RFR: JDK-8320448 Accelerate IndexOf using AVX2 [v7]
Jatin Bhateja
jbhateja at openjdk.org
Tue Jan 16 12:12:34 UTC 2024
On Thu, 11 Jan 2024 23:06:32 GMT, Scott Gibbons <sgibbons at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> Re-write the IndexOf code without the use of the pcmpestri instruction, only using AVX2 instructions. This change accelerates String.IndexOf on average 1.3x for AVX2. The benchmark numbers:
>>
>>
>> Benchmark Score Latest
>> StringIndexOf.advancedWithMediumSub 343.573 317.934 0.925375393x
>> StringIndexOf.advancedWithShortSub1 1039.081 1053.96 1.014319384x
>> StringIndexOf.advancedWithShortSub2 55.828 110.541 1.980027943x
>> StringIndexOf.constantPattern 9.361 11.906 1.271872663x
>> StringIndexOf.searchCharLongSuccess 4.216 4.218 1.000474383x
>> StringIndexOf.searchCharMediumSuccess 3.133 3.216 1.02649218x
>> StringIndexOf.searchCharShortSuccess 3.76 3.761 1.000265957x
>> StringIndexOf.success 9.186 9.713 1.057369911x
>> StringIndexOf.successBig 14.341 46.343 3.231504079x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_AVX2_String 6220.918 12154.52 1.953814533x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_AVX2_char 5503.556 5540.044 1.006629895x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_SSE4_String 6978.854 6818.689 0.977049957x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_SSE4_char 5657.499 5474.624 0.967675646x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_Short_String 7132.541 6863.359 0.962260014x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_Short_char 16013.389 16162.437 1.009307711x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_mixed_String 7386.123 14771.622 1.999915517x
>> StringIndexOfChar.latin1_mixed_char 9901.671 9782.245 0.987938803
>
> Scott Gibbons has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains 22 commits:
>
> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into indexof
> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into indexof
> - Addressing review comments.
> - Fix for JDK-8321599
> - Support UU IndexOf
> - Only use optimization when EnableX86ECoreOpts is true
> - Fix whitespace
> - Merge branch 'openjdk:master' into indexof
> - Comments; added exhaustive-ish test
> - Subtracting 0x10 twice.
> - ... and 12 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/8e12053e...3e58d0c2
src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_string.cpp line 197:
> 195: __ bind(L_small_string);
> 196: __ cmpq(r15, 0x20);
> 197: __ ja(L_small_string2);
ja should replaced by jg.
src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_string.cpp line 1526:
> 1524: __ movq(rdx, r8);
> 1525: __ movq(rcx, r9);
> 1526: #endif
Can we spill them into XXMs, to save costly stack operations.
src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_string.cpp line 1545:
> 1543: // return 0;
> 1544: // }
> 1545: __ movq(r12, rcx);
Kindly use meaningful variable and label names. It will ease the review process and maintenance.
src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_string.cpp line 1551:
> 1549: __ movq(r15, rsi);
> 1550: __ movq(r11, rdi);
> 1551: __ cmpq(rsi, 0x20);
All comparisons are with 32 bit int value , cmpq -> cmpl, may save emitting REX encoding prefix (no need for setting REX.W).
src/hotspot/cpu/x86/stubGenerator_x86_64_string.cpp line 1552:
> 1550: __ movq(r11, rdi);
> 1551: __ cmpq(rsi, 0x20);
> 1552: __ jb(L_small_string);
All the comparisons against needle length are signed integer comparisons, so jb should be replaced by jl
src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp line 1206:
> 1204:
> 1205: Node* result = nullptr;
> 1206: bool do_intrinsic =
Name change suggestion: do_intrinsic -> call_opt_stub
src/hotspot/share/opto/library_call.cpp line 1229:
> 1227: } else {
> 1228: result = make_indexOf_node(src_start, src_count, tgt_start, tgt_count,
> 1229: result_rgn, result_phi, ae);
Existing routines emits IR to handle following special cases.
tgt_cnt > src_cnt return -1
tgt_cnt == 0 return 0.
Should we not be preserving those check before calling stub ?
As of now these checks are part of stub and doing them in JIT code will save call overhead.
src/hotspot/share/opto/runtime.cpp line 1347:
> 1345: fields[argp++] = TypeInt::INT; // needle length
> 1346: fields[argp++] = TypePtr::NOTNULL; // haystack array
> 1347: fields[argp++] = TypeInt::INT; // haystack length
Do we need to swap the comments? first two arguments corresponds to value (haystack) as per java side intrinsic signature.
https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/master/src/java.base/share/classes/java/lang/StringLatin1.java#L348
-------------
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453304911
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453332647
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453333045
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453333555
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453333878
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453338427
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453338718
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/16753#discussion_r1453329079
More information about the core-libs-dev
mailing list