36
\$\begingroup\$

I am running a math-oriented computation that spends a significant amount of its time doing memcpy, always copying 80 bytes from one location to the next, an array of 20 32-bit ints. The total computation takes around 4-5 days using both cores of my i7, so even a 1% speedup results in about an hour saved.

By using the memcpy in this paper by Intel, I was able to speed up by about 25%, and also dropping the size argument and simply declaring inside seems to have some small effect. However, I feel I am not utilising the fact that my copying operations are always the same size. That said, I can't come up with a better way.

void *memcpyi80(void* __restrict b, const void* __restrict a){
    size_t n = 80;
    char *s1 = b;
    const char *s2 = a;
    for(; 0<n; --n)*s1++ = *s2++;
    return b;
}

Some other things that may be useful for optimization:

  1. I use an Intel Core i7-2620M, based on Sandy Bridge. I don't care about portability at all.

  2. I only care about the 16 least significant bits of every int. The other 16 are useless to me and are permanently zeroed out.

  3. Even though I copy 20 32-bit ints per memcpy invocation, I only care about the first 17. I have added 3 as it helps with alignment and therefore speed.

  4. I use GCC 4.6 on Windows 7.

Any ideas?

UPDATE:

I think this is the assembly output (never done this before, there may be more than you need):

memcpyi80:
    pushq   %r12
    .seh_pushreg    %r12
    pushq   %rbp
    .seh_pushreg    %rbp
    pushq   %rdi
    .seh_pushreg    %rdi
    pushq   %rsi
    .seh_pushreg    %rsi
    pushq   %rbx
    .seh_pushreg    %rbx
    .seh_endprologue
    movq    %rdx, %r9
    movq    %rcx, %rax
    negq    %r9
    andl    $15, %r9d
    je  .L165
    movzbl  (%rdx), %ecx
    leaq    -1(%r9), %r10
    movl    $79, %esi
    andl    $7, %r10d
    cmpq    $1, %r9
    movl    $79, %ebx
    leaq    1(%rdx), %r8
    movl    $1, %r11d
    movb    %cl, (%rax)
    leaq    1(%rax), %rcx
    jbe .L159
    testq   %r10, %r10
    je  .L160
    cmpq    $1, %r10
    je  .L250
    cmpq    $2, %r10
    je  .L251
    cmpq    $3, %r10
    je  .L252
    cmpq    $4, %r10
    je  .L253
    cmpq    $5, %r10
    je  .L254
    cmpq    $6, %r10
    je  .L255
    movzbl  (%r8), %r8d
    movl    $2, %r11d
    movb    %r8b, (%rcx)
    leaq    2(%rax), %rcx
    leaq    2(%rdx), %r8
.L255:
    movzbl  (%r8), %ebx
    addq    $1, %r11
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %bl, (%rcx)
    addq    $1, %rcx
.L254:
    movzbl  (%r8), %r10d
    addq    $1, %r11
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %r10b, (%rcx)
    addq    $1, %rcx
.L253:
    movzbl  (%r8), %edi
    addq    $1, %r11
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %dil, (%rcx)
    addq    $1, %rcx
.L252:
    movzbl  (%r8), %ebp
    addq    $1, %r11
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %bpl, (%rcx)
    addq    $1, %rcx
.L251:
    movzbl  (%r8), %r12d
    addq    $1, %r11
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %r12b, (%rcx)
    addq    $1, %rcx
.L250:
    movzbl  (%r8), %ebx
    addq    $1, %r8
    movb    %bl, (%rcx)
    movq    %rsi, %rbx
    addq    $1, %rcx
    subq    %r11, %rbx
    addq    $1, %r11
    cmpq    %r11, %r9
    jbe .L159
    .p2align 4,,10
.L160:
    movzbl  (%r8), %r12d
    movb    %r12b, (%rcx)
    movzbl  1(%r8), %ebp
    movb    %bpl, 1(%rcx)
    movzbl  2(%r8), %edi
    movb    %dil, 2(%rcx)
    movzbl  3(%r8), %ebx
    movb    %bl, 3(%rcx)
    leaq    7(%r11), %rbx
    addq    $8, %r11
    movzbl  4(%r8), %r10d
    movb    %r10b, 4(%rcx)
    movq    %rsi, %r10
    movzbl  5(%r8), %r12d
    subq    %rbx, %r10
    movq    %r10, %rbx
    movb    %r12b, 5(%rcx)
    movzbl  6(%r8), %ebp
    movb    %bpl, 6(%rcx)
    movzbl  7(%r8), %edi
    addq    $8, %r8
    movb    %dil, 7(%rcx)
    addq    $8, %rcx
    cmpq    %r11, %r9
    ja  .L160
.L159:
    movl    $80, %r12d
    subq    %r9, %r12
    movq    %r12, %rsi
    shrq    $4, %rsi
    movq    %rsi, %rbp
    salq    $4, %rbp
    testq   %rbp, %rbp
    je  .L161
    leaq    (%rdx,%r9), %r10
    addq    %rax, %r9
    movl    $1, %r11d
    leaq    -1(%rsi), %rdi
    vmovdqa (%r10), %xmm0
    movl    $16, %edx
    andl    $7, %edi
    cmpq    $1, %rsi
    vmovdqu %xmm0, (%r9)
    jbe .L256
    testq   %rdi, %rdi
    je  .L162
    cmpq    $1, %rdi
    je  .L244
    cmpq    $2, %rdi
    je  .L245
    cmpq    $3, %rdi
    je  .L246
    cmpq    $4, %rdi
    je  .L247
    cmpq    $5, %rdi
    je  .L248
    cmpq    $6, %rdi
    je  .L249
    vmovdqa 16(%r10), %xmm3
    movl    $2, %r11d
    movl    $32, %edx
    vmovdqu %xmm3, 16(%r9)
.L249:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm4
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm4, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
.L248:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm5
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm5, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
.L247:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm0
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm0, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
.L246:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm1
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm1, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
.L245:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm2
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm2, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
.L244:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm3
    addq    $1, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm3, (%r9,%rdx)
    addq    $16, %rdx
    cmpq    %r11, %rsi
    jbe .L256
    .p2align 4,,10
.L162:
    vmovdqa (%r10,%rdx), %xmm2
    addq    $8, %r11
    vmovdqu %xmm2, (%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 16(%r10,%rdx), %xmm1
    vmovdqu %xmm1, 16(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 32(%r10,%rdx), %xmm0
    vmovdqu %xmm0, 32(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 48(%r10,%rdx), %xmm5
    vmovdqu %xmm5, 48(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 64(%r10,%rdx), %xmm4
    vmovdqu %xmm4, 64(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 80(%r10,%rdx), %xmm3
    vmovdqu %xmm3, 80(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 96(%r10,%rdx), %xmm2
    vmovdqu %xmm2, 96(%r9,%rdx)
    vmovdqa 112(%r10,%rdx), %xmm1
    vmovdqu %xmm1, 112(%r9,%rdx)
    subq    $-128, %rdx
    cmpq    %r11, %rsi
    ja  .L162
.L256:
    addq    %rbp, %rcx
    addq    %rbp, %r8
    subq    %rbp, %rbx
    cmpq    %rbp, %r12
    je  .L163
.L161:
    movzbl  (%r8), %edx
    leaq    -1(%rbx), %r9
    andl    $7, %r9d
    movb    %dl, (%rcx)
    movl    $1, %edx
    cmpq    %rbx, %rdx
    je  .L163
    testq   %r9, %r9
    je  .L164
    cmpq    $1, %r9
    je  .L238
    cmpq    $2, %r9
    je  .L239
    cmpq    $3, %r9
    je  .L240
    cmpq    $4, %r9
    je  .L241
    cmpq    $5, %r9
    je  .L242
    cmpq    $6, %r9
    je  .L243
    movzbl  1(%r8), %edx
    movb    %dl, 1(%rcx)
    movl    $2, %edx
.L243:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %esi
    movb    %sil, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
.L242:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %r11d
    movb    %r11b, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
.L241:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %r10d
    movb    %r10b, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
.L240:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %edi
    movb    %dil, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
.L239:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %ebp
    movb    %bpl, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
.L238:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %r12d
    movb    %r12b, (%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $1, %rdx
    cmpq    %rbx, %rdx
    je  .L163
    .p2align 4,,10
.L164:
    movzbl  (%r8,%rdx), %r9d
    movb    %r9b, (%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  1(%r8,%rdx), %r12d
    movb    %r12b, 1(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  2(%r8,%rdx), %ebp
    movb    %bpl, 2(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  3(%r8,%rdx), %edi
    movb    %dil, 3(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  4(%r8,%rdx), %r10d
    movb    %r10b, 4(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  5(%r8,%rdx), %r11d
    movb    %r11b, 5(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  6(%r8,%rdx), %esi
    movb    %sil, 6(%rcx,%rdx)
    movzbl  7(%r8,%rdx), %r9d
    movb    %r9b, 7(%rcx,%rdx)
    addq    $8, %rdx
    cmpq    %rbx, %rdx
    jne .L164
.L163:
    popq    %rbx
    popq    %rsi
    popq    %rdi
    popq    %rbp
    popq    %r12
    ret
.L165:
    movq    %rdx, %r8
    movl    $80, %ebx
    jmp .L159
    .seh_endproc
    .p2align 4,,15
    .globl  memcpyi
    .def    memcpyi;    .scl    2;  .type   32; .endef
    .seh_proc   memcpyi

UPDATE:

By building on Peter Alexander's solution and combining it with ideas from around the thread, I have produced this:

void memcpyi80(void* __restrict b, const void* __restrict a){
    __m128 *s1 = b;
    const __m128 *s2 = a;
    *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; 
}

The speedup is small but measurable (about 1%). Now I guess my next temptation is to find how to use __m256 AVX types so I can do it in 3 steps rather than 5.

UPDATE:

The __m256 type requires alignment on the 32-bit barrier, which makes things slower, so it seems __m128 is a sweet spot.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 7
    \$\begingroup\$ Is it possible something else (other than the memcpy) can be optimized? What I see a lot is people think the problem is here when it's not. It's there. \$\endgroup\$ – Mike Dunlavey Oct 22 '11 at 14:43
  • \$\begingroup\$ Have you try unroll the loop? Do 17 instead of 20? You can also take care of condition 2 at the same time because the values are in the registers already. Int should be 4-byte aligned, copy int instead of char? Save you look at Intel SSE instructions? \$\endgroup\$ – user7859 Oct 22 '11 at 15:04
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ If you only care about the 16 least significant bits why aren't you using shorts? \$\endgroup\$ – user7863 Oct 22 '11 at 16:29
  • \$\begingroup\$ MikeDunlavey - I have been optimizing this algo for over a year. Could there be a better way? Maybe, but it's not something obvious. I will post other parts of it here for review once I get done with the suggestions in this thread. @qwert - Using shorts apparently is not making the compiler happy - it seems to slow things down. I will try again though, I had tried it a while ago. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 11:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Excellent job commenting on answers with respective improvement/regression! \$\endgroup\$ – Nitsan Wakart Aug 1 '14 at 14:55
27
\$\begingroup\$

The fastest way to do this would be to align your data on 16-byte boundaries, then the entire copy just becomes 5 copies through XMM registers.

This is over twice as fast as your version on my machine.

Store your data like this:

#include <xmmintrin.h>
struct Data
{
    union
    {
        int i[20];
        __m128 v[5];
    };
};

Then the copy function is just:

void memcpyv5(__m128* __restrict b, const __m128* __restrict a)
{
    __m128 t0 = a[0];
    __m128 t1 = a[1];
    __m128 t2 = a[2];
    __m128 t3 = a[3];
    __m128 t4 = a[4];
    b[0] = t0;
    b[1] = t1;
    b[2] = t2;
    b[3] = t3;
    b[4] = t4;
}

// Example
Data dst, src;
memcpyv5(dst.v, src.v);

Assembly output:

__Z8memcpyv5PU8__vectorfPKS_:
LFB493:
    pushq   %rbp
LCFI2:
    movq    %rsp, %rbp
LCFI3:
    movaps  16(%rsi), %xmm3
    movaps  32(%rsi), %xmm2
    movaps  48(%rsi), %xmm1
    movaps  64(%rsi), %xmm0
    movaps  (%rsi), %xmm4
    movaps  %xmm4, (%rdi)
    movaps  %xmm3, 16(%rdi)
    movaps  %xmm2, 32(%rdi)
    movaps  %xmm1, 48(%rdi)
    movaps  %xmm0, 64(%rdi)
    leave
    ret
\$\endgroup\$
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ Great use of the hardware, especially since portability is not a a concern. \$\endgroup\$ – Jeff Mercado Oct 23 '11 at 0:49
  • \$\begingroup\$ Not looking good. Simply converting my code to use structs takes it from <15sec to >40sec. Using the new memcpy function takes it to 37.5 sec. So the function is better but using structs kills the program. I will look for a way to use the xmmintrin commands without structs to see if anything changes and get back. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 16:29
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You can avoid using structs by manually aligning your data (check your compiler docs) and just casting it to (__m128*). \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Alexander Oct 23 '11 at 16:50
  • \$\begingroup\$ See update, I've made a version that gives a 1% speedup. Thank you very much for the answer. Any idea how to use __m256 vectors? cheers. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 19:43
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ @AlexandrosMarinos: Sandybridge does 256b loads / stores in 2 cycles anyway. They're still single-uop instructions, but it's only significantly faster with Haswell, which has 256b data paths to/from L1 cache. If your data is 32B-aligned, it could be a small gain on SnB, but not if you get a store-forwarding stall because it was written very recently with 16B writes. Also, 256b ops are slower than 128b until the CPU stops for thousands of cycles to power up the upper 128b lane in the execution units. It powers down if unused for ~1 ms. agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=142#378 \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Cordes Sep 18 '15 at 23:38
7
\$\begingroup\$

Taking Benefits of The Out-of-Order Execution Engine

You can also read about The Out-of-Order Execution Engine in the "Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual" http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-optimization-manual.pdf section the 2.1.2, and take benefits of it.

For example, in Intel SkyLake processor series (launched in 2015), it has:

  • 4 execution units for the Arithmetic logic unit (ALU) (add, and, cmp, or, test, xor, movzx, movsx, mov, (v)movdqu, (v)movdqa, (v)movap*, (v)movup),
  • 3 execution units for Vector ALU ( (v)pand, (v)por, (v)pxor, (v)movq, (v)movq, (v)movap*, (v)movup*, (v)andp*, (v)orp*, (v)paddb/w/d/q, (v)blendv*, (v)blendp*, (v)pblendd)

So we can occupy above units (3+4) in parallel if we use register-only operations. We cannot use 3+4 instructions in parallel for memory copy. We can use simultaneously maximum of up to two 32-bytes instructions to load from memory and one 32-bytes instructions to store from memory, and even if we are working with Level-1 cache.

Please see the Intel manual again to understand on how to do the fastest memcpy implementation: http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-optimization-manual.pdf

Section 2.2.2 (The Out-of-Order Engine on the Haswell micro-architecture): "The Scheduler controls the dispatch of micro-ops onto the dispatch ports. There are eight dispatch ports to support the out-of-order execution core. Four of the eight ports provided execution resources for computational operations. The other 4 ports support memory operations of up to two 256-bit load and one 256-bit store operation in a cycle."

Section 2.2.4 (Cache and Memory Subsystem) has the following note: "First level data cache supports two load micro-ops each cycle; each micro-op can fetch up to 32-bytes of data."

Section 2.2.4.1 (Load and Store Operation Enhancements) has the following information: The L1 data cache can handle two 256-bit (32 bytes) load and one 256-bit (32 bytes) store operations each cycle. The unified L2 can service one cache line (64 bytes) each cycle. Additionally, there are 72 load buffers and 42 store buffers available to support micro-ops execution in-flight.

The other sections (2.3 and so on, dedicated to Sandy Bridge and other microarchitectures) basically reiterate the above information.

The section 2.3.4 (The Execution Core) gives additional details.

The scheduler can dispatch up to six micro-ops every cycle, one on each port. The following table summarizes which operations can be dispatched on which port.

  • Port 0: ALU, Shift, Mul, STTNI, Int-Div, 128b-Mov, Blend, 256b-Mov
  • Port 1: ALU, Fast LEA, Slow LEA, MUL, Shuf, Blend, 128bMov, Add, CVT
  • Port 2 & Port 3: Load_Addr, Store_addr
  • Port 4: Store_data
  • Port 5: ALU, Shift, Branch, Fast LEA, Shuf, Blend, 128b-Mov, 256b-Mov

The section 2.3.5.1 (Load and Store Operation Overview) may also be useful to understand on how to make fast memory copy, as well as the section 2.4.4.1 (Loads and Stores).

For the other processor architectures, it is again - two load units and one store unit. Table 2-4 (Cache Parameters of the Skylake Microarchitecture) has the following information:

Peak Bandwidth (bytes/cyc):

  • First Level Data Cache: 96 bytes (2x32B Load + 1*32B Store)
  • Second Level Cache: 64 bytes
  • Third Level Cache: 32 bytes.

I have also done speed tests on my Intel Core i5 6600 CPU (Skylake, 14nm, released in September 2015) with DDR4 memory, and this has confirmed the theory. For example, my tests have shown that using generic 64-bit registers for memory copy, even many registers in parallel, degrades performance. Also, using just 2 XMM registers is enough - adding the 3rd doesn't add performance.

If your CPU has AVX CPUID bit, you may take benefits of the large, 256-bit (32 byte) YMM registers to copy memory, to occupy two full load units. The AVX support was first introduced by Intel with the Sandy Bridge processors, shipping in Q1 2011 and later on by AMD with the Bulldozer processor shipping in Q3 2011.

// first cycle - use two load  units
vmovdqa  ymm0, ymmword ptr [esi+0]       // load first part (32 bytes)
vmovdqa  ymm1, ymmword ptr [esi+32]      // load 2nd part (32 bytes)

// second cycle - use one load unit and one store unit
vmovdqa  xmm2, xmmword ptr [esi+64]      // load 3rd part (16 bytes)
vmovdqa  ymmword ptr [edi+0],  ymm0      // store first part

// third cycle - use one store unit
vmovdqa  ymmword ptr [edi+32], ymm1      // store 2nd part

// fourth cycle - use one store unit
vmovdqa  xmmword ptr [edi+64], xmm2      // store 3rd part

Just make sure your data is aligned by 16 bytes (for the XMM registers) and by 32 bytes (for the YMM registers), otherwise there will be an Access Violation error. If the data is not aligned, use unaligned commands: vmovdqu and movups respectively.

If you are lucky to have an AVX-512 processor, you can copy 80 bytes in just four instructions:

vmovdqu64   zmm0, [esi]
vmovdqu     xmm1, [esi+64]       
vmovdqu64   [edi], zmm0
vmovdqu     [edi+64], xmm1       

Further reading - ERMSB (not needed to copy exactly 80 bytes but for much larger blocks)

If your CPU has CPUID ERMSB (Enhanced REP MOVSB) bit, then rep movsb command is executed differently than on older processors. It is faster than REP MOVSD (MOVSQ), but only on large blocks.

REP MOVSB is faster than plain simple "MOV RAX in loop" copy only starting form 256-byte blocks, and faster then AVX copy starting from 2048 bytes-blocks.

So, since your block size is 80 bytes only, ERMSB will not give you any benefit.

Get Microsoft Visual Studio, and look for memcpy.asm - it has different scenarios for differnt processora and different block sizes - so you will be able to figure out which method is best to use for your processor and your block size.

In the meanwhile, I can consider Intel ERMSB "half-baked", because there is high internal startup in ERMSB - about 35 cycles, and because of the other limitations.

See the Intel Manual on Optimization, section 3.7.6 Enhanced REP MOVSB and STOSB operation (ERMSB) http://www.intel.com/content/dam/www/public/us/en/documents/manuals/64-ia-32-architectures-optimization-manual.pdf

  • startup cost is 35 cycles;
  • both the source and destination addresses have to be aligned to a 16-Byte boundary;
  • the source region should not overlap with the destination region;
  • the length have to be a multiple of 64 to produce higher performance;
  • the direction have to be forward (CLD).

I hope that in future Intel will eliminate such a high startup costs.

\$\endgroup\$
2
\$\begingroup\$

If you really need this part as fast as possible, one obvious route would be to write it in assembly language. The assembly language you've posted looks a bit on the insane side for this task (at least to me). Given a fixed size, the obvious route would be something like:

; warning: I haven't written a lot of assembly code recently -- I could have 
; some of the syntax a bit wrong.
;
memcpyi80 proc dest:ptr byte src:ptr byte
    mov esi, src
    mov edi, dest
    mov ecx, 20    ; 80/4
    rep movsd
memcpyi80 endp

That is definitely open to improvement by using (for one example) moves through the SSE registers, but I'll leave that for others to play with. The improvement is pretty small though: recent processors have a special path specifically for memory copies, which this will use, so it's pretty competitive despite its simplicity.

@Mike Dunlavey's comment is good though: most of the time people think they need a faster memory copy, they really need to re-think their code to simply avoid needing it.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ really old answer, but it wasn't until IvyBridge that fast string ops were introduced. (smarter microcode for rep movsb with lower startup overhead, and I think better handling of misalignment). intel.com/content/dam/doc/manual/… section 3.7.7. Since vector-copy wins for general memcpy sizes under 128 bytes even on IvB, and in this case the size is an exact multiple of the vector width, using vectors is going to be better even on IvB and later with fast movsb. \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Cordes Sep 18 '15 at 23:45
1
\$\begingroup\$

Code below is optimized:

void *memcpyi72(void* __restrict b, const void * __restrict a)
{
  return memcpy(b,a, 18*sizeof(int));
}

GCC with -O3 generates the same assembly for this function as for the Pubby8 code. There's no need to use structs.

\$\endgroup\$
  • 2
    \$\begingroup\$ Using this slows down my computation by approx. 5%. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 16:20
0
\$\begingroup\$

What is the assembly generated?

I remember finding that using structs can speed things up:

typedef struct {
  int x[17] __attribute__ ((packed));
  int padding __attribute__ ((packed, unused));
} cbytes __attribute__ ((packed));


void *memcpyi80(cbytes* __restrict b, const cbytes* __restrict a){
    size_t n = 80 / sizeof(cbytes);
    cbytes *s1 = b;
    const cbytes *s2 = a;
    for(; 0<n; --n)*s1++ = *s2++;
    return b;
}
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ Thank you. Added asm output. Will try the struct approach and let you know. (Am afk for the next 20h unfortunately) \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 22 '11 at 10:59
0
\$\begingroup\$

You know what the size is, and you know it's ints, so do a little insider-trading:

void myCopy(int* dest, int* src){
    dest[ 0] = src[ 0];
    dest[ 1] = src[ 1];
    dest[ 2] = src[ 2];
    ...
    dest[19] = src[19];
}
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This gives approx. 15% slowdown. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 18:44
  • \$\begingroup\$ @Alex: Hmm... Then the next thing I would do is take maybe 20 stackshots so I would be confirming / deconfirming any guesses I might have about what's really going on. \$\endgroup\$ – Mike Dunlavey Oct 23 '11 at 22:25
0
\$\begingroup\$

The compiler cannot vectorize your version. If you simply change the for loop to be indexed instead of dereferenced, you will see a huge speed improvement. I get >10x speed up for this:

void *memcpyi80(void* __restrict b, const void* __restrict a) {
    size_t n = 80;
    char *s1 = b;
    const char *s2 = a;
    for(; 0 < n; --n) {
      s1[n] = s2[n];
    }
    return b;
}
\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ This does not appear to copy correctly. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 16:16
  • \$\begingroup\$ -1 : array indices are start at 0, your code assumes they start at 1 \$\endgroup\$ – Tom Knapen Oct 23 '11 at 18:00
  • \$\begingroup\$ With Tom's fix it takes about 80% longer to run than my current implementation. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 18:39
0
\$\begingroup\$

You are copying byte by byte, so it would be a lot faster copying int by int instead. Also unrolling the loop should help:

void *memcpyi80(void* __restrict b, const void* __restrict a){
  int* s1 = b;
  int* s2 = a;
  *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++;
  *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++;
  *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++;
  *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++;
  *s1++ = *s2++;
  // *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++; *s1++ = *s2++;
  return b;
}

In C# I have found that separating the access and incrementation is faster, so that's worth a try:

void *memcpyi80(void* __restrict b, const void* __restrict a){
  int* s1 = b;
  int* s2 = a;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++;
  // *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2; s1++; s2++; *s1 = *s2;
  return b;
}
\$\endgroup\$
  • 1
    \$\begingroup\$ This slows it down by >13% on mine. \$\endgroup\$ – Alexandros Marinos Oct 23 '11 at 16:18
-1
\$\begingroup\$

There's no way any solution in c or c++ could be better than assembly (unless of course, it was horribly written). The answer with the assembly language from Jerry Coffin above...

memcpyi80 proc dest:ptr byte src:ptr byte
    mov esi, src   ; load source address
    mov edi, dest  ; load destination address
    mov ecx, 20    ; initialize count register (80/4)
    rep movsd      ; perform transfer
memcpyi80 endp

cannot be improved upon, in my opinion, unless it's possible to use a smaller number larger operands. Naturally the memory addresses need to be aligned properly. The rep movsd instruction is the only part of the code that does any work, automatically incrementing the count register until the operation is complete.

What you might try is to pass the count as a separate parameter and then split the data into as many parts as you have cores, and call the function with a separate thread for each part.

\$\endgroup\$
  • \$\begingroup\$ oops - the formatting of the assembly got nuked there... \$\endgroup\$ – Fred Oct 23 '11 at 9:04
  • \$\begingroup\$ Another thing - if you run on a 64-bit o/s and use 64-bit assembly you should also be able to use 64-bit operands - i.e. 8 bytes at a time instead of just 4 using 32-bt. \$\endgroup\$ – Fred Oct 23 '11 at 9:12
  • 3
    \$\begingroup\$ You want to multithread an 80-byte copy??? Even having a different thread do the whole copy would be a huge performance hit, because the cache line would end up in the "modified" state in the L1 cache of another core, and would have to be transferred back to the core running the main thread. Not to mention that there'd be no way to send a request to another thread in less time than it takes to just copy 80 bytes. rep movsd isn't terrible, but the microcode has high startup overhead. For short copies, fully-unrolled SSE / AVX is faster. \$\endgroup\$ – Peter Cordes Sep 19 '15 at 0:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.