RFR: 8309130: x86_64 AVX512 intrinsics for Arrays.sort methods (int, long, float and double arrays) [v40]

Wed Sep 20 23:36:57 UTC 2023

On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:19:42 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa <duke at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking advantage of AVX512 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of magnitude speedup for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float and double arrays.
>> 
>> This PR shows upto ~7x improvement for 32-bit datatypes (int, float) and upto ~4.5x improvement for 64-bit datatypes (long, double) as shown in the performance data below.
>> 
>> 
>> **Arrays.sort performance data using JMH benchmarks for arrays with random data** 
>> 
>> |	Arrays.sort benchmark	|	Array Size	|	Baseline (us/op)	|	AVX512 Sort (us/op)	|	Speedup	|
>> |	---	|	---	|	---	|	---	|	---	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	10	|	0.034	|	0.035	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	25	|	0.116	|	0.089	|	1.3	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	50	|	0.282	|	0.291	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	75	|	0.474	|	0.358	|	1.3	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	100	|	0.654	|	0.623	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	1000	|	9.274	|	6.331	|	1.5	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	10000	|	323.339	|	71.228	|	**4.5**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	100000	|	4471.871	|	1002.748	|	**4.5**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.doubleSort	|	1000000	|	51660.742	|	12921.295	|	**4.0**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	10	|	0.045	|	0.046	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	25	|	0.103	|	0.084	|	1.2	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	50	|	0.285	|	0.33	|	0.9	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	75	|	0.492	|	0.346	|	1.4	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	100	|	0.597	|	0.326	|	1.8	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	1000	|	9.811	|	5.294	|	1.9	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	10000	|	323.955	|	50.547	|	**6.4**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	100000	|	4326.38	|	731.152	|	**5.9**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.floatSort	|	1000000	|	52413.88	|	8409.193	|	**6.2**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	10	|	0.033	|	0.033	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	25	|	0.086	|	0.051	|	1.7	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	50	|	0.236	|	0.151	|	1.6	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	75	|	0.416	|	0.332	|	1.3	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	100	|	0.63	|	0.521	|	1.2	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	1000	|	10.518	|	4.698	|	2.2	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	10000	|	309.659	|	42.518	|	**7.3**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	100000	|	4130.917	|	573.956	|	**7.2**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.intSort	|	1000000	|	49876.307	|	6712.812	|	**7.4**	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	10	|	0.036	|	0.037	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	25	|	0.094	|	0.08	|	1.2	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	50	|	0.218	|	0.227	|	1.0	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	75	|	0.466	|	0.402	|	1.2	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	100	|	0.76	|	0.58	|	1.3	|
>> |	ArraysSort.longSort	|	1000	|	10.449	|	6....
>
> Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional commit since the last revision:
> 
>   change variable names of indexPivot* to pivotIndex*

> Hi Vamsi,
> 
> In this comment [#13568 (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13568#issuecomment-1728082819) Paul suggested comparing of performance.
> 
> Could you please run benchmarking of the following 4 class?
> 
> [1] current implementation in JDK [2] your AVX12 version based on [1], from this PR [3] my new version with Radix sort for parallel case plus your AVX12 changes https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForParallel.java [4] my new version with Radix sort for all cases plus your AVX12 changes https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll.java
> 
> Please use this JMH test, run on
> 
> * all sizes
> * all inputs
> * but for int type only (I applied AVX12 changes in my classes for int)
> * for sequential and parallel sorting (sort() and parallelSort())
> 
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/42e17e45b1adc4d77ba5549770ce591d96d4b1fe/test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/util/ArraysSort.java
> 
> Before we go ahead, it will be interesting to see the boost of performance of each improvements.
> 
> Many thanks, Vladimir

>From what we (Vamsi and I) see, the two PRs are totally independent. This PR has its own merit which we have shown through various performance runs by now. This PR doesn't conflict with the radix sort PR. The perf runs that you ask for above make sense in the radix sort PR discussion and not here. There also the onus is on the author of the PR to show the merit of their work through perf runs and such.

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14227#issuecomment-1728555043