While playing a little with FPU using MSVC's Inline Assembly, I got a little confused about freeing FPU registers in favor of increasing performance...
For example:
#include <stdio.h>
double fpu_add(register double x, register double y) {
double res = 0.0;
__asm {
fld x
fld y
fadd
fstp res
}
return res;
}
int main(void) {
double x = fpu_add(5.0, 2.0);
(void) printf("x = %f\n", x);
return 0;
}
When do I have to ffree the FPU registers in Inline Assembly?
In that example would performance be better if I decided to ffree the st(1) register?
Also is fstp a shorthand for instructions below?
__asm {
fst res
ffree st(0)
}
NOTE: I know FPU instructions are a bit old nowdays, But dealing with them as another option along with SSE
The ffree instruction allows you to mark any slot of the x87 fo stack as free without actually changing the stack pointer. So ffree st(0) does NOT pop the stack, just marks the top value of the stack as free/invalid, so any following instruction that tries to access it will get a floating point exception.
To actually pop to the stack you need both ffree st(0) and fincstp (to increment the pointer). Or better, fstp st(0) to do both those things with a single cheap instruction. Or fstp st(1) to keep the top-of-stack value and discard the old st(1).
But it's usually even better and easier (and faster) to use the p suffixed versions of other instructions. In your case, you probably want
__asm {
fld x // push x on the stack
fld y // push y on the stack
faddp // pop a value and add it to the (now) tos
fstp res // pop and store tos
}
This ends up pushing and popping two values, leaving the fp stack in the same state as it was before. Leaving stuff on the fp stack is likely to cause problems with other fp code, if the compiler is generating x87 fp code, so should be avoided.
Or even better, use memory-source fadd to save instructions, if you're optimizing for CPUs where that's not slower. (Check Agner Fog's microarch PDF and instruction tables for P5 Pentium and newer: seems to be fine, at least break even, and saves a uop on more modern CPUs like Core2 that can do micro-fusion of memory source operands.)
__asm {
fld x // push x on the stack
fadd y // ST0 += y
fstp res // pop and store tos
}
But MSVC inline asm is inherently slow for wrapping a single instruction like fadd, forcing inputs to be in memory, even if the compiler had them available in registers before the asm statement. And forcing the result to be stored in the asm and then reloaded for the return statement, unless you use a hack like leaving a value in st(0) and falling off the end of a function without a return statement. (MSVC does actually support this even when inlining, but clang-cl / clang -fasm-blocks does not.)
GNU C inline asm could wrap a single fadd instruction with appropriate constraints to ask for inputs in x87 registers and tell the compiler where the output is (in st(0)), but you'd still have to choose between fadd and faddp, not letting the compiler pick based on whether it had values in registers or a value from memory. (https://stackoverflow.com/tags/inline-assembly/info)
Compilers aren't terrible, they will make code at least this good from plain C source. Inline asm is generally not useful for performance, unless you're writing a whole loop that's carefully tuned for a specific CPU, or for a case where the compiler does a poor job with something. (Look at the compiler's optimized asm output, e.g. on https://godbolt.org/)
Recently I had to write a code for critical real time functionality and I used few __builtin_... functions. I understand that such code is not portable because not all the compilers support "__builtin_..." functions or syntax. I was wondering if there is a way to write code in a plain C so that the compiler would be able to recognize it and use some internal "__builtin_..."-like function?
Below is a description of a small experement I did but my question is:
Are there any tips, best known methods, guidelines to write a portable C code so that the compiler would be able to detect (let's put aside the compiler bugs) the pattern and use the maximum ability of the target CPU architecture.
For example reverse bytes in a Dword (so that the first byte become the last one, the last one becomes the first one and so on), the x86_64 architecture has a dedicated assembly instruction for it - bswap. I tried 4 different options:
#include <stdint.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
typedef union _helper_s
{
uint32_t val;
uint8_t bytes[4];
} helper_u;
uint32_t reverse(uint32_t d)
{
helper_u b;
uint8_t temp;
b.val = d;
temp = b.bytes[0];
b.bytes[0] = b.bytes[3];
b.bytes[3] = temp;
temp = b.bytes[1];
b.bytes[1] = b.bytes[2];
b.bytes[2] = temp;
return b.val;
}
uint32_t reverse1(uint32_t d)
{
helper_u b;
uint8_t temp;
b.val = d;
for (size_t i = 0; i < sizeof(uint32_t) / 2; i++)
{
temp = b.bytes[i];
b.bytes[i] = b.bytes[sizeof(uint32_t) - i - 1];
b.bytes[sizeof(uint32_t) - i - 1] = temp;
}
return b.val;
}
uint32_t reverse2(uint32_t d)
{
return (d << 24) | (d >> 24 ) | ((d & 0xFF00) << 8) | ((d & 0xFF0000) >> 8);
}
uint32_t reverse3(uint32_t d)
{
return __builtin_bswap32(d);
}
All the options provide the same functionality. I compiled it with different compilers and different optimization levels, the results were not so good:
GCC - did great! For both -O3 and -Os optimization levels it gave the same result for all the functions:
reverse:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
ret
reverse1:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
ret
reverse2:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
ret
reverse3:
mov eax, edi
bswap eax
ret
Clang a little disappointed me. With the -O3 it gave the same result as GCC however with the -Os it totally lost the path in reverse1. It didn't recognize the pattern and produced way less optimal binary:
reverse1: # #reverse1
lea rax, [rsp - 8]
mov dword ptr [rax], edi
mov ecx, 3
.LBB1_1: # =>This Inner Loop Header: Depth=1
mov sil, byte ptr [rax]
mov dl, byte ptr [rsp + rcx - 8]
mov byte ptr [rax], dl
mov byte ptr [rsp + rcx - 8], sil
dec rcx
inc rax
cmp rcx, 1
jne .LBB1_1
mov eax, dword ptr [rsp - 8]
ret
Actually the difference between reverse and reverse1 is that reverse is the "loop unrolled" version of reverse1, so I assume that with -Os the compiler didn't even try to unroll or try to anticipate the purpose of the for loop.
With the ICC, the things went even worse because it was unable to recognize the pattern in reverse and reverse1 functions both with the -O3 and the -Os optimization levels.
P.S.
I often hear people say that the code has to be written so that even junior programmer would easily be able to understand it and the modern compilers are "smart" enough to take care of the optimizations. Now I have an evidence that it is not true (or at least not always true).
As far as I am aware, the proper way to do this is with conditional compilation.
My suggestion is to write plain normal code in standard C as the default, both for maintainability and as a fall-back path that all compilers can handle. Utilize conditional compilation only as necessary to optimize for specific compilers, with a comment explaining the reason for the exception.
The technique used for reverse2 is fairly idiomatic (here, for example), and your own testing showed that it is properly optimized on all the systems you tested on. To make the implementation easier to understand, you can introduce more whitespace, and follow a more regular pattern.
uint32_t reverse2(uint32_t d)
{
return ((d & 0x000000FFU) << 24) |
((d & 0x0000FF00U) << 8) |
((d & 0x00FF0000U) >> 8) |
((d & 0xFF000000U) >> 24) ;
}
Try It Online : gcc
Try It Online : clang
To your specific points:
Are there any tips, best known methods, guidelines to write a portable C code so that the compiler would be able to detect (let's put aside the compiler bugs) the pattern and use the maximum ability of the target CPU architecture.
The key take away should be to try to write idiomatic code. Judging code to be understandable is somewhat subjective. What may seem clear to me can appear incomprehensible to someone else (and vice versa). However, there are common idioms in C programming that should be followed whenever it is appropriate to do so.
Unfortunately, I do not have at the top of my head a handy list of idioms. But, I can say I largely learned C from reading The C Programming Language (by K & R, of course). And I was an avid reader of C Programming FAQs (by Steve Summit).
However, a very good resource for C idioms can be found by reading and comprehending open source C projects, and of course the source code base of the company you work at. Following the latter has the added benefit that any code you add that follows existing conventions will naturally increase the chances of it being understood by someone else in the company.
I often hear people say that the code has to be written so that even junior programmer would easily be able to understand it and the modern compilers are "smart" enough to take care of the optimizations. Now I have an evidence that it is not true (or at least not always true).
Compilers are just programs, so they cannot read your mind. The compiler will be programmed to look for particular patterns in the AST and apply optimizations to transform the tree into what it considers more optimal. Similarly, the peephole optimizer will look for patterns in the generated machine instructions, and then transform them into fewer equivalent instructions.
But these transformations are only possible if the generated tree or generated instructions follow a recognizable pattern. And these patterns are often determined by analyzing real-world software to see what kind of code gets generated for certain operations. If your code does not result in code that can be recognized by the compiler, you may be partially losing out on the compilers help to optimize.
Thus, another reason to try to write idiomatic C code.
Now, it can be argued that forcing oneself to write idiomatic C is a form of micro-optimization. Should you try to teach the compiler how to optimize the way you write code, or let the compiler teach you how to write code it knows how to optimize? However, the momentum is carried by the existing C programmers that write code idiomatically. New C programmers adopt these idioms for the sake of writing code more easily understood by the people that will be reviewing their code.
I'm trying to compute the bit parity of a large number of uint64's. By bit parity I mean a function that accepts a uint64 and outputs 0 if the number of set bits is even, and 1 otherwise.
Currently I'm using the following function (by #Troyseph, found here):
uint parity64(uint64 n){
n ^= n >> 1;
n ^= n >> 2;
n = (n & 0x1111111111111111) * 0x1111111111111111;
return (n >> 60) & 1;
}
The same SO page has the following assembly routine (by #papadp):
.code
; bool CheckParity(size_t Result)
CheckParity PROC
mov rax, 0
add rcx, 0
jnp jmp_over
mov rax, 1
jmp_over:
ret
CheckParity ENDP
END
which takes advantage of the machine's parity flag. But I cannot get it to work with my C program (I know next to no assembly).
Question. How can I include the above (or similar) code as inline assembly in my C source file, so that the parity64() function runs that instead?
(I'm using GCC with 64-bit Ubuntu 14 on an Intel Xeon Haswell)
In case it's of any help, the parity64() function is called inside the following routine:
uint bindot(uint64* a, uint64* b, uint64 entries){
uint parity = 0;
for(uint i=0; i<entries; ++i)
parity ^= parity64(a[i] & b[i]); // Running sum!
return parity;
}
(This is supposed to be the "dot product" of two vectors over the field Z/2Z, aka. GF(2).)
This may sound a bit harsh, but I believe it needs to be said. Please don't take it personally; I don't mean it as an insult, especially since you already admitted that you "know next to no assembly." But if you think code like this:
CheckParity PROC
mov rax, 0
add rcx, 0
jnp jmp_over
mov rax, 1
jmp_over:
ret
CheckParity ENDP
will beat what a C compiler generates, then you really have no business using inline assembly. In just those 5 lines of code, I see 2 instructions that are glaringly sub-optimal. It could be optimized by just rewriting it slightly:
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx ; logically, should use RCX, but see below for behavior of PF
jnp jmp_over
mov eax, 1 ; or possibly even "inc eax"; would need to verify
jmp_over:
ret
Or, if you have random input values that are likely to foil the branch predictor (i.e., there is no predictable pattern to the parity of the input values), then it would be faster yet to remove the branch, writing it as:
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx
setp al
ret
Or perhaps the equivalent (which will be faster on certain processors, but not necessarily all):
xor eax, eax
test ecx, ecx
mov ecx, 1
cmovp eax, ecx
ret
And these are just the improvements I could see off the top of my head, given my existing knowledge of the x86 ISA and previous benchmarks that I have conducted. But lest anyone be fooled, this is undoubtedly not the fastest code, because (borrowing from Michael Abrash), "there ain't no such thing as the fastest code"—someone can virtually always make it faster yet.
There are enough problems with using inline assembly when you're an expert assembly-language programmer and a wizard when it comes to the intricacies of the x86 ISA. Optimizers are pretty darn good nowadays, which means it's hard enough for a true guru to produce better code (though certainly not impossible). It also takes trustworthy benchmarks that will verify your assumptions and confirm that your optimized inline assembly is actually faster. Never commit yourself to using inline assembly to outsmart the compiler's optimizer without running a good benchmark. I see no evidence in your question that you've done anything like this. I'm speculating here, but it looks like you saw that the code was written in assembly and assumed that meant it would be faster. That is rarely the case. C compilers ultimately emit assembly language code, too, and it is often more optimal than what us humans are capable of producing, given a finite amount of time and resources, much less limited expertise.
In this particular case, there is a notion that inline assembly will be faster than the C compiler's output, since the C compiler won't be able to intelligently use the x86 architecture's built-in parity flag (PF) to its benefit. And you might be right, but it's a pretty shaky assumption, far from universalizable. As I've said, optimizing compilers are pretty smart nowadays, and they do optimize to a particular architecture (assuming you specify the right options), so it would not at all surprise me that an optimizer would emit code that used PF. You'd have to look at the disassembly to see for sure.
As an example of what I mean, consider the highly specialized BSWAP instruction that x86 provides. You might naïvely think that inline assembly would be required to take advantage of it, but it isn't. The following C code compiles to a BSWAP instruction on almost all major compilers:
uint32 SwapBytes(uint32 x)
{
return ((x << 24) & 0xff000000 ) |
((x << 8) & 0x00ff0000 ) |
((x >> 8) & 0x0000ff00 ) |
((x >> 24) & 0x000000ff );
}
The performance will be equivalent, if not better, because the optimizer has more knowledge about what the code does. In fact, a major benefit this form has over inline assembly is that the compiler can perform constant folding with this code (i.e., when called with a compile-time constant). Plus, the code is more readable (at least, to a C programmer), much less error-prone, and considerably easier to maintain than if you'd used inline assembly. Oh, and did I mention it's reasonably portable if you ever wanted to target an architecture other than x86?
I know I'm making a big deal of this, and I want you to understand that I say this as someone who enjoys the challenge of writing highly-tuned assembly code that beats the compiler's optimizer in performance. But every time I do it, it's just that: a challenge, which comes with sacrifices. It isn't a panacea, and you need to remember to check your assumptions, including:
Is this code actually a bottleneck in my application, such that optimizing it would even make any perceptible difference?
Is the optimizer actually emitting sub-optimal machine language instructions for the code that I have written?
Am I wrong in what I naïvely think is sub-optimal? Maybe the optimizer knows more than I do about the target architecture, and what looks like slow or sub-optimal code is actually faster. (Remember that less code is not necessarily faster.)
Have I tested it in a meaningful, real-world benchmark, and proven that the compiler-generated code is slow and that my inline assembly is actually faster?
Is there absolutely no way that I can tweak the C code to persuade the optimizer to emit better machine code that is close, equal to, or even superior to the performance of my inline assembly?
In an attempt to answer some of these questions, I set up a little benchmark. (Using MSVC, because that's what I have handy; if you're targeting GCC, it's best to use that compiler, but we can still get a general idea. I use and recommend Google's benchmarking library.) And I immediately ran into problems. See, I first run my benchmarks in "debugging" mode, with assertions compiled in that verify that my "tweaked"/"optimized" code is actually producing the same results for all test cases as the original code (that is presumably known to be working/correct). In this case, an assertion immediately fired. It turns out that the CheckParity routine written in assembly language does not return identical results to the parity64 routine written in C! Uh-oh. Well, that's another bullet we need to add to the above list:
Have I ensured that my "optimized" code is returning the correct results?
This one is especially critical, because it's easy to make something faster if you also make it wrong. :-) I jest, but not entirely, because I've done this many times in the pursuit of faster code.
I believe Michael Petch has already pointed out the reason for the discrepancy: in the x86 implementation, the parity flag (PF) only concerns itself with the bits in the low byte, not the entire value. If that's all you need, then great. But even then, we can go back to the C code and further optimize it to do less work, which will make it faster—perhaps faster than the assembly code, eliminating the one advantage that inline assembly ever had.
For now, let's assume that you need the parity of the full value, since that's the original implementation you had that was working, and you're just trying to make it faster without changing its behavior. Thus, we need to fix the assembly code's logic before we can even proceed with meaningfully benchmarking it. Fortunately, since I am writing this answer late, Ajay Brahmakshatriya (with collaboration from others) has already done that work, saving me the extra effort.
…except, not quite. When I first drafted this answer, my benchmark revealed that draft 9 of his "tweaked" code still did not produce the same result as the original C function, so it's unsuitable according to our test cases. You say in a comment that his code "works" for you, which means either (A) the original C code was doing extra work, making it needlessly slow, meaning that you can probably tweak it to beat the inline assembly at its own game, or worse, (B) you have insufficient test cases and the new "optimized" code is actually a bug lying in wait. Since that time, Ped7g suggested a couple of fixes, which both fixed the bug causing the incorrect result to be returned, and further improved the code. The amount of input required here, and the number of drafts that he has gone through, should serve as testament to the difficulty of writing correct inline assembly to beat the compiler. But we're not even done yet! His inline assembly remains incorrectly written. SETcc instructions require an 8-bit register as their operand, but his code doesn't use a register specifier to request that, meaning that the code either won't compile (because Clang is smart enough to detect this error) or will compile on GCC but won't execute properly because that instruction has an invalid operand.
Have I convinced you about the importance of testing yet? I'll take it on faith, and move on to the benchmarking part. The benchmark results use the final draft of Ajay's code, with Ped7g's improvements, and my additional tweaks. I also compare some of the other solutions from that question you linked, modified for 64-bit integers, plus a couple of my own invention. Here are my benchmark results (mobile Haswell i7-4850HQ):
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
-------------------------------------------------------------------
Naive 36 ns 36 ns 19478261
OriginalCCode 4 ns 4 ns 194782609
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked 4 ns 4 ns 194782609
Shreyas_Shivalkar 37 ns 37 ns 17920000
TypeIA 5 ns 5 ns 154482759
TypeIA_Tweaked 4 ns 4 ns 160000000
has_even_parity 227 ns 229 ns 3200000
has_even_parity_Tweaked 36 ns 36 ns 19478261
GCC_builtin_parityll 4 ns 4 ns 186666667
PopCount 3 ns 3 ns 248888889
PopCount_Downlevel 5 ns 5 ns 100000000
Now, keep in mind that these are for randomly-generated 64-bit input values, which disrupts branch prediction. If your input values are biased in a predictable way, either towards parity or non-parity, then the branch predictor will work for you, rather than against you, and certain approaches may be faster. This underscores the importance of benchmarking against data that simulates real-world use cases. (That said, when I write general library functions, I tend to optimize for random inputs, balancing size and speed.)
Notice how the original C function compares to the others. I'm going to make the claim that optimizing it any further is probably a big fat waste of time. So hopefully you learned something more general from this answer, rather than just scrolled down to copy-paste the code snippets. :-)
The Naive function is a completely unoptimized sanity check to determine the parity, taken from here. I used it to validate even your original C code, and also to provide a baseline for the benchmarks. Since it loops through each bit, one-by-one, it is relatively slow, as expected:
unsigned int Naive(uint64 n)
{
bool parity = false;
while (n)
{
parity = !parity;
n &= (n - 1);
}
return parity;
}
OriginalCCode is exactly what it sounds like—it's the original C code that you had, as shown in the question. Notice how it posts up at exactly the same time as the tweaked/corrected version of Ajay Brahmakshatriya's inline assembly code! Now, since I ran this benchmark in MSVC, which doesn't support inline assembly for 64-bit builds, I had to use an external assembly module containing the function, and call it from there, which introduced some additional overhead. With GCC's inline assembly, the compiler probably would have been able to inline the code, thus eliding a function call. So on GCC, you might see the inline-assembly version be up to a nanosecond faster (or maybe not). Is that worth it? You be the judge. For reference, this is the code I tested for Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked:
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked PROC
mov rax, rcx ; Windows 64-bit calling convention passes parameter in ECX (System V uses EDI)
shr rax, 32
xor rcx, rax
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 16
xor rcx, rax
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 8
xor eax, ecx ; Ped7g's TEST is redundant; XOR already sets PF
setnp al
movzx eax, al
ret
Ajay_Brahmakshatriya_Tweaked ENDP
The function named Shreyas_Shivalkar is from his answer here, which is just a variation on the loop-through-each-bit theme, and is, in keeping with expectations, slow:
Shreyas_Shivalkar PROC
; unsigned int parity = 0;
; while (x != 0)
; {
; parity ^= x;
; x >>= 1;
; }
; return (parity & 0x1);
xor eax, eax
test rcx, rcx
je SHORT Finished
Process:
xor eax, ecx
shr rcx, 1
jne SHORT Process
Finished:
and eax, 1
ret
Shreyas_Shivalkar ENDP
TypeIA and TypeIA_Tweaked are the code from this answer, modified to support 64-bit values, and my tweaked version. They parallelize the operation, resulting in a significant speed improvement over the loop-through-each-bit strategy. The "tweaked" version is based on an optimization originally suggested by Mathew Hendry to Sean Eron Anderson's Bit Twiddling Hacks, and does net us a tiny speed-up over the original.
unsigned int TypeIA(uint64 n)
{
n ^= n >> 32;
n ^= n >> 16;
n ^= n >> 8;
n ^= n >> 4;
n ^= n >> 2;
n ^= n >> 1;
return !((~n) & 1);
}
unsigned int TypeIA_Tweaked(uint64 n)
{
n ^= n >> 32;
n ^= n >> 16;
n ^= n >> 8;
n ^= n >> 4;
n &= 0xf;
return ((0x6996 >> n) & 1);
}
has_even_parity is based on the accepted answer to that question, modified to support 64-bit values. I knew this would be slow, since it's yet another loop-through-each-bit strategy, but obviously someone thought it was a good approach. It's interesting to see just how slow it actually is, even compared to what I termed the "naïve" approach, which does essentially the same thing, but faster, with less-complicated code.
unsigned int has_even_parity(uint64 n)
{
uint64 count = 0;
uint64 b = 1;
for (uint64 i = 0; i < 64; ++i)
{
if (n & (b << i)) { ++count; }
}
return (count % 2);
}
has_even_parity_Tweaked is an alternate version of the above that saves a branch by taking advantage of the fact that Boolean values are implicitly convertible into 0 and 1. It is substantially faster than the original, clocking in at a time comparable to the "naïve" approach:
unsigned int has_even_parity_Tweaked(uint64 n)
{
uint64 count = 0;
uint64 b = 1;
for (uint64 i = 0; i < 64; ++i)
{
count += static_cast<int>(static_cast<bool>(n & (b << i)));
}
return (count % 2);
}
Now we get into the good stuff. The function GCC_builtin_parityll consists of the assembly code that GCC would emit if you used its __builtin_parityll intrinsic. Several others have suggested that you use this intrinsic, and I must echo their endorsement. Its performance is on par with the best we've seen so far, and it has a couple of additional advantages: (1) it keeps the code simple and readable (simpler than the C version); (2) it is portable to different architectures, and can be expected to remain fast there, too; (3) as GCC improves its implementation, your code may get faster with a simple recompile. You get all the benefits of inline assembly, without any of the drawbacks.
GCC_builtin_parityll PROC ; GCC's __builtin_parityll
mov edx, ecx
shr rcx, 32
xor edx, ecx
mov eax, edx
shr edx, 16
xor eax, edx
xor al, ah
setnp al
movzx eax, al
ret
GCC_builtin_parityll ENDP
PopCount is an optimized implementation of my own invention. To come up with this, I went back and considered what we were actually trying to do. The definition of "parity" is an even number of set bits. Therefore, it can be calculated simply by counting the number of set bits and testing to see if that count is even or odd. That's two logical operations. As luck would have it, on recent generations of x86 processors (Intel Nehalem or AMD Barcelona, and newer), there is an instruction that counts the number of set bits—POPCNT (population count, or Hamming weight)—which allows us to write assembly code that does this in two operations.
(Okay, actually three instructions, because there is a bug in the implementation of POPCNT on certain microarchitectures that creates a false dependency on its destination register, and to ensure we get maximum throughput from the code, we need to break this dependency by pre-clearing the destination register. Fortunately, this a very cheap operation, one that can generally be handled for "free" by register renaming.)
PopCount PROC
xor eax, eax ; break false dependency
popcnt rax, rcx
and eax, 1
ret
PopCount ENDP
In fact, as it turns out, GCC knows to emit exactly this code for the __builtin_parityll intrinsic when you target a microarchitecture that supports POPCNT (otherwise, it uses the fallback implementation shown below). As you can see from the benchmarks, this is the fastest code yet. It isn't a major difference, so it's unlikely to matter unless you're doing this repeatedly within a tight loop, but it is a measurable difference and presumably you wouldn't be optimizing this so heavily unless your profiler indicated that this was a hot-spot.
But the POPCNT instruction does have the drawback of not being available on older processors, so I also measured a "fallback" version of the code that does a population count with a sequence of universally-supported instructions. That is the PopCount_Downlevel function, taken from my private library, originally adapted from this answer and other sources.
PopCount_Downlevel PROC
mov rax, rcx
shr rax, 1
mov rdx, 5555555555555555h
and rax, rdx
sub rcx, rax
mov rax, 3333333333333333h
mov rdx, rcx
and rcx, rax
shr rdx, 2
and rdx, rax
add rdx, rcx
mov rcx, 0FF0F0F0F0F0F0F0Fh
mov rax, rdx
shr rax, 4
add rax, rdx
mov rdx, 0FF01010101010101h
and rax, rcx
imul rax, rdx
shr rax, 56
and eax, 1
ret
PopCount_Downlevel ENDP
As you can see from the benchmarks, all of the bit-twiddling instructions that are required here exact a cost in performance. It is slower than POPCNT, but supported on all systems and still reasonably quick. If you needed a bit count anyway, this would be the best solution, especially since it can be written in pure C without the need to resort to inline assembly, potentially yielding even more speed:
unsigned int PopCount_Downlevel(uint64 n)
{
uint64 temp = n - ((n >> 1) & 0x5555555555555555ULL);
temp = (temp & 0x3333333333333333ULL) + ((temp >> 2) & 0x3333333333333333ULL);
temp = (temp + (temp >> 4)) & 0x0F0F0F0F0F0F0F0FULL;
temp = (temp * 0x0101010101010101ULL) >> 56;
return (temp & 1);
}
But run your own benchmarks to see if you wouldn't be better off with one of the other implementations, like OriginalCCode, which simplifies the operation and thus requires fewer total instructions. Fun fact: Intel's compiler (ICC) always uses a population count-based algorithm to implement __builtin_parityll; it emits a POPCNT instruction if the target architecture supports it, or otherwise, it simulates it using essentially the same code as I've shown here.
Or, better yet, just forget the whole complicated mess and let your compiler deal with it. That's what built-ins are for, and there's one for precisely this purpose.
Because C sucks when handling bit operations, I suggest using gcc built in functions, in this case __builtin_parityl(). See:
https://gcc.gnu.org/onlinedocs/gcc/Other-Builtins.html
You will have to use extended inline assembly (which is a gcc extension) to get the similar effect.
Your parity64 function can be changed as follows -
uint parity64_unsafe_and_broken(uint64 n){
uint result = 0;
__asm__("addq $0, %0" : : "r"(n) :);
// editor's note: compiler-generated instructions here can destroy EFLAGS
// Don't depending on FLAGS / regs surviving between asm statements
// also, jumping out of an asm statement safely requires asm goto
__asm__("jnp 1f");
__asm__("movl $1, %0" : "=r"(result) : : );
__asm__("1:");
return result;
}
But as commented by #MichaelPetch the parity flag is computed only on the lower 8 bits. So this will work for your if your n is less than 255. For bigger numbers you will have to use the code you mentioned in your question.
To get it working for 64 bits you can collapse the parity of the 32 bit integer into single byte by doing
n = (n >> 32) ^ n;
n = (n >> 16) ^ n;
n = (n >> 8) ^ n;
This code will have to be just at the start of the function before the assembly.
You will have to check how it affects the performance.
The most optimized I could get it is
uint parity64(uint64 n){
unsigned char result = 0;
n = (n >> 32) ^ n;
n = (n >> 16) ^ n;
n = (n >> 8) ^ n;
__asm__("test %1, %1 \n\t"
"setp %0"
: "+r"(result)
: "r"(n)
:
);
return result;
}
How can I include the above (or similar) code as inline assembly in my C source file, so that the parity64() function runs that instead?
This is an XY problem... You think you need to inline that assembly to gain from its benefits, so you asked about how to inline it... but you don't need to inline it.
You shouldn't include assembly into your C source code, because in this case you don't need to, and the better alternative (in terms of portability and maintainability) is to keep the two pieces of source code separate, compile them separately and use the linker to link them.
In parity64.c you should have your portable version (with a wrapper named bool CheckParity(size_t result)), which you can default to in non-x86/64 situations.
You can compile this to an object file like so: gcc -c parity64.c -o parity64.o
... and then link the object code generated from assembly, with the C code: gcc bindot.c parity64.o -o bindot
In parity64_x86.s you might have the following assembly code from your question:
.code
; bool CheckParity(size_t Result)
CheckParity PROC
mov rax, 0
add rcx, 0
jnp jmp_over
mov rax, 1
jmp_over:
ret
CheckParity ENDP
END
You can compile this to an alternative parity64.o object file object code using gcc with this command: gcc -c parity64_x86.s -o parity64.o
... and then link the object code generated like so: gcc bindot.c parity64.o -o bindot
Similarly, if you wanted to use __builtin_parityl instead (as suggested by hdantes answer, you could (and should) once again keep that code separate (in the same place you keep other gcc/x86 optimisations) from your portable code. In parity64_x86.c you might have:
bool CheckParity(size_t result) {
return __builtin_parityl(result);
}
To compile this, your command would be: gcc -c parity64_x86.c -o parity64.o
... and then link the object code generated like so: gcc bindot.c parity64.o -o bindot
On a side-note, if you'd like to inspect the assembly gcc would produce from this: gcc -S parity64_x86.c
Comments in your assembly indicate that the equivalent function prototype in C would be bool CheckParity(size_t Result), so with that in mind, here's what bindot.c might look like:
extern bool CheckParity(size_t Result);
uint64_t bindot(uint64_t *a, uint64_t *b, size_t entries){
uint64_t parity = 0;
for(size_t i = 0; i < entries; ++i)
parity ^= a[i] & b[i]; // Running sum!
return CheckParity(parity);
}
You can build this and link it to any of the above parity64.o versions like so: gcc bindot.c parity64.o -o bindot...
I highly recommend reading the manual for your compiler, when you have the time...
The following piece of code was given to us from our instructor so we could measure some algorithms performance:
#include <stdio.h>
#include <unistd.h>
static unsigned cyc_hi = 0, cyc_lo = 0;
static void access_counter(unsigned *hi, unsigned *lo) {
asm("rdtsc; movl %%edx,%0; movl %%eax,%1"
: "=r" (*hi), "=r" (*lo)
: /* No input */
: "%edx", "%eax");
}
void start_counter() {
access_counter(&cyc_hi, &cyc_lo);
}
double get_counter() {
unsigned ncyc_hi, ncyc_lo, hi, lo, borrow;
double result;
access_counter(&ncyc_hi, &ncyc_lo);
lo = ncyc_lo - cyc_lo;
borrow = lo > ncyc_lo;
hi = ncyc_hi - cyc_hi - borrow;
result = (double) hi * (1 << 30) * 4 + lo;
return result;
}
However, I need this code to be portable to machines with different CPU frequencies. For that, I'm trying to calculate the CPU frequency of the machine where the code is being run like this:
int main(void)
{
double c1, c2;
start_counter();
c1 = get_counter();
sleep(1);
c2 = get_counter();
printf("CPU Frequency: %.1f MHz\n", (c2-c1)/1E6);
printf("CPU Frequency: %.1f GHz\n", (c2-c1)/1E9);
return 0;
}
The problem is that the result is always 0 and I can't understand why. I'm running Linux (Arch) as guest on VMware.
On a friend's machine (MacBook) it is working to some extent; I mean, the result is bigger than 0 but it's variable because the CPU frequency is not fixed (we tried to fix it but for some reason we are not able to do it). He has a different machine which is running Linux (Ubuntu) as host and it also reports 0. This rules out the problem being on the virtual machine, which I thought it was the issue at first.
Any ideas why this is happening and how can I fix it?
Okay, since the other answer wasn't helpful, I'll try to explain on more detail. The problem is that a modern CPU can execute instructions out of order. Your code starts out as something like:
rdtsc
push 1
call sleep
rdtsc
Modern CPUs do not necessarily execute instructions in their original order though. Despite your original order, the CPU is (mostly) free to execute that just like:
rdtsc
rdtsc
push 1
call sleep
In this case, it's clear why the difference between the two rdtscs would be (at least very close to) 0. To prevent that, you need to execute an instruction that the CPU will never rearrange to execute out of order. The most common instruction to use for that is CPUID. The other answer I linked should (if memory serves) start roughly from there, about the steps necessary to use CPUID correctly/effectively for this task.
Of course, it's possible that Tim Post was right, and you're also seeing problems because of a virtual machine. Nonetheless, as it stands right now, there's no guarantee that your code will work correctly even on real hardware.
Edit: as to why the code would work: well, first of all, the fact that instructions can be executed out of order doesn't guarantee that they will be. Second, it's possible that (at least some implementations of) sleep contain serializing instructions that prevent rdtsc from being rearranged around it, while others don't (or may contain them, but only execute them under specific (but unspecified) circumstances).
What you're left with is behavior that could change with almost any re-compilation, or even just between one run and the next. It could produce extremely accurate results dozens of times in a row, then fail for some (almost) completely unexplainable reason (e.g., something that happened in some other process entirely).
I can't say for certain what exactly is wrong with your code, but you're doing quite a bit of unnecessary work for such a simple instruction. I recommend you simplify your rdtsc code substantially. You don't need to do 64-bit math carries your self, and you don't need to store the result of that operation as a double. You don't need to use separate outputs in your inline asm, you can tell GCC to use eax and edx.
Here is a greatly simplified version of this code:
#include <stdint.h>
uint64_t rdtsc() {
uint64_t ret;
# if __WORDSIZE == 64
asm ("rdtsc; shl $32, %%rdx; or %%rdx, %%rax;"
: "=A"(ret)
: /* no input */
: "%edx"
);
#else
asm ("rdtsc"
: "=A"(ret)
);
#endif
return ret;
}
Also you should consider printing out the values you're getting out of this so you can see if you're getting out 0s, or something else.
As for VMWare, take a look at the time keeping spec (PDF Link), as well as this thread. TSC instructions are (depending on the guest OS):
Passed directly to the real hardware (PV guest)
Count cycles while the VM is executing on the host processor (Windows / etc)
Note, in #2 the while the VM is executing on the host processor. The same phenomenon would go for Xen, as well, if I recall correctly. In essence, you can expect that the code should work as expected on a paravirtualized guest. If emulated, its entirely unreasonable to expect hardware like consistency.
You forgot to use volatile in your asm statement, so you're telling the compiler that the asm statement produces the same output every time, like a pure function. (volatile is only implicit for asm statements with no outputs.)
This explains why you're getting exactly zero: the compiler optimized end-start to 0 at compile time, through CSE (common-subexpression elimination).
See my answer on Get CPU cycle count? for the __rdtsc() intrinsic, and #Mysticial's answer there has working GNU C inline asm, which I'll quote here:
// prefer using the __rdtsc() intrinsic instead of inline asm at all.
uint64_t rdtsc(){
unsigned int lo,hi;
__asm__ __volatile__ ("rdtsc" : "=a" (lo), "=d" (hi));
return ((uint64_t)hi << 32) | lo;
}
This works correctly and efficiently for 32 and 64-bit code.
hmmm I'm not positive but I suspect the problem may be inside this line:
result = (double) hi * (1 << 30) * 4 + lo;
I'm suspicious if you can safely carry out such huge multiplications in an "unsigned"... isn't that often a 32-bit number? ...just the fact that you couldn't safely multiply by 2^32 and had to append it as an extra "* 4" added to the 2^30 at the end already hints at this possibility... you might need to convert each sub-component hi and lo to a double (instead of a single one at the very end) and do the multiplication using the two doubles