I saw this post on SO which contains C code to get the latest CPU Cycle count:
CPU Cycle count based profiling in C/C++ Linux x86_64
Is there a way I can use this code in C++ (windows and linux solutions welcome)? Although written in C (and C being a subset of C++) I am not too certain if this code would work in a C++ project and if not, how to translate it?
I am using x86-64
EDIT2:
Found this function but cannot get VS2010 to recognise the assembler. Do I need to include anything? (I believe I have to swap uint64_t to long long for windows....?)
static inline uint64_t get_cycles()
{
uint64_t t;
__asm volatile ("rdtsc" : "=A"(t));
return t;
}
EDIT3:
From above code I get the error:
"error C2400: inline assembler syntax error in 'opcode'; found 'data
type'"
Could someone please help?
Starting from GCC 4.5 and later, the __rdtsc() intrinsic is now supported by both MSVC and GCC.
But the include that's needed is different:
#ifdef _WIN32
#include <intrin.h>
#else
#include <x86intrin.h>
#endif
Here's the original answer before GCC 4.5.
Pulled directly out of one of my projects:
#include <stdint.h>
// Windows
#ifdef _WIN32
#include <intrin.h>
uint64_t rdtsc(){
return __rdtsc();
}
// Linux/GCC
#else
uint64_t rdtsc(){
unsigned int lo,hi;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("rdtsc" : "=a" (lo), "=d" (hi));
return ((uint64_t)hi << 32) | lo;
}
#endif
This GNU C Extended asm tells the compiler:
volatile: the outputs aren't a pure function of the inputs (so it has to re-run every time, not reuse an old result).
"=a"(lo) and "=d"(hi) : the output operands are fixed registers: EAX and EDX. (x86 machine constraints). The x86 rdtsc instruction puts its 64-bit result in EDX:EAX, so letting the compiler pick an output with "=r" wouldn't work: there's no way to ask the CPU for the result to go anywhere else.
((uint64_t)hi << 32) | lo - zero-extend both 32-bit halves to 64-bit (because lo and hi are unsigned), and logically shift + OR them together into a single 64-bit C variable. In 32-bit code, this is just a reinterpretation; the values still just stay in a pair of 32-bit registers. In 64-bit code you typically get an actual shift + OR asm instructions, unless the high half optimizes away.
(editor's note: this could probably be more efficient if you used unsigned long instead of unsigned int. Then the compiler would know that lo was already zero-extended into RAX. It wouldn't know that the upper half was zero, so | and + are equivalent if it wanted to merge a different way. The intrinsic should in theory give you the best of both worlds as far as letting the optimizer do a good job.)
https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm if you can avoid it. But hopefully this section is useful if you need to understand old code that uses inline asm so you can rewrite it with intrinsics. See also https://stackoverflow.com/tags/inline-assembly/info
Your inline asm is broken for x86-64. "=A" in 64-bit mode lets the compiler pick either RAX or RDX, not EDX:EAX. See this Q&A for more
You don't need inline asm for this. There's no benefit; compilers have built-ins for rdtsc and rdtscp, and (at least these days) all define a __rdtsc intrinsic if you include the right headers. But unlike almost all other cases (https://gcc.gnu.org/wiki/DontUseInlineAsm), there's no serious downside to asm, as long as you're using a good and safe implementation like #Mysticial's.
(One minor advantage to asm is if you want to time a small interval that's certainly going to be less than 2^32 counts, you can ignore the high half of the result. Compilers could do that optimization for you with a uint32_t time_low = __rdtsc() intrinsic, but in practice they sometimes still waste instructions doing shift / OR.)
Unfortunately MSVC disagrees with everyone else about which header to use for non-SIMD intrinsics.
Intel's intriniscs guide says _rdtsc (with one underscore) is in <immintrin.h>, but that doesn't work on gcc and clang. They only define SIMD intrinsics in <immintrin.h>, so we're stuck with <intrin.h> (MSVC) vs. <x86intrin.h> (everything else, including recent ICC). For compat with MSVC, and Intel's documentation, gcc and clang define both the one-underscore and two-underscore versions of the function.
Fun fact: the double-underscore version returns an unsigned 64-bit integer, while Intel documents _rdtsc() as returning (signed) __int64.
// valid C99 and C++
#include <stdint.h> // <cstdint> is preferred in C++, but stdint.h works.
#ifdef _MSC_VER
# include <intrin.h>
#else
# include <x86intrin.h>
#endif
// optional wrapper if you don't want to just use __rdtsc() everywhere
inline
uint64_t readTSC() {
// _mm_lfence(); // optionally wait for earlier insns to retire before reading the clock
uint64_t tsc = __rdtsc();
// _mm_lfence(); // optionally block later instructions until rdtsc retires
return tsc;
}
// requires a Nehalem or newer CPU. Not Core2 or earlier. IDK when AMD added it.
inline
uint64_t readTSCp() {
unsigned dummy;
return __rdtscp(&dummy); // waits for earlier insns to retire, but allows later to start
}
Compiles with all 4 of the major compilers: gcc/clang/ICC/MSVC, for 32 or 64-bit. See the results on the Godbolt compiler explorer, including a couple test callers.
These intrinsics were new in gcc4.5 (from 2010) and clang3.5 (from 2014). gcc4.4 and clang 3.4 on Godbolt don't compile this, but gcc4.5.3 (April 2011) does. You might see inline asm in old code, but you can and should replace it with __rdtsc(). Compilers over a decade old usually make slower code than gcc6, gcc7, or gcc8, and have less useful error messages.
The MSVC intrinsic has (I think) existed far longer, because MSVC never supported inline asm for x86-64. ICC13 has __rdtsc in immintrin.h, but doesn't have an x86intrin.h at all. More recent ICC have x86intrin.h, at least the way Godbolt installs them for Linux they do.
You might want to define them as signed long long, especially if you want to subtract them and convert to float. int64_t -> float/double is more efficient than uint64_t on x86 without AVX512. Also, small negative results could be possible because of CPU migrations if TSCs aren't perfectly synced, and that probably makes more sense than huge unsigned numbers.
BTW, clang also has a portable __builtin_readcyclecounter() which works on any architecture. (Always returns zero on architectures without a cycle counter.) See the clang/LLVM language-extension docs
For more about using lfence (or cpuid) to improve repeatability of rdtsc and control exactly which instructions are / aren't in the timed interval by blocking out-of-order execution, see #HadiBrais' answer on clflush to invalidate cache line via C function and the comments for an example of the difference it makes.
See also Is LFENCE serializing on AMD processors? (TL:DR yes with Spectre mitigation enabled, otherwise kernels leave the relevant MSR unset so you should use cpuid to serialize.) It's always been defined as partially-serializing on Intel.
How to Benchmark Code Execution Times on Intel® IA-32 and IA-64
Instruction Set Architectures, an Intel white-paper from 2010.
rdtsc counts reference cycles, not CPU core clock cycles
It counts at a fixed frequency regardless of turbo / power-saving, so if you want uops-per-clock analysis, use performance counters. rdtsc is exactly correlated with wall-clock time (not counting system clock adjustments, so it's a perfect time source for steady_clock).
The TSC frequency used to always be equal to the CPU's rated frequency, i.e. the advertised sticker frequency. In some CPUs it's merely close, e.g. 2592 MHz on an i7-6700HQ 2.6 GHz Skylake, or 4008MHz on a 4000MHz i7-6700k. On even newer CPUs like i5-1035 Ice Lake, TSC = 1.5 GHz, base = 1.1 GHz, so disabling turbo won't even approximately work for TSC = core cycles on those CPUs.
If you use it for microbenchmarking, include a warm-up period first to make sure your CPU is already at max clock speed before you start timing. (And optionally disable turbo and tell your OS to prefer max clock speed to avoid CPU frequency shifts during your microbenchmark).
Microbenchmarking is hard: see Idiomatic way of performance evaluation? for other pitfalls.
Instead of TSC at all, you can use a library that gives you access to hardware performance counters. The complicated but low-overhead way is to program perf counters and use rdmsr in user-space, or simpler ways include tricks like perf stat for part of program if your timed region is long enough that you can attach a perf stat -p PID.
You usually will still want to keep the CPU clock fixed for microbenchmarks, though, unless you want to see how different loads will get Skylake to clock down when memory-bound or whatever. (Note that memory bandwidth / latency is mostly fixed, using a different clock than the cores. At idle clock speed, an L2 or L3 cache miss takes many fewer core clock cycles.)
Negative clock cycle measurements with back-to-back rdtsc? the history of RDTSC: originally CPUs didn't do power-saving, so the TSC was both real-time and core clocks. Then it evolved through various barely-useful steps into its current form of a useful low-overhead timesource decoupled from core clock cycles (constant_tsc), which doesn't stop when the clock halts (nonstop_tsc). Also some tips, e.g. don't take the mean time, take the median (there will be very high outliers).
std::chrono::clock, hardware clock and cycle count
Getting cpu cycles using RDTSC - why does the value of RDTSC always increase?
Lost Cycles on Intel? An inconsistency between rdtsc and CPU_CLK_UNHALTED.REF_TSC
measuring code execution times in C using RDTSC instruction lists some gotchas, including SMI (system-management interrupts) which you can't avoid even in kernel mode with cli), and virtualization of rdtsc under a VM. And of course basic stuff like regular interrupts being possible, so repeat your timing many times and throw away outliers.
Determine TSC frequency on Linux. Programatically querying the TSC frequency is hard and maybe not possible, especially in user-space, or may give a worse result than calibrating it. Calibrating it using another known time-source takes time. See that question for more about how hard it is to convert TSC to nanoseconds (and that it would be nice if you could ask the OS what the conversion ratio is, because the OS already did it at bootup).
If you're microbenchmarking with RDTSC for tuning purposes, your best bet is to just use ticks and skip even trying to convert to nanoseconds. Otherwise, use a high-resolution library time function like std::chrono or clock_gettime. See faster equivalent of gettimeofday for some discussion / comparison of timestamp functions, or reading a shared timestamp from memory to avoid rdtsc entirely if your precision requirement is low enough for a timer interrupt or thread to update it.
See also Calculate system time using rdtsc about finding the crystal frequency and multiplier.
CPU TSC fetch operation especially in multicore-multi-processor environment says that Nehalem and newer have the TSC synced and locked together for all cores in a package (along with the invariant = constant and nonstop TSC feature). See #amdn's answer there for some good info about multi-socket sync.
(And apparently usually reliable even for modern multi-socket systems as long as they have that feature, see #amdn's answer on the linked question, and more details below.)
CPUID features relevant to the TSC
Using the names that Linux /proc/cpuinfo uses for the CPU features, and other aliases for the same feature that you'll also find.
tsc - the TSC exists and rdtsc is supported. Baseline for x86-64.
rdtscp - rdtscp is supported.
tsc_deadline_timer CPUID.01H:ECX.TSC_Deadline[bit 24] = 1 - local APIC can be programmed to fire an interrupt when the TSC reaches a value you put in IA32_TSC_DEADLINE. Enables "tickless" kernels, I think, sleeping until the next thing that's supposed to happen.
constant_tsc: Support for the constant TSC feature is determined by checking the CPU family and model numbers. The TSC ticks at constant frequency regardless of changes in core clock speed. Without this, RDTSC does count core clock cycles.
nonstop_tsc: This feature is called the invariant TSC in the Intel SDM manual and is supported on processors with CPUID.80000007H:EDX[8]. The TSC keeps ticking even in deep sleep C-states. On all x86 processors, nonstop_tsc implies constant_tsc, but constant_tsc doesn't necessarily imply nonstop_tsc. No separate CPUID feature bit; on Intel and AMD the same invariant TSC CPUID bit implies both constant_tsc and nonstop_tsc features. See Linux's x86/kernel/cpu/intel.c detection code, and amd.c was similar.
Some of the processors (but not all) that are based on the Saltwell/Silvermont/Airmont even keep TSC ticking in ACPI S3 full-system sleep: nonstop_tsc_s3. This is called always-on TSC. (Although it seems the ones based on Airmont were never released.)
For more details on constant and invariant TSC, see: Can constant non-invariant tsc change frequency across cpu states?.
tsc_adjust: CPUID.(EAX=07H, ECX=0H):EBX.TSC_ADJUST (bit 1) The IA32_TSC_ADJUST MSR is available, allowing OSes to set an offset that's added to the TSC when rdtsc or rdtscp reads it. This allows effectively changing the TSC on some/all cores without desyncing it across logical cores. (Which would happen if software set the TSC to a new absolute value on each core; it's very hard to get the relevant WRMSR instruction executed at the same cycle on every core.)
constant_tsc and nonstop_tsc together make the TSC usable as a timesource for things like clock_gettime in user-space. (But OSes like Linux only use RDTSC to interpolate between ticks of a slower clock maintained with NTP, updating the scale / offset factors in timer interrupts. See On a cpu with constant_tsc and nonstop_tsc, why does my time drift?) On even older CPUs that don't support deep sleep states or frequency scaling, TSC as a timesource may still be usable
The comments in the Linux source code also indicate that constant_tsc / nonstop_tsc features (on Intel) implies "It is also reliable across cores and sockets. (but not across cabinets - we turn it off in that case explicitly.)"
The "across sockets" part is not accurate. In general, an invariant TSC only guarantees that the TSC is synchronized between cores within the same socket. On an Intel forum thread, Martin Dixon (Intel) points out that TSC invariance does not imply cross-socket synchronization. That requires the platform vendor to distribute RESET synchronously to all sockets. Apparently platform vendors do in practice do that, given the above Linux kernel comment. Answers on CPU TSC fetch operation especially in multicore-multi-processor environment also agree that all sockets on a single motherboard should start out in sync.
On a multi-socket shared memory system, there is no direct way to check whether the TSCs in all the cores are synced. The Linux kernel, by default performs boot-time and run-time checks to make sure that TSC can be used as a clock source. These checks involve determining whether the TSC is synced. The output of the command dmesg | grep 'clocksource' would tell you whether the kernel is using TSC as the clock source, which would only happen if the checks have passed. But even then, this would not be definitive proof that the TSC is synced across all sockets of the system. The kernel paramter tsc=reliable can be used to tell the kernel that it can blindly use the TSC as the clock source without doing any checks.
There are cases where cross-socket TSCs may NOT be in sync: (1) hotplugging a CPU, (2) when the sockets are spread out across different boards connected by extended node controllers, (3) a TSC may not be resynced after waking up from a C-state in which the TSC is powered-downed in some processors, and (4) different sockets have different CPU models installed.
An OS or hypervisor that changes the TSC directly instead of using the TSC_ADJUST offset can de-sync them, so in user-space it might not always be safe to assume that CPU migrations won't leave you reading a different clock. (This is why rdtscp produces a core-ID as an extra output, so you can detect when start/end times come from different clocks. It might have been introduced before the invariant TSC feature, or maybe they just wanted to account for every possibility.)
If you're using rdtsc directly, you may want to pin your program or thread to a core, e.g. with taskset -c 0 ./myprogram on Linux. Whether you need it for the TSC or not, CPU migration will normally lead to a lot of cache misses and mess up your test anyway, as well as taking extra time. (Although so will an interrupt).
How efficient is the asm from using the intrinsic?
It's about as good as you'd get from #Mysticial's GNU C inline asm, or better because it knows the upper bits of RAX are zeroed. The main reason you'd want to keep inline asm is for compat with crusty old compilers.
A non-inline version of the readTSC function itself compiles with MSVC for x86-64 like this:
unsigned __int64 readTSC(void) PROC ; readTSC
rdtsc
shl rdx, 32 ; 00000020H
or rax, rdx
ret 0
; return in RAX
For 32-bit calling conventions that return 64-bit integers in edx:eax, it's just rdtsc/ret. Not that it matters, you always want this to inline.
In a test caller that uses it twice and subtracts to time an interval:
uint64_t time_something() {
uint64_t start = readTSC();
// even when empty, back-to-back __rdtsc() don't optimize away
return readTSC() - start;
}
All 4 compilers make pretty similar code. This is GCC's 32-bit output:
# gcc8.2 -O3 -m32
time_something():
push ebx # save a call-preserved reg: 32-bit only has 3 scratch regs
rdtsc
mov ecx, eax
mov ebx, edx # start in ebx:ecx
# timed region (empty)
rdtsc
sub eax, ecx
sbb edx, ebx # edx:eax -= ebx:ecx
pop ebx
ret # return value in edx:eax
This is MSVC's x86-64 output (with name-demangling applied). gcc/clang/ICC all emit identical code.
# MSVC 19 2017 -Ox
unsigned __int64 time_something(void) PROC ; time_something
rdtsc
shl rdx, 32 ; high <<= 32
or rax, rdx
mov rcx, rax ; missed optimization: lea rcx, [rdx+rax]
; rcx = start
;; timed region (empty)
rdtsc
shl rdx, 32
or rax, rdx ; rax = end
sub rax, rcx ; end -= start
ret 0
unsigned __int64 time_something(void) ENDP ; time_something
All 4 compilers use or+mov instead of lea to combine the low and high halves into a different register. I guess it's kind of a canned sequence that they fail to optimize.
But writing a shift/lea in inline asm yourself is hardly better. You'd deprive the compiler of the opportunity to ignore the high 32 bits of the result in EDX, if you're timing such a short interval that you only keep a 32-bit result. Or if the compiler decides to store the start time to memory, it could just use two 32-bit stores instead of shift/or / mov. If 1 extra uop as part of your timing bothers you, you'd better write your whole microbenchmark in pure asm.
However, we can maybe get the best of both worlds with a modified version of #Mysticial's code:
// More efficient than __rdtsc() in some case, but maybe worse in others
uint64_t rdtsc(){
// long and uintptr_t are 32-bit on the x32 ABI (32-bit pointers in 64-bit mode), so #ifdef would be better if we care about this trick there.
unsigned long lo,hi; // let the compiler know that zero-extension to 64 bits isn't required
__asm__ __volatile__ ("rdtsc" : "=a" (lo), "=d" (hi));
return ((uint64_t)hi << 32) + lo;
// + allows LEA or ADD instead of OR
}
On Godbolt, this does sometimes give better asm than __rdtsc() for gcc/clang/ICC, but other times it tricks compilers into using an extra register to save lo and hi separately, so clang can optimize into ((end_hi-start_hi)<<32) + (end_lo-start_lo). Hopefully if there's real register pressure, compilers will combine earlier. (gcc and ICC still save lo/hi separately, but don't optimize as well.)
But 32-bit gcc8 makes a mess of it, compiling even just the rdtsc() function itself with an actual add/adc with zeros instead of just returning the result in edx:eax like clang does. (gcc6 and earlier do ok with | instead of +, but definitely prefer the __rdtsc() intrinsic if you care about 32-bit code-gen from gcc).
VC++ uses an entirely different syntax for inline assembly -- but only in the 32-bit versions. The 64-bit compiler doesn't support inline assembly at all.
In this case, that's probably just as well -- rdtsc has (at least) two major problem when it comes to timing code sequences. First (like most instructions) it can be executed out of order, so if you're trying to time a short sequence of code, the rdtsc before and after that code might both be executed before it, or both after it, or what have you (I am fairly sure the two will always execute in order with respect to each other though, so at least the difference will never be negative).
Second, on a multi-core (or multiprocessor) system, one rdtsc might execute on one core/processor and the other on a different core/processor. In such a case, a negative result is entirely possible.
Generally speaking, if you want a precise timer under Windows, you're going to be better off using QueryPerformanceCounter.
If you really insist on using rdtsc, I believe you'll have to do it in a separate module written entirely in assembly language (or use a compiler intrinsic), then linked with your C or C++. I've never written that code for 64-bit mode, but in 32-bit mode it looks something like this:
xor eax, eax
cpuid
xor eax, eax
cpuid
xor eax, eax
cpuid
rdtsc
; save eax, edx
; code you're going to time goes here
xor eax, eax
cpuid
rdtsc
I know this looks strange, but it's actually right. You execute CPUID because it's a serializing instruction (can't be executed out of order) and is available in user mode. You execute it three times before you start timing because Intel documents the fact that the first execution can/will run at a different speed than the second (and what they recommend is three, so three it is).
Then you execute your code under test, another cpuid to force serialization, and the final rdtsc to get the time after the code finished.
Along with that, you want to use whatever means your OS supplies to force this all to run on one process/core. In most cases, you also want to force the code alignment -- changes in alignment can lead to fairly substantial differences in execution spee.
Finally you want to execute it a number of times -- and it's always possible it'll get interrupted in the middle of things (e.g., a task switch), so you need to be prepared for the possibility of an execution taking quite a bit longer than the rest -- e.g., 5 runs that take ~40-43 clock cycles apiece, and a sixth that takes 10000+ clock cycles. Clearly, in the latter case, you just throw out the outlier -- it's not from your code.
Summary: managing to execute the rdtsc instruction itself is (almost) the least of your worries. There's quite a bit more you need to do before you can get results from rdtsc that will actually mean anything.
For Windows, Visual Studio provides a convenient "compiler intrinsic" (i.e. a special function, which the compiler understands) that executes the RDTSC instruction for you and gives you back the result:
unsigned __int64 __rdtsc(void);
Linux perf_event_open system call with config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES
This Linux system call appears to be a cross architecture wrapper for performance events.
This answer similar: Quick way to count number of instructions executed in a C program but with PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES instead of PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS. This answer will focus on PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES specifics, see that other answer for more generic information.
Here is an example based on the one provided at the end of the man page.
perf_event_open.c
#define _GNU_SOURCE
#include <asm/unistd.h>
#include <linux/perf_event.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <string.h>
#include <sys/ioctl.h>
#include <unistd.h>
#include <inttypes.h>
#include <sys/types.h>
static long
perf_event_open(struct perf_event_attr *hw_event, pid_t pid,
int cpu, int group_fd, unsigned long flags)
{
int ret;
ret = syscall(__NR_perf_event_open, hw_event, pid, cpu,
group_fd, flags);
return ret;
}
int
main(int argc, char **argv)
{
struct perf_event_attr pe;
long long count;
int fd;
uint64_t n;
if (argc > 1) {
n = strtoll(argv[1], NULL, 0);
} else {
n = 10000;
}
memset(&pe, 0, sizeof(struct perf_event_attr));
pe.type = PERF_TYPE_HARDWARE;
pe.size = sizeof(struct perf_event_attr);
pe.config = PERF_COUNT_HW_CPU_CYCLES;
pe.disabled = 1;
pe.exclude_kernel = 1;
// Don't count hypervisor events.
pe.exclude_hv = 1;
fd = perf_event_open(&pe, 0, -1, -1, 0);
if (fd == -1) {
fprintf(stderr, "Error opening leader %llx\n", pe.config);
exit(EXIT_FAILURE);
}
ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_RESET, 0);
ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_ENABLE, 0);
/* Loop n times, should be good enough for -O0. */
__asm__ (
"1:;\n"
"sub $1, %[n];\n"
"jne 1b;\n"
: [n] "+r" (n)
:
:
);
ioctl(fd, PERF_EVENT_IOC_DISABLE, 0);
read(fd, &count, sizeof(long long));
printf("%lld\n", count);
close(fd);
}
The results seem reasonable, e.g. if I print cycles then recompile for instruction counts, we get about 1 cycle per iteration (2 instructions done in a single cycle) possibly due to effects such as superscalar execution, with slightly different results for each run presumably due to random memory access latencies.
You might also be interested in PERF_COUNT_HW_REF_CPU_CYCLES, which as the manpage documents:
Total cycles; not affected by CPU frequency scaling.
so this will give something closer to the real wall time if your frequency scaling is on. These were 2/3x larger than PERF_COUNT_HW_INSTRUCTIONS on my quick experiments, presumably because my non-stressed machine is frequency scaled now.
I find an interesting phenomenon:
#include<stdio.h>
#include<time.h>
int main() {
int p, q;
clock_t s,e;
s=clock();
for(int i = 1; i < 1000; i++){
for(int j = 1; j < 1000; j++){
for(int k = 1; k < 1000; k++){
p = i + j * k;
q = p; //Removing this line can increase running time.
}
}
}
e = clock();
double t = (double)(e - s) / CLOCKS_PER_SEC;
printf("%lf\n", t);
return 0;
}
I use GCC 7.3.0 on i5-5257U Mac OS to compile the code without any optimization. Here is the average run time over 10 times:
There are also other people who test the case on other Intel platforms and get the same result.
I post the assembly generated by GCC here. The only difference between two assembly codes is that before addl $1, -12(%rbp) the faster one has two more operations:
movl -44(%rbp), %eax
movl %eax, -48(%rbp)
So why does the program run faster with such an assignment?
Peter's answer is very helpful. The tests on an AMD Phenom II X4 810 and an ARMv7 processor (BCM2835) shows an opposite result which supports that store-forwarding speedup is specific to some Intel CPU.
And BeeOnRope's comment and advice drives me to rewrite the question. :)
The core of this question is the interesting phenomenon which is related to processor architecture and assembly. So I think it may be worth to be discussed.
TL:DR: Sandybridge-family store-forwarding has lower latency if the reload doesn't try to happen "right away". Adding useless code can speed up a debug-mode loop because loop-carried latency bottlenecks in -O0 anti-optimized code almost always involve store/reload of some C variables.
Other examples of this slowdown in action: hyperthreading, calling an empty function, accessing vars through pointers.
And apparently also on low-power Goldmont, unless there's a different cause there for an extra load helping.
None of this is relevant for optimized code. Bottlenecks on store-forwarding latency can occasionally happen, but adding useless complications to your code won't speed it up.
You're benchmarking a debug build, which is basically useless. They have different bottlenecks than optimized code, not a uniform slowdown.
But obviously there is a real reason for the debug build of one version running slower than the debug build of the other version. (Assuming you measured correctly and it wasn't just CPU frequency variation (turbo / power-saving) leading to a difference in wall-clock time.)
If you want to get into the details of x86 performance analysis, we can try to explain why the asm performs the way it does in the first place, and why the asm from an extra C statement (which with -O0 compiles to extra asm instructions) could make it faster overall. This will tell us something about asm performance effects, but nothing useful about optimizing C.
You haven't shown the whole inner loop, only some of the loop body, but gcc -O0 is pretty predictable. Every C statement is compiled separately from all the others, with all C variables spilled / reloaded between the blocks for each statement. This lets you change variables with a debugger while single-stepping, or even jump to a different line in the function, and have the code still work. The performance cost of compiling this way is catastrophic. For example, your loop has no side-effects (none of the results are used) so the entire triple-nested loop can and would compile to zero instructions in a real build, running infinitely faster. Or more realistically, running 1 cycle per iteration instead of ~6 even without optimizing away or doing major transformations.
The bottleneck is probably the loop-carried dependency on k, with a store/reload and an add to increment. Store-forwarding latency is typically around 5 cycles on most CPUs. And thus your inner loop is limited to running once per ~6 cycles, the latency of memory-destination add.
If you're on an Intel CPU, store/reload latency can actually be lower (better) when the reload can't try to execute right away. Having more independent loads/stores in between the dependent pair may explain it in your case. See Loop with function call faster than an empty loop.
So with more work in the loop, that addl $1, -12(%rbp) which can sustain one per 6 cycle throughput when run back-to-back might instead only create a bottleneck of one iteration per 4 or 5 cycles.
This effect apparently happens on Sandybridge and Haswell (not just Skylake), according to measurements from a 2013 blog post, so yes, this is the most likely explanation on your Broadwell i5-5257U, too. It appears that this effect happens on all Intel Sandybridge-family CPUs.
Without more info on your test hardware, compiler version (or asm source for the inner loop), and absolute and/or relative performance numbers for both versions, this is my best low-effort guess at an explanation. Benchmarking / profiling gcc -O0 on my Skylake system isn't interesting enough to actually try it myself. Next time, include timing numbers.
The latency of the stores/reloads for all the work that isn't part of the loop-carried dependency chain doesn't matter, only the throughput. The store queue in modern out-of-order CPUs does effectively provide memory renaming, eliminating write-after-write and write-after-read hazards from reusing the same stack memory for p being written and then read and written somewhere else. (See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memory_disambiguation#Avoiding_WAR_and_WAW_dependencies for more about memory hazards specifically, and this Q&A for more about latency vs. throughput and reusing the same register / register renaming)
Multiple iterations of the inner loop can be in flight at once, because the memory-order buffer (MOB) keeps track of which store each load needs to take data from, without requiring a previous store to the same location to commit to L1D and get out of the store queue. (See Intel's optimization manual and Agner Fog's microarch PDF for more about CPU microarchitecture internals. The MOB is a combination of the store buffer and load buffer)
Does this mean adding useless statements will speed up real programs? (with optimization enabled)
In general, no, it doesn't. Compilers keep loop variables in registers for the innermost loops. And useless statements will actually optimize away with optimization enabled.
Tuning your source for gcc -O0 is useless. Measure with -O3, or whatever options the default build scripts for your project use.
Also, this store-forwarding speedup is specific to Intel Sandybridge-family, and you won't see it on other microarchitectures like Ryzen, unless they also have a similar store-forwarding latency effect.
Store-forwarding latency can be a problem in real (optimized) compiler output, especially if you didn't use link-time-optimization (LTO) to let tiny functions inline, especially functions that pass or return anything by reference (so it has to go through memory instead of registers). Mitigating the problem may require hacks like volatile if you really want to just work around it on Intel CPUs and maybe make things worse on some other CPUs. See discussion in comments
I'm trying to find the find the relative merits of 2 small functions in C. One that adds by loop, one that adds by explicit variables. The functions are irrelevant themselves, but I'd like someone to teach me how to count cycles so as to compare the algorithms. So f1 will take 10 cycles, while f2 will take 8. That's the kind of reasoning I would like to do. No performance measurements (e.g. gprof experiments) at this point, just good old instruction counting.
Is there a good way to do this? Are there tools? Documentation? I'm writing C, compiling with gcc on an x86 architecture.
http://icl.cs.utk.edu/papi/
PAPI_get_real_cyc(3) - return the total number of cycles since some arbitrary starting point
Assembler instruction rdtsc (Read Time-Stamp Counter) retun in EDX:EAX registers the current CPU ticks count, started at CPU reset. If your CPU runing at 3GHz then one tick is 1/3GHz.
EDIT:
Under MS windows the API call QueryPerformanceFrequency return the number of ticks per second.
Unfortunately timing the code is as error prone as visually counting instructions and clock cycles. Be it a debugger or other tool or re-compiling the code with a re-run 10000000 times and time it kind of thing, you change where things land in the cache line, the frequency of the cache hits and misses, etc. You can mitigate some of this by adding or removing some code upstream from the module of code being tested, (to cause a few instructions added and removed changing the alignment of your program and sometimes of your data).
With experience you can develop an eye for performance by looking at the disassembly (as well as the high level code). There is no substitute for timing the code, problem is timing the code is error prone. The experience comes from many experiements and trying to fully understand why adding or removing one instruction made no or dramatic differences. Why code added or removed in a completely different unrelated area of the module under test made huge performance differences on the module under test.
As GJ has written in another answer I also recommend using the "rdtsc" instruction (rather than calling some operating system function which looks right).
I've written quite a few answers on this topic. Rdtsc allows you to calculate the elapsed clock cycles in the code's "natural" execution environment rather than having to resort to calling it ten million times which may not be feasible as not all functions are black boxes.
If you want to calculate elapsed time you might want to shut off energy-saving on the CPUs. If it's only a matter of clock cycles this is not necessary.
If you are trying to compare the performance, the easiest way is to put your algorithm in a loop and run it 1000 or 1000000 times.
Once you are running it enough times that the small differences can be seen, run time ./my_program which will give you the amount of processor time that it used.
Do this a few times to get a sampling and compare the results.
Trying to count instructions won't help you on x86 architecture. This is because different instructions can take significantly different amounts of time to execute.
I would recommend using simulators. Take a look at PTLsim it will give you the number of cycles, other than that maybe you would like to take a look at some tools to count the number of times each assembly line is executing.
Use gcc -S your_program.c. -S tells gcc to generate the assembly listing, that will be named your_program.s.
There are plenty of high performance clocks around. QueryPerformanceCounter is microsofts. The general trick is to run the function 10s of thousands of time and time how long it takes. Then divide the time taken by the number of loops. You'll find that each loop takes a slightly different length of time so this testing over multiple passes is the only way to truly find out how long it takes.
This is not really a trivial question. Let me try to explain:
There are several tools on different OS to do exactly what you want, but those tools are usually part of a bigger environment. Every instruction is translated into a certain number of cycles, depending on the CPU the compiler ran on, and the CPU the program was executed.
I can't give you a definitive answer, because I do not have enough data to pass my judgement on, but I work for IBM in the database area and we use tools to measure cycles and instructures for our code and those traces are only valid for the actual CPU the program was compiled and was running on.
Depending on the internal structure of your CPU's piplining and on the effeciency of your compiler, the resulting code will most likely still have cache misses and other areas you have to worry about. (In that case you may want to look into FDPR...)
If you want to know how many cycles your program needs to run on your CPU (which was compiled with your compiler), you have to understand how the CPU works and how the compiler generarated the code.
I'm sorry, if the answer was not sufficient enough to solve your problem at hand. You said you are using gcc on an x86 arch. I would work with getting the assembly code mapped to your CPU.
I'm sure you will find some areas, where gcc could have done a better job...
Is there a way using C or assembler or maybe even C# to get an accurate measure of how long it takes to execute a ADD instruction?
Yes, sort of, but it's non-trivial and produces results that are almost meaningless, at least on most reasonably modern processors.
On relatively slow processors (e.g., up through the original Pentium in the Intel line, still true on most small embedded processors) you can just look in the processor's data sheet and it'll (normally) tell you how many clock ticks to expect. Quick, simple, and easy.
On a modern desktop machine (e.g., Pentium Pro or newer), life isn't nearly that simple. These CPUs can execute a number of instructions at a time, and execute them out of order as long as there aren't any dependencies between them. This means the whole concept of the time taken by a single instruction becomes almost meaningless. The time taken to execute one instruction can and will depend on the instructions that surround it.
That said, yes, if you really want to, you can (usually -- depending on the processor) measure something, though it's open to considerable question exactly how much it'll really mean. Even getting a result like this that's only close to meaningless instead of completely meaningless isn't trivial though. For example, on an Intel or AMD chip, you can use RDTSC to do the timing measurement itself. That, unfortunately, can be executed out of order as described above. To get meaningful results, you need to surround it by an instruction that can't be executed out of order (a "serializing instruction"). The most common choice for that is CPUID, since it's one of the few serializing instructions that's available to "user mode" (i.e., ring 3) programs. That adds a bit of a twist itself though: as documented by Intel, the first few times the processor executes CPUID, it can take longer than subsequent times. As such, they recommend that you execute it three times before you use it to serialize your timing. Therefore, the general sequence runs something like this:
.align 16
CPUID
CPUID
CPUID
RDTSC
; sequence under test
Add eax, ebx
; end of sequence under test
CPUID
RDTSC
Then you compare that to a result from doing the same, but with the sequence under test removed. That's leaving out quite a fe details, of course -- at minimum you need to:
set the registers up correctly before each CPUID
save the value in EAX:EDX after the first RDTSC
subtract result from the second RDTSC from the first
Also note the "align" directive I've inserted -- instruction alignment can and will affect timing as well, especially if a loop is involved.
Construct a loop that executes 10 million times, with nothing in the loop body, and time that. Keep that time as the overhead required for looping.
Then execute the same loop again, this time with the code under test in the body. Time for this loop, minus the overhead (from the empty loop case) is the time due to the 10 million repetitions of your code under test. So, divide by the number of iterations.
Obviously this method needs tuning with regard to the number of iterations. If what you're measuring is small, like a single instruction, you might even want to run upwards of a billion iterations. If its a significant chunk of code, a few 10's of thousands might suffice.
In the case of a single assembly instruction, the assembler is probably the right tool for the job, or perhaps C, if you are conversant with inline assembly. Others have posted more elegant solutions for how to get a measurement w/o the repetition, but the repetition technique is always available, for example, an embedded processor that doesn't have the nice timing instructions mentioned by others.
Note however, that on modern pipeline processors, instruction level parallelism may confound your results. Because more than one instruction is running through the execution pipeline at a time, it is no longer true that N repetitions of an given instruction take N times as long as a single one.
Okay, the problem that you are going to encounter if you are using an OS like Windows, Linux, Unix, MacOS, AmigaOS and all those others that there are lots of processes already running on your machine in the background which will impact performance. The only real way of calculating actual time of an instruction is to disassemble your motherboard and test each component using external hardware. It depends whether you absolutely want to do this yourself, or simply find out how fast a typical revision of your processor actually runs. Companies such as Intel and Motorola test their chips extensively before release, and these results are available to the public. All you need to do is ask them and they'll send you a free CD-ROM (it might be a DVD - nonsense pedantry) with the results contained. You can do it yourself, but be warned that especially Intel processors contain many redundant instructions that are no longer desirable, let alone necessary. This will take up a lot of your time, but I can absolutely see the fun in doing this. PS. If its purely to help push your own machine's hardware to its theoretical maximum in a personal project that you're doing the Just Jeff's answer above is excellent for generating tidy instruction-speed-averages under real-world conditions.
No, but you can calculate it based upon the number of clock cycles the add instruction requires multiplied by the clock rate of the CPU. Different types of arguments to an ADD may result in more or fewer cycles but, for a given argument list, the instruction always takes the same number of cycles to complete.
That said, why do you care?