optimized assembler can beat Compiler-generated assembly if the compiler can't figure out what the programmer intended (belive me, compilers don't cover all possible code combinations and they never will).
Oh and, the compiler can't everytime layout the data that it runs at the fastest-possible speed.
But you need much experince for a speedup over an Intel-compiler (if possible).
SSE instructions were originally just on Intel chips, but recently (since Athlon?) AMD supports them as well, so if you do code against the SSE instruction set, you should be portable to most x86 procs.
That being said, it may not be worth your time to learn SSE coding unless you're already familiar with assembler on x86's - an easier option might be to check your compiler docs and see if there are options to allow the compiler to autogenerate SSE code for you. Some compilers do very well vectorizing loops in this way. (You're probably not surprised to hear that the Intel compilers do a good job of this :)
Write code that helps the compiler understand what you are doing. GCC will understand and optimize SSE code such as this:
typedef union Vector4f
{
// Easy constructor, defaulted to black/0 vector
Vector4f(float a = 0, float b = 0, float c = 0, float d = 1.0f):
X(a), Y(b), Z(c), W(d) { }
// Cast operator, for []
inline operator float* ()
{
return (float*)this;
}
// Const ast operator, for const []
inline operator const float* () const
{
return (const float*)this;
}
// ---------------------------------------- //
inline Vector4f operator += (const Vector4f &v)
{
for(int i=0; i<4; ++i)
(*this)[i] += v[i];
return *this;
}
inline Vector4f operator += (float t)
{
for(int i=0; i<4; ++i)
(*this)[i] += t;
return *this;
}
// Vertex / Vector
// Lower case xyzw components
struct {
float x, y, z;
float w;
};
// Upper case XYZW components
struct {
float X, Y, Z;
float W;
};
};
Just don't forget to have -msse -msse2 on your build parameters!
Although it is true that SSE is specific to some processors (SSE may be relatively safe, SSE2 much less in my experience), you can detect the CPU at runtime, and load the code dynamically depending on the target CPU.
SIMD intrinsics (such as SSE2) can speed this sort of thing up but take expertise to use correctly. They are very sensitive to alignment and pipeline latency; careless use can make performance even worse than it would have been without them. You'll get a much easier and more immediate speedup from simply using cache prefetching to make sure all your ints are in L1 in time for you to operate on them.
Unless your function needs a throughput of better than 100,000,000 integers per second, SIMD probably isn't worth the trouble for you.
Just to add briefly to what has been said before about different SSE versions being available on different CPUs: This can be checked by looking at the respective feature flags returned by the CPUID instruction (see e.g. Intel's documentation for details).
Have a look at inline assembler for C/C++, here is a DDJ article. Unless you are 100% certain your program will run on a compatible platform you should follow the recommendations many have given here.
I agree with the previous posters. Benefits can be quite large but to get it may require a lot of work. Intel documentation on these instructions is over 4K pages. You may want to check out EasySSE (c++ wrappers library over intrinsics + examples) free from Ocali Inc.
I assume my affiliation with this EasySSE is clear.
I don't recommend doing this yourself unless you're fairly proficient with assembly. Using SSE will, more than likely, require careful reorganization of your data, as Skizz points out, and the benefit is often questionable at best.
It would probably be much better for you to write very small loops and keep your data very tightly organized and just rely on the compiler doing this for you. Both the Intel C Compiler and GCC (since 4.1) can auto-vectorize your code, and will probably do a better job than you. (Just add -ftree-vectorize to your CXXFLAGS.)
Edit: Another thing I should mention is that several compilers support assembly intrinsics, which would probably, IMO, be easier to use than the asm() or __asm{} syntax.