-
Keith Randall authored
Old loops look like this: loop: CMPQ ... JGE exit ... JMP loop exit: New loops look like this: JMP entry loop: ... entry: CMPQ ... JLT loop This removes one instruction (the unconditional jump) from the inner loop. Kinda surprisingly, it matters. This is a bit different than the peeling that the old obj library did in that we don't duplicate the loop exit test. We just jump to the test. I'm not sure if it is better or worse to do that (peeling gets rid of the JMP but means more code duplication), but this CL is certainly a much simpler compiler change, so I'll try this way first. The obj library used to do peeling before CL https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/36205 turned it off. Fixes #15837 (remove obj instruction reordering) The reordering is already removed, this CL implements the only part of that reordering that we'd like to keep. Fixes #14758 (append loop) name old time/op new time/op delta Foo-12 817ns ± 4% 538ns ± 0% -34.08% (p=0.000 n=10+9) Bar-12 850ns ±11% 570ns ±13% -32.88% (p=0.000 n=10+10) Update #19595 (BLAS slowdown) name old time/op new time/op delta DgemvMedMedNoTransIncN-12 13.2µs ± 9% 10.2µs ± 1% -22.26% (p=0.000 n=9+9) Fixes #19633 (append loop) name old time/op new time/op delta Foo-12 810ns ± 1% 540ns ± 0% -33.30% (p=0.000 n=8+9) Update #18977 (Fannkuch11 regression) name old time/op new time/op delta Fannkuch11-8 2.80s ± 0% 3.01s ± 0% +7.47% (p=0.000 n=9+10) This one makes no sense. There's strictly 1 less instruction in the inner loop (17 instead of 18). They are exactly the same instructions except for the JMP that has been elided. go1 benchmarks generally don't look very impressive. But the gains for the specific issues above make this CL still probably worth it. name old time/op new time/op delta BinaryTree17-8 2.32s ± 0% 2.34s ± 0% +1.14% (p=0.000 n=9+7) Fannkuch11-8 2.80s ± 0% 3.01s ± 0% +7.47% (p=0.000 n=9+10) FmtFprintfEmpty-8 44.1ns ± 1% 46.1ns ± 1% +4.53% (p=0.000 n=10+10) FmtFprintfString-8 67.8ns ± 0% 74.4ns ± 1% +9.80% (p=0.000 n=10+9) FmtFprintfInt-8 74.9ns ± 0% 78.4ns ± 0% +4.67% (p=0.000 n=8+10) FmtFprintfIntInt-8 117ns ± 1% 123ns ± 1% +4.69% (p=0.000 n=9+10) FmtFprintfPrefixedInt-8 160ns ± 1% 146ns ± 0% -8.22% (p=0.000 n=8+10) FmtFprintfFloat-8 214ns ± 0% 206ns ± 0% -3.91% (p=0.000 n=8+8) FmtManyArgs-8 468ns ± 0% 497ns ± 1% +6.09% (p=0.000 n=8+10) GobDecode-8 6.16ms ± 0% 6.21ms ± 1% +0.76% (p=0.000 n=9+10) GobEncode-8 4.90ms ± 0% 4.92ms ± 1% +0.37% (p=0.028 n=9+10) Gzip-8 209ms ± 0% 212ms ± 0% +1.33% (p=0.000 n=10+10) Gunzip-8 36.6ms ± 0% 38.0ms ± 1% +4.03% (p=0.000 n=9+9) HTTPClientServer-8 84.2µs ± 0% 86.0µs ± 1% +2.14% (p=0.000 n=9+9) JSONEncode-8 13.6ms ± 3% 13.8ms ± 1% +1.55% (p=0.003 n=9+10) JSONDecode-8 53.2ms ± 5% 52.9ms ± 0% ~ (p=0.280 n=10+10) Mandelbrot200-8 3.78ms ± 0% 3.78ms ± 1% ~ (p=0.661 n=10+9) GoParse-8 2.89ms ± 0% 2.94ms ± 2% +1.50% (p=0.000 n=10+10) RegexpMatchEasy0_32-8 68.5ns ± 2% 68.9ns ± 1% ~ (p=0.136 n=10+10) RegexpMatchEasy0_1K-8 220ns ± 1% 225ns ± 1% +2.41% (p=0.000 n=10+10) RegexpMatchEasy1_32-8 64.7ns ± 0% 64.5ns ± 0% -0.28% (p=0.042 n=10+10) RegexpMatchEasy1_1K-8 348ns ± 1% 355ns ± 0% +1.90% (p=0.000 n=10+10) RegexpMatchMedium_32-8 102ns ± 1% 105ns ± 1% +2.95% (p=0.000 n=10+10) RegexpMatchMedium_1K-8 33.1µs ± 3% 32.5µs ± 0% -1.75% (p=0.000 n=10+10) RegexpMatchHard_32-8 1.71µs ± 1% 1.70µs ± 1% -0.84% (p=0.002 n=10+9) RegexpMatchHard_1K-8 51.1µs ± 0% 50.8µs ± 1% -0.48% (p=0.004 n=10+10) Revcomp-8 411ms ± 1% 402ms ± 0% -2.22% (p=0.000 n=10+9) Template-8 61.8ms ± 1% 59.7ms ± 0% -3.44% (p=0.000 n=9+9) TimeParse-8 306ns ± 0% 318ns ± 0% +3.83% (p=0.000 n=10+10) TimeFormat-8 320ns ± 0% 318ns ± 1% -0.53% (p=0.012 n=7+10) Change-Id: Ifaf29abbe5874e437048e411ba8f7cfbc9e1c94b Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/38431 Run-TryBot: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: David Chase <drchase@google.com>
39ce5907