Design code to fit in CPU Cache?

Question

When writing simulations my buddy says he likes to try to write the program small enough to fit into cache. Does this have any real meaning? I understand that cache is faster than RAM and the main memory. Is it possible to specify that you want the program to run from cache or at least load the variables into cache? We are writing simulations so any performance/optimization gain is a huge benefit.

If you know of any good links explaining CPU caching, then point me in that direction.

Answer 1

Most C/C++ compilers prefer to optimize for size rather than for "speed". That is, smaller code generally executes faster than unrolled code because of cache effects.

Answer 2

Mostly this will serve as a placeholder until I get time to do this topic justice, but I wanted to share what I consider to be a truly groundbreaking milestone - the introduction of dedicated bit manipulation instructions in the new Intel Hazwell microprocessor.

It became painfully obvious when I wrote some code here on StackOverflow to reverse the bits in a 4096 bit array that 30+ yrs after the introduction of the PC, microprocessors just don't devote much attention or resources to bits, and that I hope will change. In particular, I'd love to see, for starters, the bool type become an actual bit datatype in C/C++, instead of the ridiculously wasteful byte it currently is.

UPDATE: 12/29/2013

I recently had occasion to optimize a ring buffer which keeps track of 512 different resource users' demands on a system at millisecond granularity. There is a timer which fires every millisecond which added the sum of the most current slice's resource requests and subtracted out the 1,000th time slice's requests, comprising resource requests now 1,000 milliseconds old.

The Head, Tail vectors were right next to each other in memory, except when first the Head, and then the Tail wrapped and started back at the beginning of the array. The (rolling)Summary slice however was in a fixed, statically allocated array that wasn't particularly close to either of those, and wasn't even allocated from the heap.

Thinking about this, and studying the code a few particulars caught my attention.

1. The demands that were coming in were added to the Head and the Summary slice at the same time, right next to each other in adjacent lines of code.

2. When the timer fired, the Tail was subtracted out of the Summary slice, and the results were left in the Summary slice, as you'd expect

3. The 2nd function called when the timer fired advanced all the pointers servicing the ring. In particular.... The Head overwrote the Tail, thereby occupying the same memory location The new Tail occupied the next 512 memory locations, or wrapped

4. The user wanted more flexibility in the number of demands being managed, from 512 to 4098, or perhaps more. I felt the most robust, idiot-proof way to do this was to allocate both the 1,000 time slices and the summary slice all together as one contiguous block of memory so that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the Summary slice to end up being a different length than the other 1,000 time slices.

5. Given the above, I began to wonder if I could get more performance if, instead of having the Summary slice remain in one location, I had it "roam" between the Head and the Tail, so it was always right next to the Head for adding new demands, and right next to the Tail when the timer fired and the Tail's values had to be subtracted from the Summary.

I did exactly this, but then found a couple of additional optimizations in the process. I changed the code that calculated the rolling Summary so that it left the results in the Tail, instead of the Summary slice. Why? Because the very next function was performing a memcpy() to move the Summary slice into the memory just occupied by the Tail. (weird but true, the Tail leads the Head until the end of the ring when it wraps). By leaving the results of the summation in the Tail, I didn't have to perform the memcpy(), I just had to assign pTail to pSummary.

In a similar way, the new Head occupied the now stale Summary slice's old memory location, so again, I just assigned pSummary to pHead, and zeroed all its values with a memset to zero.

Leading the way to the end of the ring(really a drum, 512 tracks wide) was the Tail, but I only had to compare its pointer against a constant pEndOfRing pointer to detect that condition. All of the other pointers could be assigned the pointer value of the vector just ahead of it. IE: I only needed a conditional test for 1:3 of the pointers to correctly wrap them.

The initial design had used byte ints to maximize cache usage, however, I was able to relax this constraint - satisfying the users request to handle higher resource counts per user per millisecond - to use unsigned shorts and STILL double performance, because even with 3 adjacent vectors of 512 unsigned shorts, the L1 cache's 32K data cache could easily hold the required 3,720 bytes, 2/3rds of which were in locations just used. Only when the Tail, Summary, or Head wrapped were 1 of the 3 separated by any significant "step" in the 8MB L3cache.

The total run-time memory footprint for this code is under 2MB, so it runs entirely out of on-chip caches, and even on an i7 chip with 4 cores, 4 instances of this process can be run without any degradation in performance at all, and total throughput goes up slightly with 5 processes running. It's an Opus Magnum on cache usage.

Answer 3

UPDATE: 1/13/2014 According to this senior chip designer, cache misses are now THE overwhelmingly dominant factor in code performance, so we're basically all the way back to the mid-80s and fast 286 chips in terms of the relative performance bottlenecks of load, store, integer arithmetic, and cache misses.

A Crash Course In Modern Hardware by Cliff Click @ Azul . . . . .

--- we now return you to your regularly scheduled program ---

Sometimes an example is better than a description of how to do something. In that spirit here's a particularly successful example of how I changed some code to better use on chip caches. This was done some time ago on a 486 CPU and latter migrated to a 1st Generation Pentium CPU. The effect on performance was similar.

Example: Subscript Mapping

Here's an example of a technique I used to fit data into the chip's cache that has general purpose utility.

I had a double float vector that was 1,250 elements long, which was an epidemiology curve with very long tails. The "interesting" part of the curve only had about 200 unique values but I didn't want a 2-sided if() test to make a mess of the CPU's pipeline(thus the long tails, which could use as subscripts the most extreme values the Monte Carlo code would spit out), and I needed the branch prediction logic for a dozen other conditional tests inside the "hot-spot" in the code.

I settled on a scheme where I used a vector of 8-bit ints as a subscript into the double vector, which I shortened to 256 elements. The tiny ints all had the same values before 128 ahead of zero, and 128 after zero, so except for the middle 256 values, they all pointed to either the first or last value in the double vector.

This shrunk the storage requirement to 2k for the doubles, and 1,250 bytes for the 8-bit subscripts. This shrunk 10,000 bytes down to 3,298. Since the program spent 90% or more of it's time in this inner-loop, the 2 vectors never got pushed out of the 8k data cache. The program immediately doubled its performance. This code got hit ~ 100 billion times in the process of computing an OAS value for 1+ million mortgage loans.

Since the tails of the curve were seldom touched, it's very possible that only the middle 200-300 elements of the tiny int vector were actually kept in cache, along with 160-240 middle doubles representing 1/8ths of percents of interest. It was a remarkable increase in performance, accomplished in an afternoon, on a program that I'd spent over a year optimizing.

I agree with Jerry, as it has been my experience also, that tilting the code towards the instruction cache is not nearly as successful as optimizing for the data cache/s. This is one reason I think AMD's common caches are not as helpful as Intel's separate data and instruction caches. IE: you don't want instructions hogging up the cache, as it just isn't very helpful. In part this is because CISC instruction sets were originally created to make up for the vast difference between CPU and memory speeds, and except for an aberration in the late 80's, that's pretty much always been true.

Another favorite technique I use to favor the data cache, and savage the instruction cache, is by using a lot of bit-ints in structure definitions, and the smallest possible data sizes in general. To mask off a 4-bit int to hold the month of the year, or 9 bits to hold the day of the year, etc, etc, requires the CPU use masks to mask off the host integers the bits are using, which shrinks the data, effectively increases cache and bus sizes, but requires more instructions. While this technique produces code that doesn't perform as well on synthetic benchmarks, on busy systems where users and processes are competing for resources, it works wonderfully.

Answer 4

Here's a link to a really good paper on caches/memory optimization by Christer Ericsson (of God of War I/II/III fame). It's a couple of years old but it's still very relevant.

Answer 5

At least with a typical desktop CPU, you can't really specify much about cache usage directly. You can still try to write cache-friendly code though. On the code side, this often means unrolling loops (for just one obvious example) is rarely useful -- it expands the code, and a modern CPU typically minimizes the overhead of looping. You can generally do more on the data side, to improve locality of reference, protect against false sharing (e.g. two frequently-used pieces of data that will try to use the same part of the cache, while other parts remain unused).

Edit (to make some points a bit more explicit):

A typical CPU has a number of different caches. A modern desktop processor will typically have at least 2 and often 3 levels of cache. By (at least nearly) universal agreement, "level 1" is the cache "closest" to the processing elements, and the numbers go up from there (level 2 is next, level 3 after that, etc.)

In most cases, (at least) the level 1 cache is split into two halves: an instruction cache and a data cache (the Intel 486 is nearly the sole exception of which I'm aware, with a single cache for both instructions and data--but it's so thoroughly obsolete it probably doesn't merit a lot of thought).

In most cases, a cache is organized as a set of "lines". The contents of a cache is normally read, written, and tracked one line at a time. In other words, if the CPU is going to use data from any part of a cache line, that entire cache line is read from the next lower level of storage. Caches that are closer to the CPU are generally smaller and have smaller cache lines.

This basic architecture leads to most of the characteristics of a cache that matter in writing code. As much as possible, you want to read something into cache once, do everything with it you're going to, then move on to something else.

This means that as you're processing data, it's typically better to read a relatively small amount of data (little enough to fit in the cache), do as much processing on that data as you can, then move on to the next chunk of data. Algorithms like Quicksort that quickly break large amounts of input in to progressively smaller pieces do this more or less automatically, so they tend to be fairly cache-friendly, almost regardless of the precise details of the cache.

This also has implications for how you write code. If you have a loop like:

for i = 0 to whatever
   step1(data);
   step2(data);
   step3(data);
end for

You're generally better off stringing as many of the steps together as you can up to the amount that will fit in the cache. The minute you overflow the cache, performance can/will drop drastically. If the code for step 3 above was large enough that it wouldn't fit into the cache, you'd generally be better off breaking the loop up into two pieces like this (if possible):

for i = 0 to whatever
    step1(data);
    step2(data);
end for

for i = 0 to whatever
    step3(data);
end for

Loop unrolling is a fairly hotly contested subject. On one hand, it can lead to code that's much more CPU-friendly, reducing the overhead of instructions executed for the loop itself. At the same time, it can (and generally does) increase code size, so it's relatively cache unfriendly. My own experience is that in synthetic benchmarks that tend to do really small amounts of processing on really large amounts of data, that you gain a lot from loop unrolling. In more practical code where you tend to have more processing on an individual piece of data, you gain a lot less--and overflowing the cache leading to a serious performance loss isn't particularly rare at all.

The data cache is also limited in size. This means that you generally want your data packed as densely as possible so as much data as possible will fit in the cache. Just for one obvious example, a data structure that's linked together with pointers needs to gain quite a bit in terms of computational complexity to make up for the amount of data cache space used by those pointers. If you're going to use a linked data structure, you generally want to at least ensure you're linking together relatively large pieces of data.

In a lot of cases, however, I've found that tricks I originally learned for fitting data into minuscule amounts of memory in tiny processors that have been (mostly) obsolete for decades, works out pretty well on modern processors. The intent is now to fit more data in the cache instead of the main memory, but the effect is nearly the same. In quite a few cases, you can think of CPU instructions as nearly free, and the overall speed of execution is governed by the bandwidth to the cache (or the main memory), so extra processing to unpack data from a dense format works out in your favor. This is particularly true when you're dealing with enough data that it won't all fit in the cache at all any more, so the overall speed is governed by the bandwidth to main memory. In this case, you can execute a lot of instructions to save a few memory reads, and still come out ahead.

Parallel processing can exacerbate that problem. In many cases, rewriting code to allow parallel processing can lead to virtually no gain in performance, or sometimes even a performance loss. If the overall speed is governed by the bandwidth from the CPU to memory, having more cores competing for that bandwidth is unlikely to do any good (and may do substantial harm). In such a case, use of multiple cores to improve speed often comes down to doing even more to pack the data more tightly, and taking advantage of even more processing power to unpack the data, so the real speed gain is from reducing the bandwidth consumed, and the extra cores just keep from losing time to unpacking the data from the denser format.

Another cache-based problem that can arise in parallel coding is sharing (and false sharing) of variables. If two (or more) cores need to write to the same location in memory, the cache line holding that data can end up being shuttled back and forth between the cores to give each core access to the shared data. The result is often code that runs slower in parallel than it did in serial (i.e., on a single core). There's a variation of this called "false sharing", in which the code on the different cores is writing to separate data, but the data for the different cores ends up in the same cache line. Since the cache controls data purely in terms of entire lines of data, the data gets shuffled back and forth between the cores anyway, leading to exactly the same problem.

Answer 6

If I were you, I would make sure I know which parts of code are hotspots, which I define as

• a tight loop not containing any function calls, because if it calls any function, then the PC will be spending most of its time in that function,
• that accounts for a significant fraction of execution time (like >= 10%) which you can determine from a profiler. (I just sample the stack manually.)

If you have such a hotspot, then it should fit in the cache. I'm not sure how you tell it to do that, but I suspect it's automatic.