Performance Zone is brought to you in partnership with:

Martin is a high-performance and low-latency specialist, with experience gained over two decades working with large scale transactional and big-data domains, including automotive, gaming, financial, mobile, and content management. He believes Mechanical Sympathy - applying an understanding of the hardware to the creation of software - is fundamental to delivering elegant, high-performance, solutions. Martin was the co-founder and CTO of LMAX, until he left to specialise in helping other people achieve great performance with their software. The Disruptor concurrent programming framework is just one example of what his mechanical sympathy has created. He blogs at mechanical-sympathy.blogspot.com Martin is a DZone MVB and is not an employee of DZone and has posted 29 posts at DZone. You can read more from them at their website. View Full User Profile

Further Adventures With CAS Instructions And Micro Benchmarking

01.26.2013
| 889 views |
  • submit to reddit

 In a previous article I reported what appeared to be a performance issue with CAS/LOCK instructions on the Sandy Bridge microarchitecture compared to the previous Nehalem microarchitecture.  Since then I've worked with the good people of Intel to understand what was going on and I'm now pleased to be able to shine some light on the previous results.

I observed a small drop in throughput with the uncontended single-thread case, and an order-of-magnitude decrease in throughput once multiple threads contend when performing updates.  This testing spawned out of observations testing Java Queue implementations and the Disruptor for the multi-producer case.  I was initially puzzled by these findings because almost every other performance test I applied to Sandy Bridge indicated a major step forward for this microarchitecture.

After digging deeper into this issue it has come to light that my tests have once again fallen fowl of the difficulties in micro-benchmarking.  My test is not a good means of testing throughput and it is actually testing fairness in a roundabout manner.  Let's revisit the code and work through what is going on.

Test Code

#include <time.h>
#include <pthread.h>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <iostream>
 
typedef unsigned long long uint64;
 
const uint64 COUNT = 500 * 1000 * 1000;
 
volatile uint64 counter = 0;
 
void* run_add(void* numThreads)
{
    register uint64 value = (COUNT / *((int*)numThreads)) + 1;
 
    while (--value != 0)
    {
        __sync_add_and_fetch(&counter, 1);
    }
}
 
void* run_xadd(void*)
{
    register uint64 value = counter;
 
    while (value < COUNT)
    {
        value = __sync_add_and_fetch(&counter, 1);
    }
}
 
void* run_cas(void*)
{
    register uint64 value = 0;
 
    while (value < COUNT)
    {
        do
        {
            value = counter;
        }
        while (!__sync_bool_compare_and_swap(&counter, value, value + 1));
    }
}
 
void* run_cas2(void*)
{
    register uint64 value = 0;
    register uint64 next = 0;
 
    while (value < COUNT)
    {
        value = counter;
        do
        {
            next = value + 1;
            value = __sync_val_compare_and_swap(&counter, value, next);
        }
        while (value != next);
    }
}
 
int main (int argc, char *argv[])
{
    const int NUM_THREADS = atoi(argv[1]);
    const int TESTCASE = atoi(argv[2]);
 
    pthread_t threads[NUM_THREADS];
    void* status;
 
    timespec ts_start;
    timespec ts_finish;
    clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts_start);
 
 
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)
    {
        switch (TESTCASE)
        {
            case 1:
                std::cout << "LOCK ADD" << std::endl;
                pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, run_add, (void*)&NUM_THREADS);
                break;
 
            case 2:
                std::cout << "LOCK XADD" << std::endl;
                pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, run_xadd, (void*)&NUM_THREADS);
                break;
 
            case 3:
                std::cout << "LOCK CMPXCHG BOOL" << std::endl;
                pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, run_cas, (void*)&NUM_THREADS);
                break;
 
            case 4:
                std::cout << "LOCK CMPXCHG VAL" << std::endl;
                pthread_create(&threads[i], NULL, run_cas2, (void*)&NUM_THREADS);
                break;
 
            default:
                exit(1);
        }
    }
 
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_THREADS; i++)
    {
        pthread_join(threads[i], &status);
    }
 
    clock_gettime(CLOCK_MONOTONIC, &ts_finish);
 
    uint64 start = (ts_start.tv_sec * 1000000000) + ts_start.tv_nsec;
    uint64 finish = (ts_finish.tv_sec * 1000000000) + ts_finish.tv_nsec;
    uint64 duration = finish - start;
 
    std::cout << "threads = " << NUM_THREADS << std::endl;
    std::cout << "duration = " <<  duration << std::endl;
    std::cout << "ns per op = " << (duration / (COUNT * 2)) << std::endl;
    std::cout << "op/sec = " << ((COUNT * 2 * 1000 * 1000 * 1000) / duration) << std::endl;
    std::cout << "counter = " << counter << std::endl;
 
    return 0;
}
The code above makes it possible to test the major CAS based techniques on x86. For full clarity an objdump -d of the binary reveals the compiler generated assembly instructions for the above methods. The "lock" instruction in each section is where the atomic update is happening.
0000000000400dc0 <_z8run_cas2pv>:
  400dc0: 48 8b 05 d9 07 20 00  mov    0x2007d9(%rip),%rax      
  400dc7: 66 0f 1f 84 00 00 00  nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
  400dce: 00 00 
  400dd0: 48 8d 50 01           lea    0x1(%rax),%rdx
  400dd4: f0 48 0f b1 15 c3 07  lock cmpxchg %rdx,0x2007c3(%rip)
  400ddb: 20 00 
  400ddd: 48 39 c2              cmp    %rax,%rdx
  400de0: 75 ee                 jne    400dd0 <_z8run_cas2pv>
  400de2: 48 3d ff 64 cd 1d     cmp    $0x1dcd64ff,%rax
  400de8: 76 d6                 jbe    400dc0 <_z8run_cas2pv>
  400dea: f3 c3                 repz retq 
  400dec: 0f 1f 40 00           nopl   0x0(%rax)

0000000000400df0 <_z7run_caspv>:
  400df0: 48 8b 15 a9 07 20 00  mov    0x2007a9(%rip),%rdx     
  400df7: 48 8d 4a 01           lea    0x1(%rdx),%rcx
  400dfb: 48 89 d0              mov    %rdx,%rax
  400dfe: f0 48 0f b1 0d 99 07  lock cmpxchg %rcx,0x200799(%rip)  
  400e05: 20 00 
  400e07: 75 e7                 jne    400df0 <_z7run_caspv>
  400e09: 48 81 fa ff 64 cd 1d  cmp    $0x1dcd64ff,%rdx
  400e10: 76 de                 jbe    400df0 <_z7run_caspv>
  400e12: f3 c3                 repz retq 
  400e14: 66 66 66 2e 0f 1f 84  data32 data32 nopw %cs:0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
  400e1b: 00 00 00 00 00 

0000000000400e20 <_z8run_xaddpv>:
  400e20: 48 8b 05 79 07 20 00  mov    0x200779(%rip),%rax    
  400e27: 48 3d ff 64 cd 1d     cmp    $0x1dcd64ff,%rax
  400e2d: 77 1b                 ja     400e4a <_z8run_xaddpv>
  400e2f: 90                    nop
  400e30: b8 01 00 00 00        mov    $0x1,%eax
  400e35: f0 48 0f c1 05 62 07  lock xadd %rax,0x200762(%rip) 
  400e3c: 20 00 
  400e3e: 48 83 c0 01           add    $0x1,%rax
  400e42: 48 3d ff 64 cd 1d     cmp    $0x1dcd64ff,%rax
  400e48: 76 e6                 jbe    400e30 <_z8run_xaddp>
  400e4a: f3 c3                 repz retq 
  400e4c: 0f 1f 40 00           nopl   0x0(%rax)

0000000000400e50 <_z7run_addpv>:
  400e50: 48 63 0f              movslq (%rdi),%rcx
  400e53: 31 d2                 xor    %edx,%edx
  400e55: b8 00 65 cd 1d        mov    $0x1dcd6500,%eax
  400e5a: 48 f7 f1              div    %rcx
  400e5d: 48 85 c0              test   %rax,%rax
  400e60: 74 15                 je     400e77 <_z7run_addpv>
  400e62: 66 0f 1f 44 00 00     nopw   0x0(%rax,%rax,1)
  400e68: f0 48 83 05 2f 07 20  lock addq $0x1,0x20072f(%rip)    
  400e6f: 00 01 
  400e71: 48 83 e8 01           sub    $0x1,%rax
  400e75: 75 f1                 jne    400e68 <_z7run_addpv>
  400e77: f3 c3                 repz retq 
  400e79: 90                    nop
  400e7a: 90                    nop
  400e7b: 90                    nop
  400e7c: 90                    nop
  400e7d: 90                    nop
  400e7e: 90                    nop
  400e7f: 90                    nop
To purely isolate the performance of the CAS operation the test should be run using the lock xadd option for an atomic increment in hardware.  This instruction lets us avoid the spin-retry loop of a pure software CAS that can dirty the experiment.

I repeated the experiment from the previous article and got very similar results.  Previously, I thought I'd observed a throughput drop even in the uncontended single-threaded case.  So I focused in on this to confirm.  To do this I had to find two processors that once Turbo Boost had kicked in then the clock speeds would be comparable.  I found this by using a 2.8GHz Nehalem and 2.4GHz Sandy Bridge.  For the single-threaded case they are both operating at ~3.4GHz.
Nehalem 2.8GHz
==============
$ perf stat ./atomic_inc 1 2
LOCK XADD
threads = 1
duration = 3090445546
ns per op = 3
op/sec = 323577938

 Performance counter stats for './atomic_inc 1 2':

       3085.466216 task-clock                #    0.997 CPUs utilized          
               331 context-switches          #    0.107 K/sec                  
                 4 CPU-migrations            #    0.001 K/sec                  
               360 page-faults               #    0.117 K/sec                  
    10,527,264,923 cycles                    #    3.412 GHz                 
     9,394,575,677 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   89.24% frontend cycles idle
     7,423,070,202 stalled-cycles-backend    #   70.51% backend  cycles idle 
     2,517,668,293 instructions              #    0.24  insns per cycle        
                                             #    3.73  stalled cycles per insn
       503,526,119 branches                  #  163.193 M/sec                  
           110,695 branch-misses             #    0.02% of all branches       

       3.093402966 seconds time elapsed

Sandy Bridge 2.4GHz
===================
$ perf stat ./atomic_inc 1 2
LOCK XADD
threads = 1
duration = 3394221940
ns per op = 3
op/sec = 294618330

 Performance counter stats for './atomic_inc 1 2':

       3390.404400 task-clock                #    0.998 CPUs utilized          
               357 context-switches          #    0.105 K/sec                  
                 1 CPU-migrations            #    0.000 K/sec                  
               358 page-faults               #    0.106 K/sec                  
    11,522,932,068 cycles                    #    3.399 GHz                 
     9,542,667,311 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   82.81% frontend cycles idle  
     6,721,330,874 stalled-cycles-backend    #   58.33% backend  cycles idle  
     2,518,638,461 instructions              #    0.22  insns per cycle        
                                             #    3.79  stalled cycles per insn
       502,490,710 branches                  #  148.210 M/sec                  
            36,955 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches        

       3.398206155 seconds time elapsed

Analysis

So repeating the tests with comparable clock speeds confirmed the previous results.  The single-threaded case shows a ~10% drop in throughput and the multi-threaded contended case displays an order-of-magnitude difference in throughput.

Now the big question is what is going on and why has throughput dropped?  Well the single-threaded case suggests nothing major has happened to number of cycles required to execute the instruction when uncontended.  The small differences could be attributed to system noise or the changes in the CPU front-end for Sandy Bridge with introduction of the additional load address generation unit.

For the multi-threaded case we found an interesting surprise when Intel monitored what the instructions are doing.  We found that each thread on Nehalem was able to perform more updates in a batch before loosing the exclusive state on the cacheline containing the counter.  This is because the inter-core latency has improved with Sandy Bridge so other threads are able to faster claim the cacheline containing the counter to do their own updates.  What we are actually measuring with this micro-benchmark is how long a core can hold a cacheline before it is released to another core.  Sandy Bridge is exhibiting greater fairness which is what you'd want in a real world application.

This micro-benchmark is very unrealistic for a real world application.  Normally between performing counter updates a core would be doing a lot of other work.  At the point when the counter needs to be updated the reduced latency inter-core would then be a benefit.

In all my macro application benchmarks Sandy Bridge has proved to have better performance than Nehalem at comparable clock speeds.

Conclusion

What did I learn from this?  Well once again that writing micro-benchmarks is notoriously difficult.  It is so hard to know what you are measuring and what effects can come into play.  To illustrate how difficult it is to recognise such a flaw, for all those who have read this blog, no one has identified the issue and fed this back to me.

It also shows that what on first blush can be considered a performance bug is actually the opposite.  This shows how it is possible to have a second order effect when a performance improvement can make a specific work case run more slowly.
Published at DZone with permission of Martin Thompson, author and DZone MVB. (source)

(Note: Opinions expressed in this article and its replies are the opinions of their respective authors and not those of DZone, Inc.)