Andrew R Kerr
2010-Nov-03 18:34 UTC
[LLVMdev] LLVM x86 Code Generator discards Instruction-level Parallelism
Dear LLVMdev,
I've noticed an unusual behavior of the LLVM x86 code generator (with
default options)
that results in nearly a 4x slow-down in floating-point throughput for my
microbenchmark.
I've written a compute-intensive microbenchmark to approach theoretical peak
throughput of the target processor by issuing a large number of independent
floating-point multiplies. The distance between dependent instructions is at
least four instructions to match the latency of the floating-point functional
unit in my Intel Core2 Quad (Q9550 at 2.83 GHz).
The microbenchmark itself replicates the following block 512 times:
.
.
{
p1 = p1 * a;
p2 = p2 * b;
p3 = p3 * c;
p4 = p4 * d;
}
.
.
Compiling with NVCC, Ocelot, and LLVM, I can confirm the interleaved instruction
schedule with a four-instruction reuse distance. An excerpt follows:
.
.
%r1500 = fmul float %r1496, %r24 ; compute %1500
%r1501 = fmul float %r1497, %r23
%r1502 = fmul float %r1498, %r22
%r1503 = fmul float %r1499, %r21
%r1504 = fmul float %r1500, %r24 ; first use of %1500
%r1505 = fmul float %r1501, %r23
%r1506 = fmul float %r1502, %r22
%r1507 = fmul float %r1503, %r21
%r1508 = fmul float %r1504, %r24 ; first use of %1504
.
.
The JIT compiler, however, seems to break the interleaving of independent
instructions
and issues a long sequence of instructions with back-to-back dependencies. It is
as if
all p1 = .. expressions are collected at once followed by all p2 = ..
expressions and so
forth.
p1 = p1 * a
p1 = p1 * a
.
.
p2 = p2 * b
p2 = p2 * b
.
.
p3 = p3 * c
p3 = p3 * c
.
.
An actual excerpt of the generated x86 assembly follows:
mulss %xmm8, %xmm10
mulss %xmm8, %xmm10
.
. repeated 512 times
.
mulss %xmm7, %xmm9
mulss %xmm7, %xmm9
.
. repeated 512 times
.
mulss %xmm6, %xmm3
mulss %xmm6, %xmm3
.
. repeated 512 times
.
Since p1, p2, p3, and p4 are all independent, this reordering is correct. This
would have
the possible advantage of reducing live ranges of values. However, in this
microbenchmark,
the number of live values is eight single-precision floats - well within
SSE's sixteen
architectural registers.
Moreover, the pipeline latency is four cycles meaning back-to-back instructions
with true
dependencies cannot issue immediately. The benchmark was intentionally written
to avoid this
hazard but LLVM's code generator seems to ignore that when it schedules
instructions.
When I run this benchmark on my 2.83 GHz CPU, I observe the following
performance results:
1 threads 0.648891 GFLOP/s
2 threads 1.489049 GFLOP/s
3 threads 2.209838 GFLOP/s
4 threads 2.940443 GFLOP/s
When I rewrite the generated assembly by hand to exhibit the same interleaving
as in the
LLVM IR form
.
.
mulss %xmm8, %xmm10
mulss %xmm7, %xmm9
mulss %xmm6, %xmm3
mulss %xmm5, %xmm11
mulss %xmm8, %xmm10
mulss %xmm7, %xmm9
mulss %xmm6, %xmm3
mulss %xmm5, %xmm11
mulss %xmm8, %xmm10
mulss %xmm7, %xmm9
.
.
observed performance increases by nearly a factor of four:
1 threads 2.067118 GFLOP/s
2 threads 5.569419 GFLOP/s
3 threads 8.285519 GFLOP/s
4 threads 10.81742 GFLOP/s
I show similar results with packed single-precision floating point SIMD
instructions. The
LLVM-generated machine code is nearly 4x slower than the interleaved schedule
'suggested' by
the LLVM IR input.
Vectorized - No instruction interleaving - back-to-back dependencies
(issued by LLVM code generator)
1 threads 1.540621 GFLOP/s
2 threads 5.900833 GFLOP/s
3 threads 8.755953 GFLOP/s
4 threads 11.257122 GFLOP/s
Vectorized - Interleaved - stride-4 reuse distance
(hand-modified to interleave instructions)
1 threads 3.157255 GFLOP/s
2 threads 22.104369 GFLOP/s
3 threads 32.300111 GFLOP/s
4 threads 39.112162 GFLOP/s
It is worth noting that 39.1 GFLOP/s is approaching the theoretical limits of
the processor
(stated to be 45.25 GFLOP/s single-precision).
I've used the llc utility to test various pre-register-allocation
instruction schedulers
with the following results:
-pre-RA-sched
=default - discards ILP
=list-burr - discards ILP
=list-tdrr - crashes during code generation
=source - preserves interleaved instruction ordering and ILP
=list-hybrid - discards ILP
=list-ilp - discards ILP
=list-td - crashes during code generation
=fast - discards ILP
Can you comment?
--
Andrew Kerr
arkerr at gatech.edu
Evan Cheng
2010-Nov-05 05:51 UTC
[LLVMdev] LLVM x86 Code Generator discards Instruction-level Parallelism
The default x86 scheduler schedules to reduce register pressure since that's the primary concern for most code. list-ilp scheduler is designed to address the kind of issue you described but it's not quite done yet. Please file a bug and attach your microbenchmark. Evan On Nov 3, 2010, at 11:34 AM, Andrew R Kerr wrote:> Dear LLVMdev, > > I've noticed an unusual behavior of the LLVM x86 code generator (with default options) > that results in nearly a 4x slow-down in floating-point throughput for my microbenchmark. > > I've written a compute-intensive microbenchmark to approach theoretical peak > throughput of the target processor by issuing a large number of independent > floating-point multiplies. The distance between dependent instructions is at > least four instructions to match the latency of the floating-point functional > unit in my Intel Core2 Quad (Q9550 at 2.83 GHz). > > The microbenchmark itself replicates the following block 512 times: > > . > . > { > p1 = p1 * a; > p2 = p2 * b; > p3 = p3 * c; > p4 = p4 * d; > } > . > . > > Compiling with NVCC, Ocelot, and LLVM, I can confirm the interleaved instruction > schedule with a four-instruction reuse distance. An excerpt follows: > > . > . > %r1500 = fmul float %r1496, %r24 ; compute %1500 > %r1501 = fmul float %r1497, %r23 > %r1502 = fmul float %r1498, %r22 > %r1503 = fmul float %r1499, %r21 > > %r1504 = fmul float %r1500, %r24 ; first use of %1500 > %r1505 = fmul float %r1501, %r23 > %r1506 = fmul float %r1502, %r22 > %r1507 = fmul float %r1503, %r21 > > %r1508 = fmul float %r1504, %r24 ; first use of %1504 > . > . > > The JIT compiler, however, seems to break the interleaving of independent instructions > and issues a long sequence of instructions with back-to-back dependencies. It is as if > all p1 = .. expressions are collected at once followed by all p2 = .. expressions and so > forth. > > p1 = p1 * a > p1 = p1 * a > . > . > > p2 = p2 * b > p2 = p2 * b > . > . > > p3 = p3 * c > p3 = p3 * c > . > . > > An actual excerpt of the generated x86 assembly follows: > > mulss %xmm8, %xmm10 > mulss %xmm8, %xmm10 > . > . repeated 512 times > . > > mulss %xmm7, %xmm9 > mulss %xmm7, %xmm9 > . > . repeated 512 times > . > > mulss %xmm6, %xmm3 > mulss %xmm6, %xmm3 > . > . repeated 512 times > . > > Since p1, p2, p3, and p4 are all independent, this reordering is correct. This would have > the possible advantage of reducing live ranges of values. However, in this microbenchmark, > the number of live values is eight single-precision floats - well within SSE's sixteen > architectural registers. > > Moreover, the pipeline latency is four cycles meaning back-to-back instructions with true > dependencies cannot issue immediately. The benchmark was intentionally written to avoid this > hazard but LLVM's code generator seems to ignore that when it schedules instructions. > > When I run this benchmark on my 2.83 GHz CPU, I observe the following performance results: > > 1 threads 0.648891 GFLOP/s > 2 threads 1.489049 GFLOP/s > 3 threads 2.209838 GFLOP/s > 4 threads 2.940443 GFLOP/s > > When I rewrite the generated assembly by hand to exhibit the same interleaving as in the > LLVM IR form > > . > . > mulss %xmm8, %xmm10 > mulss %xmm7, %xmm9 > mulss %xmm6, %xmm3 > mulss %xmm5, %xmm11 > > mulss %xmm8, %xmm10 > mulss %xmm7, %xmm9 > mulss %xmm6, %xmm3 > mulss %xmm5, %xmm11 > > mulss %xmm8, %xmm10 > mulss %xmm7, %xmm9 > . > . > > observed performance increases by nearly a factor of four: > > 1 threads 2.067118 GFLOP/s > 2 threads 5.569419 GFLOP/s > 3 threads 8.285519 GFLOP/s > 4 threads 10.81742 GFLOP/s > > I show similar results with packed single-precision floating point SIMD instructions. The > LLVM-generated machine code is nearly 4x slower than the interleaved schedule 'suggested' by > the LLVM IR input. > > Vectorized - No instruction interleaving - back-to-back dependencies > (issued by LLVM code generator) > > 1 threads 1.540621 GFLOP/s > 2 threads 5.900833 GFLOP/s > 3 threads 8.755953 GFLOP/s > 4 threads 11.257122 GFLOP/s > > Vectorized - Interleaved - stride-4 reuse distance > (hand-modified to interleave instructions) > > 1 threads 3.157255 GFLOP/s > 2 threads 22.104369 GFLOP/s > 3 threads 32.300111 GFLOP/s > 4 threads 39.112162 GFLOP/s > > It is worth noting that 39.1 GFLOP/s is approaching the theoretical limits of the processor > (stated to be 45.25 GFLOP/s single-precision). > > I've used the llc utility to test various pre-register-allocation instruction schedulers > with the following results: > > -pre-RA-sched > =default - discards ILP > =list-burr - discards ILP > =list-tdrr - crashes during code generation > > =source - preserves interleaved instruction ordering and ILP > > =list-hybrid - discards ILP > =list-ilp - discards ILP > =list-td - crashes during code generation > =fast - discards ILP > > Can you comment? > > -- > Andrew Kerr > arkerr at gatech.edu > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev