Comments (2)
clausecker
commented on June 22, 2024
1
Implemented this idea. Thanks a lot!
from pospop.
clausecker
commented on June 22, 2024
Thanks for the contribution! I've just benchmarked it and it seems to give a decent 4–5% improvement on my Intel(R) Celeron(R) CPU G1610T @ 2.30GHz box:
name old speed new speed delta
Count8/sse2/1000-2 7.30GB/s ± 0% 7.51GB/s ± 0% +2.84% (p=0.000 n=9+9)
Count8/sse2/10000-2 9.10GB/s ± 0% 9.56GB/s ± 0% +5.10% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Count8/sse2/100000-2 9.71GB/s ± 0% 10.23GB/s ± 0% +5.36% (p=0.000 n=9+11)
Count8/sse2/1000000-2 9.75GB/s ± 0% 10.25GB/s ± 0% +5.13% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count8/sse2/10000000-2 8.98GB/s ± 1% 9.36GB/s ± 1% +4.24% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count8/sse2/100000000-2 8.94GB/s ± 0% 9.29GB/s ± 0% +3.93% (p=0.000 n=11+9)
Count16/sse2/1000-2 7.16GB/s ± 0% 7.31GB/s ± 0% +2.10% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count16/sse2/10000-2 9.07GB/s ± 0% 9.42GB/s ± 0% +3.84% (p=0.000 n=11+9)
Count16/sse2/100000-2 9.70GB/s ± 0% 10.23GB/s ± 0% +5.47% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Count16/sse2/1000000-2 9.74GB/s ± 0% 10.26GB/s ± 1% +5.34% (p=0.000 n=10+11)
Count16/sse2/10000000-2 8.97GB/s ± 1% 9.36GB/s ± 1% +4.29% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count16/sse2/100000000-2 8.92GB/s ± 1% 9.28GB/s ± 0% +4.04% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/1000-2 7.01GB/s ± 0% 7.20GB/s ± 0% +2.68% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/10000-2 9.06GB/s ± 0% 9.48GB/s ± 0% +4.66% (p=0.000 n=9+11)
Count32/sse2/100000-2 9.69GB/s ± 0% 10.21GB/s ± 0% +5.34% (p=0.000 n=9+11)
Count32/sse2/1000000-2 9.74GB/s ± 1% 10.26GB/s ± 1% +5.37% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/10000000-2 8.98GB/s ± 1% 9.34GB/s ± 1% +4.07% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/100000000-2 8.92GB/s ± 0% 9.28GB/s ± 0% +4.00% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count64/sse2/1000-2 6.72GB/s ± 0% 6.85GB/s ± 0% +1.98% (p=0.000 n=9+11)
Count64/sse2/10000-2 9.00GB/s ± 0% 9.43GB/s ± 0% +4.84% (p=0.000 n=9+10)
Count64/sse2/100000-2 9.69GB/s ± 0% 10.20GB/s ± 0% +5.30% (p=0.000 n=9+11)
Count64/sse2/1000000-2 9.75GB/s ± 0% 10.25GB/s ± 0% +5.17% (p=0.000 n=10+11)
Count64/sse2/10000000-2 8.97GB/s ± 0% 9.34GB/s ± 1% +4.04% (p=0.000 n=11+11)
Count64/sse2/100000000-2 8.92GB/s ± 0% 9.27GB/s ± 0% +3.85% (p=0.000 n=9+8)
However, it also reduces performance by 4–8% on my Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-4910MQ CPU @ 2.90GHz machine:
Count8/sse2/1000-8 11.6GB/s ± 1% 10.6GB/s ± 8% -8.31% (p=0.000 n=10+11)
Count8/sse2/10000-8 14.5GB/s ± 1% 13.7GB/s ± 7% -5.21% (p=0.001 n=11+11)
Count8/sse2/100000-8 15.4GB/s ± 2% 14.4GB/s ±11% -6.09% (p=0.001 n=11+11)
Count8/sse2/1000000-8 15.6GB/s ± 1% 14.7GB/s ± 7% -5.35% (p=0.002 n=10+11)
Count8/sse2/10000000-8 15.1GB/s ± 0% 14.0GB/s ±11% -7.05% (p=0.001 n=9+11)
Count8/sse2/100000000-8 13.8GB/s ± 1% 13.1GB/s ± 8% -4.70% (p=0.001 n=11+11)
Count16/sse2/1000-8 11.4GB/s ± 1% 10.4GB/s ± 3% -8.78% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Count16/sse2/10000-8 14.4GB/s ± 1% 13.5GB/s ± 7% -6.32% (p=0.000 n=11+10)
Count16/sse2/100000-8 15.5GB/s ± 1% 14.5GB/s ± 5% -6.04% (p=0.000 n=10+10)
Count16/sse2/1000000-8 15.5GB/s ± 1% 14.5GB/s ± 9% -6.95% (p=0.001 n=10+11)
Count16/sse2/10000000-8 14.9GB/s ± 2% 14.2GB/s ±10% -5.25% (p=0.003 n=11+11)
Count16/sse2/100000000-8 13.8GB/s ± 1% 13.3GB/s ± 3% -3.93% (p=0.000 n=11+10)
Count32/sse2/1000-8 11.2GB/s ± 2% 10.4GB/s ± 4% -7.46% (p=0.000 n=11+10)
Count32/sse2/10000-8 14.4GB/s ± 1% 13.6GB/s ±11% -5.64% (p=0.002 n=10+11)
Count32/sse2/100000-8 15.4GB/s ± 2% 14.8GB/s ±11% -4.05% (p=0.004 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/1000000-8 15.5GB/s ± 2% 14.9GB/s ±11% -3.63% (p=0.034 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/10000000-8 14.9GB/s ± 2% 14.6GB/s ± 8% -2.62% (p=0.023 n=11+11)
Count32/sse2/100000000-8 13.8GB/s ± 1% 13.5GB/s ± 6% -2.70% (p=0.013 n=11+11)
Count64/sse2/1000-8 10.7GB/s ± 0% 9.5GB/s ±12% -10.99% (p=0.000 n=10+11)
Count64/sse2/10000-8 14.3GB/s ± 2% 13.5GB/s ± 6% -5.35% (p=0.001 n=11+10)
Count64/sse2/100000-8 15.5GB/s ± 0% 14.6GB/s ± 8% -5.41% (p=0.016 n=9+11)
Count64/sse2/1000000-8 15.6GB/s ± 0% 14.6GB/s ± 9% -6.63% (p=0.002 n=9+10)
Count64/sse2/10000000-8 15.0GB/s ± 1% 13.9GB/s ± 8% -7.73% (p=0.000 n=11+10)
Count64/sse2/100000000-8 13.7GB/s ± 1% 13.1GB/s ± 9% -4.39% (p=0.001 n=11+10)
I believe the key difference lies indeed in that one of the two might rename SSE registers while the other doesn't. Perhaps it is possible to reschedule the CSA cascade such that none of the results needs to be available early. We do get an extra register worth of breathing room from this, so it might not be as complex as it seems. I'll have to think about it.
Being able to fuse a load with one of the exclusive or operations is another interesting possibility. I'll have to benchmark it.
from pospop.
Related Issues (2)
Recommend Projects
-
React
A declarative, efficient, and flexible JavaScript library for building user interfaces.
-
Vue.js
🖖 Vue.js is a progressive, incrementally-adoptable JavaScript framework for building UI on the web.
-
Typescript
TypeScript is a superset of JavaScript that compiles to clean JavaScript output.
-
TensorFlow
An Open Source Machine Learning Framework for Everyone
-
Django
The Web framework for perfectionists with deadlines.
-
Laravel
A PHP framework for web artisans
-
D3
Bring data to life with SVG, Canvas and HTML. 📊📈🎉
-
Recommend Topics
-
javascript
JavaScript (JS) is a lightweight interpreted programming language with first-class functions.
-
web
Some thing interesting about web. New door for the world.
-
server
A server is a program made to process requests and deliver data to clients.
-
Machine learning
Machine learning is a way of modeling and interpreting data that allows a piece of software to respond intelligently.
-
Visualization
Some thing interesting about visualization, use data art
-
Game
Some thing interesting about game, make everyone happy.
Recommend Org
-
Facebook
We are working to build community through open source technology. NB: members must have two-factor auth.
-
Microsoft
Open source projects and samples from Microsoft.
-
Google
Google ❤️ Open Source for everyone.
-
Alibaba
Alibaba Open Source for everyone
-
D3
Data-Driven Documents codes.
-
Tencent
China tencent open source team.
from pospop.