Date: Thu, 12 Jul 2007 08:13:38 +1000 From: Peter Jeremy <peterjeremy@optushome.com.au> To: "Sean C. Farley" <scf@freebsd.org> Cc: freebsd-arch@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Assembly string functions in i386 libc Message-ID: <20070711221338.GC20178@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org> In-Reply-To: <20070711134721.D2385@thor.farley.org> References: <20070711134721.D2385@thor.farley.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
--dkEUBIird37B8yKS
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW"
Content-Disposition: inline
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: inline
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
On 2007-Jul-11 15:24:01 -0500, "Sean C. Farley" <scf@freebsd.org> wrote:
>libc compared to the version I was writing. After more testing, I found
>it was only the assembly version that is really slow. The C version is
>fairly quick. Is there a need to continue to use the assembly versions
>of string functions on i386? Does it mainly help slower systems such as
>those with i386 or i486 CPU's?
The performance of string instructions has varied wildly across
various x86 implementations. Definitely, for short strings, the
overhead in initialising the various registers outweighs any actual
difference in loop performance. For any recent CPU, the location of
the string in the memory hierarchy far outweighs implementation
issues. bde@ has done various testing in the last and posted results.
Some comments:
- comparing the strlen() in a shared libc with a statically linked one
is unfair - especially on the i386.
- Your results don't include non-aligned inputs
- Your results don't include non-power-of-2 lengths
>I would appreciate it if anyone could see if strlen and strlen2 perform
>any better on an amd64. Although the current C version of strlen() in
>7-CURRENT is faster than mine for smaller values, they perform better
>for larger strings.
I've tested on:
FreeBSD 6.2-STABLE #28: Fri Jun 22 11:44:13 EST 2007
root@turion.vk2pj.dyndns.org:/usr/obj/usr/src/sys/turion
CPU: AMD Turion(tm) 64 Mobile ML-40 (2194.52-MHz K8-class =
CPU)
Origin =3D "AuthenticAMD" Id =3D 0x20f42 Stepping =3D 2
Features=3D0x78bfbff<FPU,VME,DE,PSE,TSC,MSR,PAE,MCE,CX8,APIC,SEP,MTRR,PGE=
,MCA,CMOV,PAT,PSE36,CLFLUSH,MMX,FXSR,SSE,SSE2>
Features2=3D0x1<SSE3>
AMD Features=3D0xe2500800<SYSCALL,NX,MMX+,FFXSR,LM,3DNow!+,3DNow!>
AMD Features2=3D0x1<LAHF>
There is no asm strlen so libcstrlen and basestrlen should be identical
(and disassembling [x]strlen() shows that the code _is_ identical) but
there are significant differences for short strings and measurable
differences for all lengths except 32 bytes. This indicates that your
program is not able to accurately compare strlen() performance.
I've tried statically linking all the test programs and this removes
the libcstrlen/basestrlen differences. The very poor results for 4
and 8 byte strings are unexpected but (as expected), your unrolled
strlen() implementations behave better for longer strings.
The attached results all reflect your code with '-static' added to
every gcc/link step.
--=20
Peter Jeremy
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.01"
x libcstrlen.01
+ basestrlen.01
* strlen.01
% strlen2.01
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| % |
| * * % |
| * * % |
| ** *x %% |
|* ** * * ** + % %%%+# x +|
||____M_A______| ||______M______AA_________|_A|__| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.056836 0.076297 0.0571435 0.0600979 0.0065785842
+ 10 0.056941 0.079997 0.0571135 0.0605826 0.0075392895
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.045764 0.057498 0.047954 0.0489822 0.0031965751
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.0111157 +/- 0.00485944
-18.496% +/- 8.08587%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00517184)
% 10 0.0642 0.067644 0.0662535 0.0662219 0.00087897572
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.006124 +/- 0.00440962
10.19% +/- 7.33739%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0046931)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.02"
x libcstrlen.02
+ basestrlen.02
* strlen.02
% strlen2.02
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| % |
| % |
| * * % |
| ** *x %% |
| * *** * +*xx + * x %% % % * %|
||_________M____|_A_|MA|A______|___| |___M__A_____| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.06611 0.076365 0.0663895 0.0673789 0.0031655271
+ 10 0.065865 0.068425 0.0662385 0.0664137 0.00072301053
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.059657 0.08414 0.06171 0.0648375 0.0073763495
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
% 10 0.079855 0.089286 0.0801355 0.0812853 0.0029096056
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0139064 +/- 0.00285662
20.6391% +/- 4.23963%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00304026)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.04"
x libcstrlen.04
+ basestrlen.04
* strlen.04
% strlen2.04
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| * * % |
| * * % |
| * * * % % |
| x ****x +***** + % %%% + % %|
||____|MM|____|A_|___________| |______M___A__________| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.082714 0.086885 0.08454 0.0848665 0.0011530442
+ 10 0.084376 0.113232 0.0852015 0.0900253 0.0098820415
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.089334 0.091925 0.089935 0.090297 0.00094932268
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0054305 +/- 0.000992314
6.39887% +/- 1.16926%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00105611)
% 10 0.105559 0.131599 0.1080435 0.1111049 0.0078954972
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0262384 +/- 0.00530137
30.9173% +/- 6.24671%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00564218)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.08"
x libcstrlen.08
+ basestrlen.08
* strlen.08
% strlen2.08
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| ** % * |
| ** %%% % ** * |
| +** +x +x %%%% % *** * *|
||__MM_A____| |_MA__| |__M_A_____| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.121139 0.146324 0.1226245 0.125436 0.0079127939
+ 10 0.12069 0.145306 0.1219265 0.1250433 0.0076468179
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.194276 0.218771 0.1965875 0.1998421 0.0075342985
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0744061 +/- 0.00725919
59.318% +/- 5.78717%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00772586)
% 10 0.162464 0.173597 0.164107 0.1656017 0.0041219019
Difference at 95.0% confidence
0.0401657 +/- 0.00592774
32.0209% +/- 4.72571%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00630882)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.16"
x libcstrlen.16
+ basestrlen.16
* strlen.16
% strlen2.16
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| % |
| % |
| % * * |
| %% ** x*+ + |
| %% %% % *** * * * * x*++ x*+ x *|
||_M__A____| |__M_A_____| ||M_M_A____|| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.267459 0.292087 0.2683745 0.2740531 0.0087043756
+ 10 0.267893 0.292362 0.2707545 0.2747774 0.0078299701
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.212733 0.236073 0.2156615 0.2196616 0.007802558
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.0543915 +/- 0.00776649
-19.8471% +/- 2.83394%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00826577)
% 10 0.185465 0.208264 0.186767 0.1902279 0.0071633648
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.0838252 +/- 0.0074897
-30.5872% +/- 2.73294%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0079712)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.32"
x libcstrlen.32
+ basestrlen.32
* strlen.32
% strlen2.32
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| % * |
| % * * x + + |
| % % % * * xx ++ + |
|%%% % % * ** * * +xx+** * xx|
||M_A__| |__A__| |__|MA_|_| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.414594 0.45129 0.4222915 0.4275801 0.014180339
+ 10 0.412549 0.438513 0.426586 0.4282437 0.0078657702
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.249627 0.276534 0.260869 0.2597264 0.0093742772
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.167854 +/- 0.0112939
-39.2567% +/- 2.64135%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.01202)
% 10 0.212447 0.236769 0.2154385 0.2202512 0.0093600922
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.207329 +/- 0.0112887
-48.4889% +/- 2.64014%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.0120144)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Disposition: attachment; filename="results.64"
x libcstrlen.64
+ basestrlen.64
* strlen.64
% strlen2.64
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
|% ** |
|% % ** |
|%%% ** +**+ x|
|%%% % ** * ******|
||A| |A| ||A_| |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
N Min Max Median Avg Stddev
x 10 0.709884 0.744587 0.7251365 0.7276627 0.011059351
+ 10 0.711416 0.742595 0.723867 0.7256684 0.010705189
No difference proven at 95.0% confidence
* 10 0.324096 0.345875 0.330732 0.33092 0.0067527522
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.396743 +/- 0.0086092
-54.5229% +/- 1.18313%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00916267)
% 10 0.267484 0.290712 0.273968 0.2746264 0.0073885214
Difference at 95.0% confidence
-0.453036 +/- 0.00883668
-62.2591% +/- 1.21439%
(Student's t, pooled s = 0.00940477)
--FkmkrVfFsRoUs1wW--
--dkEUBIird37B8yKS
Content-Type: application/pgp-signature
Content-Disposition: inline
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (FreeBSD)
iD8DBQFGlVYS/opHv/APuIcRAqoBAKCzXMdchhSIPMG45ppHii3kW6Kv7ACgv7E2
iM1384/vPqaZSmdHun+3iJg=
=ET/D
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
--dkEUBIird37B8yKS--
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20070711221338.GC20178>