Admittedly I don't get it. Say you have a memory with a memory word of length of 1 byte. Why can't you access a 4 byte long variable in a single memory access on an unaligned address(i.e. not divisible by 4), as it's the case with aligned addresses?
The memory subsystem on a modern processor is restricted to accessing memory at the granularity and alignment of its word size; this is the case for a number of reasons.
Speed
Modern processors have multiple levels of cache memory that data must be pulled through; supporting single-byte reads would make the memory subsystem throughput tightly bound to the execution unit throughput (aka cpu-bound); this is all reminiscent of how PIO mode was surpassed by DMA for many of the same reasons in hard drives.
The CPU always reads at its word size (4 bytes on a 32-bit processor), so when you do an unaligned address access — on a processor that supports it — the processor is going to read multiple words. The CPU will read each word of memory that your requested address straddles. This causes an amplification of up to 2X the number of memory transactions required to access the requested data.
Because of this, it can very easily be slower to read two bytes than four. For example, say you have a struct in memory that looks like this:
struct mystruct {
char c; // one byte
int i; // four bytes
short s; // two bytes
}
On a 32-bit processor it would most likely be aligned like shown here:
The processor can read each of these members in one transaction.
Say you had a packed version of the struct, maybe from the network where it was packed for transmission efficiency; it might look something like this:
Reading the first byte is going to be the same.
When you ask the processor to give you 16 bits from 0x0005 it will have to read a word from 0x0004 and shift left 1 byte to place it in a 16-bit register; some extra work, but most can handle that in one cycle.
When you ask for 32 bits from 0x0001 you'll get a 2X amplification. The processor will read from 0x0000 into the result register and shift left 1 byte, then read again from 0x0004 into a temporary register, shift right 3 bytes, then OR it with the result register.
Range
For any given address space, if the architecture can assume that the 2 LSBs are always 0 (e.g., 32-bit machines) then it can access 4 times more memory (the 2 saved bits can represent 4 distinct states), or the same amount of memory with 2 bits for something like flags. Taking the 2 LSBs off of an address would give you a 4-byte alignment; also referred to as a stride of 4 bytes. Each time an address is incremented it is effectively incrementing bit 2, not bit 0, i.e., the last 2 bits will always continue to be 00.
This can even affect the physical design of the system. If the address bus needs 2 fewer bits, there can be 2 fewer pins on the CPU, and 2 fewer traces on the circuit board.
Atomicity
The CPU can operate on an aligned word of memory atomically, meaning that no other instruction can interrupt that operation. This is critical to the correct operation of many lock-free data structures and other concurrency paradigms.
Conclusion
The memory system of a processor is quite a bit more complex and involved than described here; a discussion on how an x86 processor actually addresses memory can help (many processors work similarly).
There are many more benefits to adhering to memory alignment that you can read at this IBM article.
A computer's primary use is to transform data. Modern memory architectures and technologies have been optimized over decades to facilitate getting more data, in, out, and between more and faster execution units–in a highly reliable way.
Bonus: Caches
Another alignment-for-performance that I alluded to previously is alignment on cache lines which are (for example, on some CPUs) 64B.
For more info on how much performance can be gained by leveraging caches, take a look at Gallery of Processor Cache Effects; from this question on cache-line sizes
Understanding of cache lines can be important for certain types of program optimizations. For example, the alignment of data may determine whether an operation touches one or two cache lines. As we saw in the example above, this can easily mean that in the misaligned case, the operation will be twice slower.
It's a limitation of many underlying processors. It can usually be worked around by doing 4 inefficient single byte fetches rather than one efficient word fetch, but many language specifiers decided it would be easier just to outlaw them and force everything to be aligned.
There is much more information in this link that the OP discovered.
you can with some processors (the nehalem can do this), but previously all memory access was aligned on a 64-bit (or 32-bit) line, because the bus is 64 bits wide, you had to fetch 64 bit at a time, and it was significantly easier to fetch these in aligned 'chunks' of 64 bits.
So, if you wanted to get a single byte, you fetched the 64-bit chunk and then masked off the bits you didn't want. Easy and fast if your byte was at the right end, but if it was in the middle of that 64-bit chunk, you'd have to mask off the unwanted bits and then shift the data over to the right place. Worse, if you wanted a 2 byte variable, but that was split across 2 chunks, then that required double the required memory accesses.
So, as everyone thinks memory is cheap, they just made the compiler align the data on the processor's chunk sizes so your code runs faster and more efficiently at the cost of wasted memory.
Fundamentally, the reason is because the memory bus has some specific length that is much, much smaller than the memory size.
So, the CPU reads out of the on-chip L1 cache, which is often 32KB these days. But the memory bus that connects the L1 cache to the CPU will have the vastly smaller width of the cache line size. This will be on the order of 128 bits.
So:
262,144 bits - size of memory
128 bits - size of bus
Misaligned accesses will occasionally overlap two cache lines, and this will require an entirely new cache read in order to obtain the data. It might even miss all the way out to the DRAM.
Furthermore, some part of the CPU will have to stand on its head to put together a single object out of these two different cache lines which each have a piece of the data. On one line, it will be in the very high order bits, in the other, the very low order bits.
There will be dedicated hardware fully integrated into the pipeline that handles moving aligned objects onto the necessary bits of the CPU data bus, but such hardware may be lacking for misaligned objects, because it probably makes more sense to use those transistors for speeding up correctly optimized programs.
In any case, the second memory read that is sometimes necessary would slow down the pipeline no matter how much special-purpose hardware was (hypothetically and foolishly) dedicated to patching up misaligned memory operations.
#joshperry has given an excellent answer to this question. In addition to his answer, I have some numbers that show graphically the effects which were described, especially the 2X amplification. Here's a link to a Google spreadsheet showing what the effect of different word alignments look like.
In addition here's a link to a Github gist with the code for the test.
The test code is adapted from the article written by Jonathan Rentzsch which #joshperry referenced. The tests were run on a Macbook Pro with a quad-core 2.8 GHz Intel Core i7 64-bit processor and 16GB of RAM.
If you have a 32bit data bus, the address bus address lines connected to the memory will start from A2, so only 32bit aligned addresses can be accessed in a single bus cycle.
So if a word spans an address alignment boundary - i.e. A0 for 16/32 bit data or A1 for 32 bit data are not zero, two bus cycles are required to obtain the data.
Some architectures/instruction sets do not support unaligned access and will generate an exception on such attempts, so compiler generated unaligned access code requires not just additional bus cycles, but additional instructions, making it even less efficient.
If a system with byte-addressable memory has a 32-bit-wide memory bus, that means there are effectively four byte-wide memory systems which are all wired to read or write the same address. An aligned 32-bit read will require information stored in the same address in all four memory systems, so all systems can supply data simultaneously. An unaligned 32-bit read would require some memory systems to return data from one address, and some to return data from the next higher address. Although there are some memory systems that are optimized to be able to fulfill such requests (in addition to their address, they effectively have a "plus one" signal which causes them to use an address one higher than specified) such a feature adds considerable cost and complexity to a memory system; most commodity memory systems simply cannot return portions of different 32-bit words at the same time.
On PowerPC you can load an integer from an odd address with no problems.
Sparc and I86 and (I think) Itatnium raise hardware exceptions when you try this.
One 32 bit load vs four 8 bit loads isnt going to make a lot of difference on most modern processors. Whether the data is already in cache or not will have a far greater effect.
Related
I'm trying to re-implement malloc and I need to understand the purpose of the alignment. As I understand it, if the memory is aligned, the code will be executed faster because the processor won't have to take an extra step to recover the bits of memory that are cut. I think I understand that a 64-bit processor reads 64-bit by 64-bit memory. Now, let's imagine that I have a structure with in order (without padding): a char, a short, a char, and an int. Why will the short be misaligned? We have all the data in the block! Why does it have to be on an address which is a multiple of 2. Same question for the integers and other types?
I also have a second question: With the structure I mentioned before, how does the processor know when it reads its 64 bits that the first 8 bits correspond to a char, then the next 16 correspond to a short etc...?
The effects can even include correctness, not just performance: C Undefined Behaviour (UB) leading to possible segfaults or other misbehaviour for example if you have a short object that doesn't satisfy alignof(short). (Faulting is expected on ISAs where load/store instructions require alignment by default, like SPARC, and MIPS before MIPS64r6. And possible even on x86 after compiler optimization of loops, even though x86 asm allows unaligned loads/stores except for some SIMD with 16-byte or wider.)
Or tearing of atomic operations if an _Atomic int doesn't have alignof(_Atomic int).
(Typically alignof(T) = sizeof(T) up to some size, often register width or wider, in any given ABI).
malloc should return memory with alignof(max_align_t) because you don't have any type info about how the allocation will be used.
For allocations smaller than sizeof(max_align_t), you can return memory that's merely naturally aligned (e.g. a 4-byte allocation aligned by 4 bytes) if you want, because you know that storage can't be used for anything with a higher alignment requirement.
Over-aligned stuff like the dynamically-allocated equivalent of alignas (16) int32_t foo needs to use a special allocator like C11 aligned_alloc. If you're implementing your own allocator library, you probably want to support aligned_realloc and aligned_calloc, filling those gaps that ISO C leave for no apparent reason.
And make sure you don't implement the braindead ISO C++17 requirement for aligned_alloc to fail if the allocation size isn't a multiple of the alignment. Nobody wants an allocator that rejects an allocation of 101 floats starting on a 16-byte boundary, or much larger for better transparent hugepages. aligned_alloc function requirements and How to solve the 32-byte-alignment issue for AVX load/store operations?
I think I understand that a 64-bit processor reads 64-bit by 64-bit memory
Nope. Data bus width and burst size, and load/store execution unit max width or actually-used width, don't have to be the same as width of integer registers, or however the CPU defines its bitness. (And in modern high performance CPUs typically aren't. e.g. 32-bit P5 Pentium had a 64-bit bus; modern 32-bit ARM has load/store-pair instructions that do atomic 64-bit accesses.)
Processors read whole cache lines from DRAM / L3 / L2 cache into L1d cache; 64 bytes on modern x86; 32 bytes on some other systems.
And when reading individual objects or array elements, they read from L1d cache with the element width. e.g. a uint16_t array may only benefit from alignment to a 2-byte boundary for 2-byte loads/stores.
Or if a compiler vectorizes a loop with SIMD, a uint16_t array can be read 16 or 32 bytes at a time, i.e. SIMD vectors of 8 or 16 elements. (Or even 64 with AVX512). Aligning arrays to the expected vector width can be helpful; unaligned SIMD load/store run fast on modern x86 when they don't cross a cache-line boundary.
Cache-line splits and especially page-splits are where modern x86 slows down from misalignment; unaligned within a cache line generally not because they spend the transistors for fast unaligned load/store. Some other ISAs slow down, and some even fault, on any misalignment, even within a cache line. The solution is the same: give types natural alignment: alignof(T) = sizeof(T).
In your struct example, modern x86 CPUs will have no penalty even though the short is misaligned. alignof(int) = 4 in any normal ABI, so the whole struct has alignof(struct) = 4, so the char;short;char block starts at a 4-byte boundary. Thus the short is contained within a single 4-byte dword, not crossing any wider boundary. AMD and Intel both handle this with full efficiency. (And the x86 ISA guarantees that accesses to it are atomic, even uncached, on CPUs compatible with P5 Pentium or later: Why is integer assignment on a naturally aligned variable atomic on x86?)
Some non-x86 CPUs would have penalties for the misaligned short, or have to use other instructions. (Since you know the alignment relative to an aligned 32-bit chunk, for loads you'd probably do a 32-bit load and shift.)
So yes there's no problem accessing one single word containing the short, but the problem is for load-port hardware to extract and zero-extend (or sign-extend) that short into a full register. This is where x86 spends the transistors to make this fast. (#Eric's answer on a previous version of this question goes into more detail about the shifting required.)
Committing an unaligned store back into cache is also non-trivial. For example, L1d cache might have ECC (error-correction against bit flips) in 32-bit or 64-bit chunks (which I'll call "cache words"). Writing only part of a cache word is thus a problem for that reason, as well as for shifting it to an arbitrary byte boundary within the cache word you want to access. (Coalescing of adjacent narrow stores in the store buffer can produce a full-width commit that avoids an RMW cycle to update part of a word, in caches that handle narrow stores that way). Note that I'm saying "word" now because I'm talking about hardware that's more word-oriented instead of being designed around unaligned loads/stores the way modern x86 is. See Are there any modern CPUs where a cached byte store is actually slower than a word store? (storing a single byte is only slightly simpler than an unaligned short)
(If the short spans two cache words, it would of course needs to separate RMW cycles, one for each byte.)
And of course the short is misaligned for the simple reason that alignof(short) = 2 and it violates this ABI rule (assuming an ABI that does have that). So if you pass a pointer to it to some other function, you could get into trouble. Especially on CPUs that have fault-on-misaligned loads, instead of hardware handling that case when it turns out to be misaligned at runtime. Then you can get cases like Why does unaligned access to mmap'ed memory sometimes segfault on AMD64? where GCC auto-vectorization expected to reach a 16-byte boundary by doing some multiple of 2-byte elements scalar, so violating the ABI leads to a segfault on x86 (which is normally tolerant of misalignment.)
For the full details on memory access, from DRAM RAS / CAS latency up to cache bandwidth and alignment, see What Every Programmer Should Know About Memory? It's pretty much still relevant / applicable
Also Purpose of memory alignment has a nice answer. There are plenty of other good answers in SO's memory-alignment tag.
For a more detailed look at (somewhat) modern Intel load/store execution units, see: https://electronics.stackexchange.com/questions/329789/how-can-cache-be-that-fast/329955#329955
how does the processor know when it reads its 64 bits that the first 8 bits correspond to a char, then the next 16 correspond to a short etc...?
It doesn't, other than the fact it's running instructions which treat the data that way.
In asm / machine-code, everything is just bytes. Every instruction specifies exactly what to do with which data. It's up to the compiler (or human programmer) to implement variables with types, and the logic of a C program, on top of a raw array of bytes (main memory).
What I mean by that is that in asm, you can run any load or store instruction you want to, and it's up to you to use the right ones on the right addresses. You could load 4 bytes that overlap two adjacent int variable into a floating-point register, then and run addss (single-precision FP add) on it, and the CPU won't complain. But you probably don't want to because making the CPU interpret those 4 bytes as an IEEE754 binary32 float is unlikely to be meaningful.
modern processors and memory are built to optimize memory access as much as possible. One the current way of accessing memory is to address it not byte by byte but by an address of a bigger block, e.g. by an 8 byte blocks. You do not need 3 lower bits of the address this way. To access a certain byte within the block the processs needs to get the block at the aligned address, then shift and mask the byte. So, it gets slower.
When fields in the struct are not aligned, there is a risk of slowing down the access to them. Therefore, it is better to align them.
But the alignment requirements are based on the underlying platform. For systems which support word access (32 bit), 4-byte alignment is ok, otherwise 8-byte can be used or some other. The compiler (and libc) knows the requirements.
So, in your example char, short, char, the short will start with an odd byte position if not padded. To access it, the system might need to read the 64 bit word for the struct, then shift it 1 byte right and then mask 2 bytes in order to provide you with this byte.
As I understand it, if the memory is aligned, the code will be executed faster because the processor won't have to take an extra step to recover the bits of memory that are cut.
It's not necessarily an execution thing, an x86 has variable length instructions starting with single 8 bit instructions on up to a handful to several bytes, its all about being unaligned. but they have taken measures to smooth that out for the most part.
If I have a 64 bit bus on the edge of my processor that doesn't mean edge of chip that means edge of the core. The other side of this is a memory controller that knows the bus protocol and is the first place the addresses start to be decoded and the transactions start to split up down other buses toward their destination.
It is very much architecture and bus design specific and you can have architectures with different buses over time or different versions you can get an arm with a 64 bus or a 32 bit bus for example. But let's say we have a not atypical situation where the bus is 64 bits wide and all transactions on that bus are aligned on a 64 bit boundary.
If I were to do a 64 bit write to 0x1000 that would be a single bus transaction, which these days is some sort of write address bus with some id x and a length of 0 (n-1) then the other side acks that I see you want to do a write with id x, I am ready to take your data. Then the processor uses the data bus with id x to send the data, one clock per 64 bits this is a single 64 bit so one clock on that bus. and maybe an ack comes back or maybe not.
But if I wanted to do a 64 bit write to 0x1004, what would happen is that turns into two transactions one complete 64 bit address/data transaction at address 0x1000 with only four byte lanes enabled lanes 4-7 (representing bytes at address 0x1004-0x1007). Then a complete transaction at 0x1008 with 4 byte lanes enabled, lanes 0-3. So the actual data movement across the bus goes from one clock to two, but there is also twice the overhead of the handshakes to get to those data cycles. On that bus it is very noticeable, how the overall system design is though you may feel it or not, or may have to do many of them to feel it or not. But the inefficiency is there, buried in the noise or not.
I think I understand that a 64-bit processor reads 64-bit by 64-bit memory.
Not a good assumption at all. 32 bit ARMs have 64 bit buses these days the ARMv6 and ARMv7s for example come with them or can.
Now, let's imagine that I have a structure with in order (without padding): a char, a short, a char, and an int. Why will the short be misaligned? We have all the data in the block! Why does it have to be on an address which is a multiple of 2. Same question for the integers and other types?
unsigned char a 0x1000
unsigned short b 0x1001
unsigned char c 0x1003
unsigned int d 0x1004
You would normally use the structure items in the code something.a something.b something.c something.d. When you access something.b that is a 16 bit transaction against the bus. In a 64 bit system you are correct that if aligned as I have addressed it, then the whole structure is being read when you do x = something.b but the processor is going to discard all but byte lanes 1 and 2 (discarding 0 and 3-7), then if you access something.c it will do another bus transaction at 0x1000 and discard all but lane 3.
When you do a write to something.b with a 64 bit bus only byte lanes 1 and 2 are enabled. Now where more pain comes in is if there is a cache it is likely also constructed of a 64 bit ram to mate up with this bus, doesn't have to, but let's assume it does. You want to write through the cache to something.b, a write transaction at 0x1000 with byte lanes 1 and 2 enabled 0, 3-7 disabled. The cache ultimately gets this transaction, it internally has to do a read-modify write because it is not a full 64 bit wide transaction (all lanes enabled) so you are taking hit with that read-modify write from a performance perspective as well (same was true for the unaligned 64 bit write above).
The short is unaligned because when packed its address lsbit is set, to be aligned a 16 bit item in an 8 bit is a byte world needs to be zero, for a 32 bit item to be aligned the lower two bits of its address are zero, 64 bit, three zeros and so on.
Depending on the system you may end up on a 32 or 16 bit bus (not for memory so much these days) so you can end up with the multiple transfers thing.
Your highly efficient processors like MIPS and ARM took the approach of aligned instructions, and forced aligned transactions even in the something.b case that specifically doesn't have a penalty on a 32 nor 64 bit bus. The approach is performance over memory consumption, so the instructions are to some extent wasteful in their consumption to be more efficient in their fetching and execution. The data bus is likewise much simpler. When high level concepts like a struct in C are constructed there is memory waste in padding to align each item in the struct to gain performance.
unsigned char a 0x1000
unsigned short b 0x1002
unsigned char c 0x1004
unsigned int d 0x1008
as an example
I also have a second question: With the structure I mentioned before, how does the processor know when it reads its 64 bits that the first 8 bits correspond to a char, then the next 16 correspond to a short etc...?
unsigned char c 0x1003
the compiler generates a single byte sized read at address 0x1003, this turns in to that specific instruction with that address and the processor generates the bus transaction to do that, the other side of the processor bus then does its job and so on down the line.
The compiler in general does not turn a packed version of that struct into a single 64 bit transaction that gives you all of the items, you burn a 64 bit bus transaction for each item.
it is possible that depending on the instruction set, prefetcher, caches and so on that instead of using a struct at a high level you create a single 64 bit integer and you do the work in the code, then you might or might not gain performance. This is not expected to perform better on most architectures running with caches and such, but when you get into embedded systems where you may have some number of wait states on the ram or some number of wait states on the flash or whatever code storage there is you can find times where instead of fewer instructions and more data transactions you want more instructions and fewer data transactions. code is linear a code section like this read, mask and shift, mask and shift, etc. the instruction storage may have a burst mode for linear transactions but data transactions take as many clocks as they take.
A middle ground is to just make everything a 32 bit variable or a 64 bit, then it is all aligned and performs relatively well at the cost of more memory used.
Because folks don't understand alignment, have been spoiled by x86 programming, choose to use structs across compile domains (such a bad idea), the ARMs and others are tolerating unaligned accesses, you can very much feel the performance hit on those platforms as they are so efficient if everything is aligned, but when you do something unaligned it just generates more bus transactions making everything take longer. So the older arms would fault by default, the arm7 could have the fault disabled but would rotate the data around the word (nice trick for swapping 16 bit values in a word) rather than spill over into the next word, later architectures default to not fault on aligned or most folks set them to not fault on aligned and they read/write the unaligned transfers as one would hope/expect.
For every x86 chip you have in your computer you have several if not handfuls of non-x86 processors in that same computer or peripherals hanging off that computer (mouse, keyboard, monitor, etc). A lot of those are 8-bit 8051s and z80s, but also a lot of them are arm based. So there is lots of non-x86 development going on not just all the phones and tablets main processors. Those others desire to be low cost and low power so more efficiency in the coding both in its bus performance so the clock can be slower but also a balance of code/data usage overall to reduce the cost of the flash/ram.
It is quite difficult to force these alignment issues on an x86 platform there is a lot of overhead to overcome its architectural issues. But you can see this on more efficient platforms. Its like a train vs a sports car, something falls off a train a person jumps off or on there is so much momentum its not noticed one bit, but step change the mass on the sports car and you will feel it. So trying to do this on an x86 you are going to have to work a lot harder if you can even figure out how to do it. But on other platforms its easier to see the effects. Unless you find an 8086 chip and I suspect you can feel the differences there, would have to pull out my manual to confirm.
If you are lucky enough to have access to chip sources/simulations then you can see this kind of thing happening all over the place and can really start to hand tune your program (for that platform). Likewise you can see what caching, write buffering, instruction prefetching in its various forms and so on do for overall performance and at times create parallel periods of time where other not-so-efficient transactions can hide, and or intentional spare cycles are created so that transactions that take extra time can have a time slice.
I understand word-alignment, which makes the cpu only need to read once when reading an integer into a register.
But is 8-byte alignment (let's assume 32bit system) for "double" necessary? What is the benefit? What will happen if the space for storing a "double" is just 4-byte alignment?
There are multiple hardware components that may be adversely affected by unaligned loads or stores.
The interface to memory might be eight bytes wide and only able to access memory at multiples of eight bytes. Loading an unaligned eight-byte double then requires two reads on the bus. Stores are worse, because an aligned eight-byte store can simply write eight bytes to memory, but an unaligned eight-byte store must read two eight-byte pieces, merge the new data with the old data, and write two eight-byte pieces.
Cache lines are typically 32 or 64 bytes. If eight-byte objects are aligned to multiples of eight bytes, then each object is in just one cache line. If they are unaligned, then some of the objects are partly in one cache line and partly in another. Loading or storing these objects then requires using two cache lines instead of one. This effect occurs at all levels of cache (three levels is not uncommon in modern processors).
Memory system pages are typically 512 bytes or more. Again, each aligned object is in just one page, but some unaligned objects are in multiple pages. Each page that is accessed requires hardware resources: The virtual address must be translated to a physical address, this may require accessing translation tables, and address collisions must be detected. (Processors may have multiple load and store operations in operation simultaneously. Even though your program may appear to be single-threaded, the processor reads instructions in advance and tries to execute those that it can. So a processor may start a load instruction before preceding instructions have completed. However, to be sure this does not cause an error, the processor checks each load instruction to be sure it is not loading from an address that a prior store instruction is changing. If an access crosses a page boundary, the two parts of the loaded data have to be checked separately.)
The response of the system to unaligned operations varies from system to system. Some systems are designed to support only aligned accesses. In these cases, unaligned accesses either cause exceptions that lead to program termination or exceptions that cause execution of special handlers that emulate unaligned operations in software (by performing aligned operations and merging the data as necessary). Software handlers such as these are much slower than hardware operations.
Some systems support unaligned accesses, but this usually consumes more hardware resources than aligned accesses. In the best case, the hardware performs two operations instead of one. But some hardware is designed to start operations as if they were aligned and then, upon discovering the operation is not aligned, to abort it and start over using different paths in the hardware to handle the unaligned operation. In such systems, unaligned accesses have a significant performance penalty, although it is not as great as in systems where software handles unaligned accesses.
In some systems, the hardware may have multiple load-store execution units that can perform the two operations required of unaligned accesses just as quickly as one unit can perform the operation of aligned accesses. So there is no direct performance degradation of unaligned accesses. However, because multiple execution units are kept busy by unaligned accesses, they are unavailable to perform other operations. Thus, programs that perform many load-store operations, normally in parallel, will execute more slowly with unaligned accesses than with aligned accesses.
On many architectures, unaligned access of any load/store unit (short, int, long) is simply an exception. Compilers are responsible for ensuring it doesn't happen on potentially mis-aligned data, by emitting smaller access instructions and re-assembling in registers if they can't prove a given pointer is OK.
Performance-wise, 8-byte alignment of doubles on 32-bit systems can be valuable for a few reasons. The most apparent is that 4-byte alignment of an 8-byte double means that one element could cross the boundary of two cache lines. Memory access occurs in units of whole cache lines, and so misalignment doubles the cost of access.
I seem to remember that the recommendation for 486 was to align double on 32 bits boundaries, so requiring 64 bits alignment is not mandatory.
You seem to think that there is a relationship between the data bus width and the processor bitness. While it is often the case, you can find variation in both direction. For instance the Pentium was a 32-bit processor, but its data bus size was 64 bits.
Caches offer something else which may explain the usefulness of having 64-bit alignment for 64-bit types. Here the external bus is not a factor, it is the cache line size which is important. Data crossing the line cache is costlier to access than data not crossing it (even if it is unaligned in both cases). Aligning types on their size makes it sure that they won't cross cache lines as long as cache line size is a multiple of the type size.
I just found the answer:
"6. When memory reading is efficient in reading 4 bytes at a time on 32 bit machine, why should a double type be aligned on 8 byte boundary?
It is important to note that most of the processors will have math co-processor, called Floating Point Unit (FPU). Any floating point operation in the code will be translated into FPU instructions. The main processor is nothing to do with floating point execution. All this will be done behind the scenes.
As per standard, double type will occupy 8 bytes. And, every floating point operation performed in FPU will be of 64 bit length. Even float types will be promoted to 64 bit prior to execution.
The 64 bit length of FPU registers forces double type to be allocated on 8 byte boundary. I am assuming (I don’t have concrete information) in case of FPU operations, data fetch might be different, I mean the data bus, since it goes to FPU. Hence, the address decoding will be different for double types (which is expected to be on 8 byte boundary). It means, the address decoding circuits of floating point unit will not have last 3 pins."
Edited:
The advantage of byte alignment is to reduce the number of memory cycles to retrieve the data. For example, an 8 byte which might take a single cycle if it is aligned might now take 2 cycles since a part of it is obtained the first time and the second part in the next memory cycle.
I came across this:
"Aligned access is faster because the external bus to memory is not a single byte wide - it is typically 4 or 8 bytes wide (or even wider). So the CPU doesn't fetch a single byte at a time - it fetches 4 or 8 bytes starting at the requested address. Therefore, the 2 or 3 least significant bits of the memory address are not actually sent by the CPU - the external memory can only be read or written at addresses that are a multiple of the bus width. If you requested a byte at address "9", the CPU would actually ask the memory for the block of bytes beginning at address 8, and load the second one into your register (discarding the others).
This implies that a misaligned access can require two reads from memory: If you ask for 8 bytes beginning at address 9, the CPU must fetch the 8 bytes beginning at address 8 as well as the 8 bytes beginning at address 16, then mask out the bytes you wanted. On the other hand, if you ask for the 8 bytes beginning at address 8, then only a single fetch is needed. Some CPUs will not even perform such a misaligned load - they will simply raise an exception (or even silently load the wrong data!)."
You might see this link for more details.
http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/library/pa-dalign/
I was reading a article about data types alignment in memory(here) and I am unable to understand one point i.e.
Note that a double variable will be allocated on 8 byte boundary on 32
bit machine and requires two memory read cycles. On a 64 bit machine,
based on number of banks, double variable will be allocated on 8 byte
boundary and requires only one memory read cycle.
My doubt is: Why double variables need to be allocated on 8 byte boundary and not on 4 byte? If it is allocated on 4 byte boundary still we need only 2 memory read cycles(on a 32 bit machine). Correct me if I am wrong.
Also if some one has a good tutorial on member/memory alignment, kindly share.
The reason to align a data value of size 2^N on a boundary of 2^N is to avoid the possibility that the value will be split across a cache line boundary.
The x86-32 processor can fetch a double from any word boundary (8 byte aligned or not) in at most two, 32-bit memory reads. But if the value is split across a cache line boundary, then the time to fetch the 2nd word may be quite long because of the need to fetch a 2nd cache line from memory. This produces poor processor performance unnecessarily. (As a practical matter, the current processors don't fetch 32-bits from the memory at a time; they tend to fetch much bigger values on much wider busses to enable really high data bandwidths; the actual time to fetch both words if they are in the same cache line, and already cached, may be just 1 clock).
A free consequence of this alignment scheme is that such values also do not cross page boundaries. This avoids the possibility of a page fault in the middle of an data fetch.
So, you should align doubles on 8 byte boundaries for performance reasons. And the compilers know this and just do it for you.
Aligning a value on a lower boundary than its size makes it prone to be split across two cachelines. Splitting the value in two cachlines means extra work when evicting the cachelines to the backing store (two cachelines will be evicted; instead of one), which is a useless load of memory buses.
8 byte alignment for double on 32 bit architecture doesn't reduce memory reads but it still improve performance of the system in terms of reduced cache access. Please read the following :
https://stackoverflow.com/a/21220331/5038027
Refer this wiki article about double precision floating point format
The number of memory cycles depends on your hardware architecture which determines how many RAM banks you have. If you have a 32-bit architecture and 4 RAM banks, you need only 2 memory cycle to read.(Each RAM bank contributing 1 byte)
I heard a lot that data should be properly aligned in memory for better access efficiency. CPU access memory on a word boundary.
So in the following scenario, the CPU has to make 2 memory accesses to get a single word.
Supposing: 1 word = 4 bytes
("|" stands for word boundary. "o" stands for byte boundary)
|----o----o----o----|----o----o----o----| (The word boundary in CPU's eye)
----o----o----o---- (What I want to read from memory)
Why should this happen? What's the root cause of the CPU can only read at the word boundary?
If the CPU can only access at the 4-byte word boundary, the address line should only need 30bit, not 32bit width. Cause the last 2bit are always 0 in CPU's eye.
ADD 1
And even more, if we admit that CPU must read at the word boundary, why can't the boundary start at where I want to read? It seems that the boundary is fixed in CPU's eye.
ADD 2
According to AnT, it seems that the boundary setting is hardwired and it is hardwired by the memory access hardware. CPU is just innocent as far as this is concerned.
The meaning of "can" (in "...CPU can access...") in this case depends on the hardware platform.
On x86 platform CPU instructions can access data aligned on absolutely any boundary, not only on "word boundary". The misaligned access might be less efficient than aligned access, but the reasons for that have absolutely nothing to do with CPU. It has everything to do with how the underlying low-level memory access hardware works. It is quite possible that in this case the memory-related hardware will have to make two accesses to the actual memory, but that's something CPU instructions don't know about and don't need to know about. As far as CPU is concerned, it can access any data on any boundary. The rest is implemented transparently to CPU instructions.
On hardware platforms like Sun SPARC, CPU cannot access misaligned data (in simple words, your program will crash if you attempt to), which means that if for some reason you need to perform this kind of misaligned access, you'll have to implement it manually and explicitly: split it into two (or more) CPU instructions and thus explicitly perform two (or more) memory accesses.
As for why it is so... well, that's just how modern computer memory hardware works. The data has to be aligned. If it is not aligned, the access either is less efficient or does not work at all.
A very simplified model of modern memory would be a grid of cells (rows and columns), each cell storing a word of data. A programmable robotic arm can put a word into a specific cell and retrieve a word from a specific cell. One at a time. If your data is spread across several cells, you have no other choice but to make several consecutive trips with that robotic arm. On some hardware platforms the task of organizing these consecutive trips is hidden from CPU (meaning that the arm itself knows what to do to assemble the necessary data from several pieces), on other platforms it is visible to the CPU (meaning that it is the CPU who's responsible for organizing these consecutive trips of the arm).
It saves silicon in the addressing logic if you can make certain assumptions about the address (like "bottom n bits are zero). Some CPUs (x86 and their work-alikes) will put logic in place to turn misaligned data into multiple fetches, concealing some nasty performance hits from the programmer. Most CPUs outside of that world will instead raise a hardware error explaining in no uncertain terms that they don't like this.
All the arguments you're going to hear about "efficiency" are bollocks or, more precisely are begging the question. The real reason is simply that it saves silicon in the processor core if the number of address bits can be reduced for operations. Any inefficiency that arises from misaligned access (like in the x86 world) are a result of the hardware design decisions, not intrinsic to addressing in general.
Now that being said, for most use cases the hardware design decision makes sense. If you're accessing data in two-byte words, most common use cases have you access offset, then offset+2, then offset+4 and so on. Being able to increment the address byte-wise while accessing two-byte words is typically (as in 99.44% certainly) not what you want to be doing. As such it doesn't hurt to require address offsets to align on word boundaries (it's a mild, one-time inconvenience when you design your data structures) but it sure does save on your silicon.
As a historical aside, I worked once on an Interdata Model 70 -- a 16-bit minicomputer. It required all memory access to be 16-bit aligned. It also had a very small amount of memory by the time I was working on it by the standards of the time. (It was a relic even back then.) The word-alignment was used to double the memory capacity since the wire-wrapped CPU could be easily hacked. New address decode logic was added that took a 1 in the low bit of the address (previously an alignment error in the making) and used it to switch to a second bank of memory. Try that without alignment logic! :)
Because it is more efficient.
In your example, the CPU would have to do two reads: it has to read in the first half, then read in the second half separately, then reassemble them together to do the computation. This is much more complicated and slower than doing the read in one go if the data was properly aligned.
Some processors, like x86, can tolerate misaligned data access (so you would still need all 32 bits) - others like Itanium absolutely cannot handle misaligned data accesses and will complain quite spectacularly.
Word alignment is not only featured by CPUs
On the hardware level, most RAM-Modules have a given Word size in respect to the amount of bits that can be accessed per read/write cycle.
On a module I had to interface on an embedded device, addressing was implemented through three parameters: The module was organized in four banks which could be selected prior to the RW operation. each of this banks was essentially a large table 32-bit words, wich could be adressed through a row and column index.
In this design, access was only possible per cell, so every read operation returned 4 bytes, and every write operation expected 4 bytes.
A memory controller hooked up to this RAM chip could be desigend in two ways: either allowing unrestricted access to the memory chip using several cycles to split/merge unaligned data to/from several cells (with additional logic), or imposing some restrictions on how memory can be accessed with the gain of reduced complexity.
As complexity can impede maintainability and performance, most designers chose the latter [citation needed]
Pardon me if you feel this has been answered numerous times, but I need answers to the following queries!
Why data has to be aligned (on 2-byte / 4-byte / 8-byte boundaries)? Here my doubt is when the CPU has address lines Ax Ax-1 Ax-2 ... A2 A1 A0 then it is quite possible to address the memory locations sequentially. So why there is the need to align the data at specific boundaries?
How to find the alignment requirements when I am compiling my code and generating the executable?
If for e.g the data alignment is 4-byte boundary, does that mean each consecutive byte is located at modulo 4 offsets? My doubt is if data is 4-byte aligned does that mean that if a byte is at 1004 then the next byte is at 1008 (or at 1005)?
CPUs are word oriented, not byte oriented. In a simple CPU, memory is generally configured to return one word (32bits, 64bits, etc) per address strobe, where the bottom two (or more) address lines are generally don't-care bits.
Intel CPUs can perform accesses on non-word boundries for many instructions, however there is a performance penalty as internally the CPU performs two memory accesses and a math operation to load one word. If you are doing byte reads, no alignment applies.
Some CPUs (ARM, or Intel SSE instructions) require aligned memory and have undefined operation when doing unaligned accesses (or throw an exception). They save significant silicon space by not implementing the much more complicated load/store subsystem.
Alignment depends on the CPU word size (16, 32, 64bit) or in the case of SSE the SSE register size (128 bits).
For your last question, if you are loading a single data byte at a time there is no alignment restriction on most CPUs (some DSPs don't have byte level instructions, but its likely you won't run into one).
Very little data "has" to be aligned. It's more that certain types of data may perform better or certain cpu operations require a certain data alignment.
First of all, let's say you're reading 4 bytes of data at a time. Let's also say that your CPU has a 32 bit data buss. Let's also say your data is stored at byte 2 in the system memory.
Now since you can load 4 bytes of data at once, it doesn't make too much sense to have your Address register to point to a single byte. By making your address register point to every 4 bytes you can manipulate 4 times the data. So in other words your CPU may only be able to read data starting at bytes 0, 4, 8, 12, 16, etc.
So here's the issue. If you want the data starting at byte 2 and you're reading 4 bytes, then half your data will be in address position 0 and the other half in position 1.
So basically you'd end up hitting the memory twice to read your one 4 byte data element. Some CPUs don't support this sort of operation (or force you to load and combine the two results manually).
Go here for more details: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Data_structure_alignment
1.) Some architectures do not have this requirement at all, some encourage alignment (there is a speed penalty when accessing non-alignet data items), and some may enforce it strictly (misaligment causes a processor exception).
Many of todays popular architectures fall in the speed penalty category. The CPU designers had to make a trade between flexibility/performance and cost (silicon area/number of control signals required for bus cycles).
2.) What language, which architecture? Consult your compilers manual and/or the CPU architecture documentation.
3.) Again this is totally architecture dependent (some architectures may not permit access on byte-sized items at all, or have bus widths which are not even a multiple of 8 bits). So unless you are asking about a specific architecture you wont get any useful answers.
In general, the one answer to all three of those questions is "it depends on your system". Some more details:
Your memory system might not be byte-addressable. Besides that, you might incur a performance penalty to have your processor access unaligned data. Some processors (like older ARM chips, for example) just can't do it at all.
Read the manual for your processor and whatever ABI specification your code is being generated for,
Usually when people refer to data being at a certain alignment, it refers only to the first byte. So if the ABI spec said "data structure X must be 4-byte aligned", it means that X should be placed in memory at an address that's divisible by 4. Nothing is implied by that statment about the size or internal layout of structure X.
As far as your particular example goes, if the data is 4-byte aligned starting at address 1004, the next byte will be at 1005.
Its completely depends on the CPU you are using!
Some architectures deal only in 32 (or 36!) bit words and you need special instructions to load singel characters or haalf words.
Some cpus (notably PowerPC and other IBM risc chips) dont care about alignments and will load integers from odd addresses.
For most modern architectures you need to align integers to word boundies and long integers to double word boundries. This simplifies the circutry for loading registers and speeds things up ever so slighly.
Data alignment is required by CPU for performance reason. Intel website give out the detail on how to align the data in the memory
Data Alignment when Migrating to 64-Bit Intel® Architecture
One of these is the alignment of data items – their location in memory in relation to addresses that are multiples of four, eight or 16 bytes. Under the 16-bit Intel architecture, data alignment had little effect on performance, and its use was entirely optional. Under IA-32, aligning data correctly can be an important optimization, although its use is still optional with a very few exceptions, where correct alignment is mandatory. The 64-bit environment, however, imposes more-stringent requirements on data items. Misaligned objects cause program exceptions. For an item to be aligned properly, it must fulfill the requirements imposed by 64-bit Intel architecture (discussed shortly), plus those of the linker used to build the application.
The fundamental rule of data alignment is that the safest (and most widely supported) approach relies on what Intel terms "the natural boundaries." Those are the ones that occur when you round up the size of a data item to the next largest size of two, four, eight or 16 bytes. For example, a 10-byte float should be aligned on a 16-byte address, whereas 64-bit integers should be aligned to an eight-byte address. Because this is a 64-bit architecture, pointer sizes are all eight bytes wide, and so they too should align on eight-byte boundaries.
It is recommended that all structures larger than 16 bytes align on 16-byte boundaries. In general, for the best performance, align data as follows:
Align 8-bit data at any address
Align 16-bit data to be contained within an aligned four-byte word
Align 32-bit data so that its base address is a multiple of four
Align 64-bit data so that its base address is a multiple of eight
Align 80-bit data so that its base address is a multiple of sixteen
Align 128-bit data so that its base address is a multiple of sixteen
A 64-byte or greater data structure or array should be aligned so that its base address is a multiple of 64. Sorting data in decreasing size order is one heuristic for assisting with natural alignment. As long as 16-byte boundaries (and cache lines) are never crossed, natural alignment is not strictly necessary, although it is an easy way to enforce adherence to general alignment recommendations.
Aligning data correctly within structures can cause data bloat (due to the padding necessary to place fields correctly), so where necessary and possible, it is useful to reorganize structures so that fields that require the widest alignment are first in the structure. More on solving this problem appears in the article "Preparing Code for the IA-64 Architecture (Code Clean)."
For Intel Architecture, Chapter 4 DATA TYPES of Intel 64 and IA-32 Architectures Software Developer’s Manual answers your question 1.