Microbenchmarks are valuable tools to assess and compare the performance of isolated pieces of code. However they don't capture all interactions of complex systems; and so other metrics can be equally important:
The goal here is to satisfy the Benchmarking Principles.
Benchmarking is a subtle art and benchmarking memory functions is no exception. Here we'll dive into peculiarities of designing good microbenchmarks for
llvm-libc memory functions.
As seen in the README.md the microbenchmarking facility should focus on measuring low latency code. If copying a few bytes takes in the order of a few cycles, the benchmark should be able to measure accurately down to the cycle.
There are different sources of time in a computer (ordered from high to low resolution)
In theory Performance Counters provide cycle accurate measurement via the
cpu cycles event. But as we'll see, they are not really practical in this context.
Modern CPUs are out of order and superscalar as a consequence it is hard to know what is included when the counter is read, some instructions may still be in flight, some others may be executing speculatively. As a matter of fact on the same machine, measuring twice the same piece of code will yield different results.
Although they have the same name, the exact semantics of performance counters are micro-architecture dependent: it is generally not possible to compare two micro-architectures exposing the same performance counters.
Each vendor decides which performance counters to implement and their exact meaning. Although we want to benchmark
llvm-libc memory functions for all available target triples, there are no guarantees that the counter we're interested in is available.
We have seen that performance counters are: not widely available, semantically inconsistent across micro-architectures and imprecise on modern CPUs for small snippets of code.
In order to achieve the needed precision we would need to resort on more widely available counters and derive the time from a high number of runs: going from a single deterministic measure to a probabilistic one.
To get a good signal to noise ratio we need the running time of the piece of code to be orders of magnitude greater than the measurement precision.
For instance, if measurement precision is of 10 cycles, we need the function runtime to take more than 1000 cycles to achieve 1% SNR.
The algorithm is as follows:
This method allows us to be as precise as needed provided that the measured runtime is proportional to N. Longer run times also smooth out imprecision related to interrupts and context switches.
Note: When measuring longer runtimes (e.g. copying several megabytes of data) the above assumption doesn't hold anymore and the ε precision cannot be reached by increasing iterations. The whole benchmarking process becomes prohibitively slow. In this case the algorithm is limited to a single sample and repeated several times to get a decent 95% confidence interval.
When measuring code with branches, repeating the same call again and again will allow the processor to learn the branching patterns and perfectly predict all the branches, leading to unrealistic results.
Decision: When benchmarking small buffer sizes, the function parameters should be randomized between calls to prevent perfect branch predictions.
The CPU is tightly coupled to the memory subsystem. It is common to see
L3 data caches.
We may be tempted to randomize data accesses widely to exercise all the caching layers down to RAM but the cost of accessing lower layers of memory completely dominates the runtime for small sizes.
So to respect Equity and Repeatability principles we should make sure we do not depend on the memory subsystem.
Decision: When benchmarking small buffer sizes, the data accessed by the function should stay in
In case of small buffer sizes, prefetching should not kick in but in case of large buffers it may introduce a bias.
Decision: When benchmarking large buffer sizes, the data should be accessed in a random fashion to lower the impact of prefetching between calls.
Modern processors implement dynamic frequency scaling. In so-called
performance mode the CPU will increase its frequency and run faster than usual within some limits : “The increased clock rate is limited by the processor's power, current, and thermal limits, the number of cores currently in use, and the maximum frequency of the active cores.”
Decision: When benchmarking we want to make sure the dynamic frequency scaling is always set to
performance. We also want to make sure that the time based events are not impacted by frequency scaling.
See README.md on how to set this up.
Some operating systems allow core reservation. It removes a set of perturbation sources like: process migration, context switches and interrupts. When a core is hyperthreaded, both cores should be reserved.
As stated in the Foreword section a number of effects do play a role in production but are not directly measurable through microbenchmarks. The code size of the benchmark is (much) smaller than the hot code of real applications and doesn't exhibit instruction cache pressure as much.
Fundamental functions that are called frequently will occupy the L1 iCache (illustration). If they are too big they will prevent other hot code to stay in the cache and incur stalls. So the memory functions should be as small as possible.
Why don't you use Google Benchmark directly?
We reuse some parts of Google Benchmark (detection of frequency scaling, CPU cache hierarchy informations) but when it comes to measuring memory functions Google Benchmark have a few issues:
BenchmarkReporterclass, that makes it hard to access the parameters discussed above.