Loading...

• Next Thread Prev Thread

• Tags

  High performance computing

• Posts   Search Threads

• gkli October 17, 2008 10:56 AM PDT    Stream benchmark performance I ran McCalpin's stream benchmark on the 3.4 GHZ Xeon and got 4759 MB/s for Triad.   The original code was inlined and the operations were directly on the global arrays.   I added a similar function but instead of directly using the global array, I passed in the arrays.  The bandwidth for the new Triad function was only 3400 MB/s.  Why did I lose so much bandwidth?    The opt-report indicated both functions were inlined.   #define N  2000000 static double *   a          ; static double *   b          ; static double * c          ;   int main() { ...         times[3][k] = mysecond();         tuned_STREAM_Triad(a,b,c,scalar);  // original function, inlined  4759 MB/s         times[3][k] = mysecond() - times[3][k];         times[4][k] = mysecond();         tuned_STREAM_Triad_Arg(a,b,c,scalar);  // new function, inlined  3400 MB/s       times[4][k] = mysecond() - times[4][k];             return 0; }   void tuned_STREAM_Triad(double* aa,double* bb,double* cc,double scalar) {       int j; #pragma omp parallel for       for (j=0; j<N; j++)           a[j] = b[j]+scalar*c[j]; }   void tuned_STREAM_Triad_Arg(double* restrict aa,double* bb,double* cc,double scalar) {       int j; #pragma omp parallel for #pragma ivdep       for (j=0; j<N; j++)           aa[j] = bb[j]+scalar*cc[j]; }   Compiled with icc -openmp -restrict         TimP (Intel) October 17, 2008 11:14 AM PDT Rate   #1 Re: Stream benchmark performance Does -opt-report shed any light on the differences? I don't know whether it makes a difference, but when I use restrict, I apply it to all the function parameter pointers. These functions are simple enough that you could compare the generated code you get with -S. jimdempseyatthecove October 17, 2008 12:01 PM PDT Rate   #2 Re: Stream benchmark performance Quoting - gkli I ran McCalpin's stream benchmark on the 3.4 GHZ Xeon and got 4759 MB/s for Triad.   The original code was inlined and the operations were directly on the global arrays.   I added a similar function but instead of directly using the global array, I passed in the arrays.  The bandwidth for the new Triad function was only 3400 MB/s.  Why did I lose so much bandwidth?    The opt-report indicated both functions were inlined.   #define N  2000000 static double *   a          ; static double *   b          ; static double * c          ;   int main() { ...         times[3][k] = mysecond();         tuned_STREAM_Triad(a,b,c,scalar);  // original function, inlined  4759 MB/s         times[3][k] = mysecond() - times[3][k];         times[4][k] = mysecond();         tuned_STREAM_Triad_Arg(a,b,c,scalar);  // new function, inlined  3400 MB/s       times[4][k] = mysecond() - times[4][k];             return 0; }   void tuned_STREAM_Triad(double* aa,double* bb,double* cc,double scalar) {       int j; #pragma omp parallel for       for (j=0; j<N; j++)           a[j] = b[j]+scalar*c[j]; }   void tuned_STREAM_Triad_Arg(double* restrict aa,double* bb,double* cc,double scalar) {       int j; #pragma omp parallel for #pragma ivdep       for (j=0; j<N; j++)           aa[j] = bb[j]+scalar*cc[j]; }   Compiled with icc -openmp -restrict         A couple of comments: First, can we assume the proper amount of memory was allocate for a, b, c? (N doubles each) Second, you might check the dissassembly code to see if register pressure cause the pointers to one or more of aa, bb, cc to be refetched from memory as opposed to remaining cached. Jim Dempsey Blog: The Parallel Void www.quickthreadprogramming.com gkli October 20, 2008 3:24 PM PDT Rate   #3 Reply To #2 Re: Stream benchmark performance Quoting - jimdempseyatthecove A couple of comments: First, can we assume the proper amount of memory was allocate for a, b, c? (N doubles each) Second, you might check the dissassembly code to see if register pressure cause the pointers to one or more of aa, bb, cc to be refetched from memory as opposed to remaining cached. Jim Dempsey Yes, the pointers were allocated with a = (double *) malloc (N*sizeof(double));  likewise for b and c. I ran the benchmark for N=2000000.  Would it be reasonable to assume that there is sufficient work in the loop that whether the pointer is cached would not significantly affect performance?   jimdempseyatthecove October 21, 2008 7:08 AM PDT Rate   #4 Reply To #3 Re: Stream benchmark performance What happens when you remove the #pragma ivdep from the 2nd loop? What happens when you add #pragma vector always to the 2nd loop? In the static memory array loop the address of the arrays require no register usage as they can expressed using the Base part of the addressing. In the dynamic array loop the addresses of the arrays are on the stack requiring an instruction to copy the pointer to the array to a register and if there are sufficient registers available the compiler could move the base address fetch outside the loop. To fully registerize the base of the three arrays in the second loop will require an additional three registers over what the first loop reqires. An additional matter that could influence performance is the alignment of the arrays. If the static arrays are aligned on a 16 byte address and the dynamic are not. In this case the 2nd the loop (when vectorized) might be performing split loads/stores. Jim Dempsey Blog: The Parallel Void www.quickthreadprogramming.com

• = Best Answer

  Next Thread Prev Thread

Intel Software Network Forums Statistics

16,362 users have contributed to 46,323 threads and 163,858 posts to date.

For more complete information about compiler optimizations, see our Optimization Notice.