[cfe-dev] Floating-point performance question
Halfdan Ingvarsson
halfdan at sidefx.com
Thu Sep 5 12:55:16 PDT 2013
glibc's expf() function changes the FP rounding mode on every call --
which are the fe* calls you're seeing -- resulting in a dreadful
performance (IIRC there's a pipeline stall when rounding mode changes).
Have a look at sysdeps/ieee754/flt-32/e_expf.c in the glibc sources to
verify. This is true as of glibc 2.14, at least.
We had to roll our own to work around it.
- ½
On 13-09-05 03:33 PM, Stephen Canon wrote:
> On Sep 5, 2013, at 12:20 PM, Eli Friedman <eli.friedman at gmail.com
> <mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, Sep 5, 2013 at 12:15 PM, Richard Hadsell
>> <hadsell at blueskystudios.com <mailto:hadsell at blueskystudios.com>> wrote:
>>
>> We have been comparing the performance of code generated by
>> Clang++ 3.3 with G++ 4.5.1. The results have been mixed.
>>
>> We ran a profiler to look for what could cause some cases to run
>> slower with Clang++ and found that some floating-point routines
>> were taking a lot of time:
>>
>> samples % image name symbol name
>> 596677 19.7935 studio++ gcopy2
>> 274870 9.1182 libm-2.13.so <http://libm-2.13.so/> feholdexcept
>> 262358 8.7032 libm-2.13.so <http://libm-2.13.so/> fesetenv
>> 258225 8.5661 studio++ cgi...
>> 207915 6.8971 libm-2.13.so <http://libm-2.13.so/> fesetround
>> 193316 6.4129 studio++ dcopy2
>> 126933 4.2107 <tel:126933%20%20%20%204.2107> libm-2.13.so
>> <http://libm-2.13.so/> __ieee754_exp2
>> 122614 4.0675 studio++ fcopy2
>>
>> For g++ the top contributors were these:
>>
>> samples % image name symbol name
>> 466893 21.3064 studio++ gcopy2
>> 300240 13.7013 studio++ cgi...
>> 176191 8.0404 studio++ dcopy2
>> 132491 6.0462 studio++ cgi...
>> 129580 5.9133 libm-2.13.so <http://libm-2.13.so/> __ieee754_pow
>> 126938 5.7928 <tel:126938%20%20%20%205.7928> studio++ ecopy2
>> 119610 5.4583 studio++ fcopy2
>>
>> The libm floating-point routines 'fe...' only show up with
>> Clang++, so I suspect they account for the slower performance.
>>
>> We are not purposely changing the floating-point precision or
>> rounding mode, so I am looking for a way to avoid code that uses
>> these functions unnecessarily.
>>
>> We are compiling with these options:
>>
>> -march=core2 -msse4.1 -m64 -std=c++0x -fPIC -pthread
>> -gcc-toolchain /opt/gcc-4.7.2 -Wno-logical-op-parentheses
>> -Wno-shift-op-parentheses -O2
>>
>>
>> There isn't any obvious reason why feholdexcept etc. would be called
>> from clang-compiled code, but not gcc-compiled code; clang never
>> generates calls to it implicitly.
>>
>> Can you hop into a debugger and get a stack trace from a call to
>> feholdexcept?
>
> Usually the reason these symbols show up on linux is that you're
> hitting the errno-versions of the libm entry points (i.e. GCC is
> likely generating calls to a different set of more streamlined libm
> entry points, while clang is hitting the default versions).
>
> -- Steve
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> cfe-dev mailing list
> cfe-dev at cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/cfe-dev
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20130905/20a20bd6/attachment.html>
More information about the cfe-dev
mailing list