mirror of
https://github.com/reactos/reactos.git
synced 2025-01-13 01:22:03 +00:00
Document (failed) attempt to optimize memcpy()
svn path=/trunk/; revision=19843
This commit is contained in:
parent
94fc07e5fa
commit
96ce8a5210
2 changed files with 57 additions and 4 deletions
|
@ -1,9 +1,7 @@
|
|||
/*
|
||||
* $Id$
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
/*
|
||||
* void *memcpy (void *to, const void *from, size_t count)
|
||||
*
|
||||
* Some optimization research can be found in media/doc/memcpy_optimize.txt
|
||||
*/
|
||||
|
||||
.globl _memcpy
|
||||
|
|
55
reactos/media/doc/memcpy_optimize.txt
Normal file
55
reactos/media/doc/memcpy_optimize.txt
Normal file
|
@ -0,0 +1,55 @@
|
|||
Surfing the Internet, I stumbled upon http://www.sciencemark.org where you
|
||||
can download a benchmark program that (amongst others) can benchmark different
|
||||
x86 memcpy implementations. Running that benchmark on my machine revealed that
|
||||
the fastest implementation was roughly twice as fast as the "rep movsl"
|
||||
implementation (lib/string/i386/memcpy_asm.s) that ReactOS uses.
|
||||
To test the alternate implementations in a ReactOS setting, I first
|
||||
instrumented the existing memcpy implementation to log with which arguments
|
||||
it was being called. I then booted ReactOS, started a background compile in it
|
||||
(to generate some I/O) and played a game of Solitaire (to generate graphics
|
||||
operations). After loosing the game, I shut down ReactOS. I then extracted
|
||||
the memcpy calls roughly between the start of Explorer (to get rid of one time
|
||||
startup effects) an shutdown. The resulting call profile is attached below.
|
||||
I then used that profile to make calls to the existing memcpy and an alternate
|
||||
implementation (I selected the "MMX registry copy with SSE prefetching"),
|
||||
taking care to use different source and destination regions to remove caching
|
||||
effects. The profile consisted of roughly 250000 calls to memcpy, I found
|
||||
that I had to execute the profile 10000 times to get "reasonable" time values.
|
||||
To compensate for the overhead of the test program, I also ran a test where
|
||||
the whole memcpy routine consisted of a single instruction: "ret". The test
|
||||
results, after applying a correction for the overhead:
|
||||
|
||||
rep movl 70.5 sec
|
||||
mmx registers 58.3 sec
|
||||
Speed increase: 17%
|
||||
|
||||
(Test machine: AMD Athlon MP 2800+ running Linux).
|
||||
Although the relative speed increase is nice (17%), we also have to look at the
|
||||
absolute speed increase. Remember that the 70.5 sec for the "rep movl" case
|
||||
was obtained by running the whole profile 10000 times. This means that all the
|
||||
memcpy's executed during the profiling run of ReactOS together took only
|
||||
0.00705 seconds. So the conclusion has to be that we're simply not spending
|
||||
a significant amount of time in memcpy (BTW, our memcpy implementation is
|
||||
shared between kernel and user mode, of the total of 250000 memcpy calls about
|
||||
90% were made from kernel mode and 10% from user mode), so optimizing memcpy
|
||||
(although possible) will not result in a significant better performance of
|
||||
ReactOS as a whole.
|
||||
Just for fun, I then used only the part of the profile where the memory area
|
||||
was larger than 128 bytes. The MMX implementation actually only runs for sizes
|
||||
over 128 bytes, for smaller sizes it deferred to the "rep movl" implementation.
|
||||
According to the profile, the vast majority of memcpy calls is made with a
|
||||
size smaller than 128 bytes (96.8%).
|
||||
|
||||
rep movl 52.9 sec
|
||||
mmx registers 27.1 sec
|
||||
Speed increase 48%
|
||||
|
||||
This is more or less in line with the results I got from the membench benchmark
|
||||
from http://www.sciencemark.org.
|
||||
|
||||
Final conclusion: Although optimizing memcpy is useful (and feasible) for
|
||||
transfer of large blocks, the usage pattern in ReactOS consists mostly of
|
||||
small blocks. The resulting absolute spead increase doesn't justify the
|
||||
increased code complexity.
|
||||
|
||||
2005/12/03 GvG
|
Loading…
Reference in a new issue