[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Patches] [PATCH] ARM: NEON detected memcpy.
- To: Ondřej Bílka <neleai@xxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: [Patches] [PATCH] ARM: NEON detected memcpy.
- From: "Shih-Yuan Lee (FourDollars)" <sylee@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 4 Apr 2013 12:15:17 +0800
Hi Ondrej,
I do have some benchmark data.
--- Running benchmarks (average case/perfect alignment case) ---
very small data test:
memcpy_arm : (3 bytes copy) = 86.2 MB/s / 88.3 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (3 bytes copy) = 53.4 MB/s / 54.5 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (4 bytes copy) = 79.8 MB/s / 62.9 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (4 bytes copy) = 72.5 MB/s / 73.9 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (5 bytes copy) = 91.0 MB/s / 78.7 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (5 bytes copy) = 90.2 MB/s / 91.0 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (7 bytes copy) = 109.5 MB/s / 104.7 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (7 bytes copy) = 122.1 MB/s / 126.6 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (8 bytes copy) = 122.4 MB/s / 122.4 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (8 bytes copy) = 142.0 MB/s / 148.2 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (11 bytes copy) = 157.8 MB/s / 161.3 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (11 bytes copy) = 193.8 MB/s / 196.2 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (12 bytes copy) = 170.1 MB/s / 172.7 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (12 bytes copy) = 206.8 MB/s / 212.5 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (15 bytes copy) = 204.0 MB/s / 209.6 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (15 bytes copy) = 247.5 MB/s / 270.3 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (16 bytes copy) = 212.2 MB/s / 225.6 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (16 bytes copy) = 175.3 MB/s / 252.2 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (24 bytes copy) = 274.6 MB/s / 326.5 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (24 bytes copy) = 244.7 MB/s / 367.8 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (31 bytes copy) = 333.3 MB/s / 399.2 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (31 bytes copy) = 304.3 MB/s / 463.5 MB/s
L1 cached data:
memcpy_arm : (4096 bytes copy) = 1295.5 MB/s / 2691.8 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (4096 bytes copy) = 1826.3 MB/s / 2021.8 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (6144 bytes copy) = 1306.5 MB/s / 2724.1 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (6144 bytes copy) = 1857.8 MB/s / 2053.2 MB/s
L2 cached data:
memcpy_arm : (65536 bytes copy) = 1291.5 MB/s / 2304.8 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (65536 bytes copy) = 1866.5 MB/s / 2441.7 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (98304 bytes copy) = 1285.6 MB/s / 2283.8 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (98304 bytes copy) = 1860.7 MB/s / 2454.7 MB/s
SDRAM:
memcpy_arm : (2097152 bytes copy) = 466.7 MB/s / 736.5 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (2097152 bytes copy) = 727.5 MB/s / 868.8 MB/s
memcpy_arm : (3145728 bytes copy) = 507.9 MB/s / 854.7 MB/s
memcpy_neon : (3145728 bytes copy) = 852.9 MB/s / 1038.0 MB/s
(*) 1 MB = 1000000 bytes
(*) 'memcpy_arm' - an implementation for older ARM cores from glibc-ports
The similar benchmark is at
http://sourceware.org/ml/libc-ports/2009-07/msg00000.html .
Regards,
$4
On Thu, Apr 4, 2013 at 12:19 AM, OndÅej BÃlka <neleai@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
> On Wed, Apr 03, 2013 at 11:47:36PM +0800, Shih-Yuan Lee (FourDollars) wrote:
>> Hi Joseph,
>>
> ...
>> > I was previously told by people at ARM that NEON memcpy wasn't a good idea
>> > in practice because of raised power consumption, context switch costs etc.
>> > from using NEON in processes that otherwise didn't use it, even if it
>> > appeared superficially beneficial in benchmarks.
>> >
>> About raised power consumption and context switch costs, I may be able
>> to add some option in configure for the users to decide if they want
>> to use this feature or not.
>> How do you think?
>>
> Configure option is bit overkill.
>
> You need to compare neon/other implementation speed. Then determine
> size where neon is faster if we include energy cost and context switch.
> My first estimate is use neon when larger than 4096 bytes.
>
> However to determine context switch cost of neon you must account network effect.
>
> If you use neon in one function that is called sufficiently often (to
> always save registers) then adding neon implementation for additional functions
> does not increase cost.
_______________________________________________
Patches mailing list
Patches@xxxxxxxxxx
http://eglibc.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/patches