On Thu, 24 Aug 2023 06:23:29 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>>> Improvements are nice but it would not pay off if you have big regressions. >>> I can accept 0.9x but 0.4x - 0.8x regressions should be investigated and >>> implementation adjusted to avoid them. >> >> Hi Vladimir, >> >> Thank you for the suggestion! >> Currently, AVX512sort is doing well for Random, Repeated and Shuffle >> patterns of input data. The regressions are observed for Staggered (Wave) >> pattern of input data. >> Will investigate the regressions and adjust the implementations to address >> them. >> >> Thanks, >> Vamsi > >> Improvements are nice but it would not pay off if you have big regressions. >> I can accept 0.9x but 0.4x - 0.8x regressions should be investigated and >> implementation adjusted to avoid them. > > Hello Vladimir (@vnkozlov) , > > As per your suggestion, the implementation was adjusted to address the > regressions caused for STAGGER and REPEATED type of input data patterns. > Please see below the new JMH performance data using the adjusted > implementation. > > In the new implementation, we don't call the AVX512 sort intrinsic at the top > level (`Arrays.sort()`) . Instead, we take a decomposed or a 'building > blocks' approach where we only intrinsify (using AVX512 instructions) the > partitioning and small array sort functions used in the current baseline ( > `DualPivotQuickSort.sort()` ). Since the current baseline has logic to detect > and sort special input patterns like STAGGER, we fallback to the current > baseline instead of using AVX512 partitioning and sorting (which works best > for RANDOM, REPEATED and SHUFFLE patterns). > > Data below shows `Arrays.sort()` performance comparison between the current > **Java baseline (DPQS)** vs. **AVX512 sort** (this PR) using the > `ArraysSort.java` JMH > [benchmark](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13568/files#diff-dee51b13bd1872ff455cec2f29255cfd25014a5dd33dda55a2fc68638c3dd4b2) > provided in the PR for [JDK-8266431: Dual-Pivot Quicksort improvements > (Radix sort)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13568/files#top) ( #13568) > > - The following command line was used to run the benchmarks: ` java -jar > $JDK_HOME/build/linux-x86_64-server-release/images/test/micro/benchmarks.jar > -jvmArgs "-XX:CompileThreshold=1 -XX:-TieredCompilation" ArraysSort` > - The scores shown are the average time (us/op), thus lower is better. The > last column towards the right shows the speedup. > > > | Benchmark | Mode | Size | Baseline DPQS > (us/op) | AVX512 partitioning & sort (us/op) | Speedup | > | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- > | --- | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | RANDOM | 800 | > 6.7 | 4.8 | 1.39x | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | RANDOM | 7000 | > 234.1 | 51.5 | **4.55x** | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | RANDOM | 50000 | > 2155.9 | 470.0 | **4.59x** | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | RANDOM | 300000 | > 15076.3 | 3391.3 | **4.45x** | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | RANDOM | 2000000 | > 116445.5 | 27491.7 | **4.24x** | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | REPEATED | 800 > | 2.3 | 1.7 | 1.35x | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort | REPEATED | 7000 > | 23.3 | 12.1 | **1.92x** | > | ArraysSort.Double.testSort |... @vamsi-parasa I submitted our testing of latest v28 version. It found issue in `ArraysSort.java` new benchmark file. You missed `,`after year in copyright line: * Copyright (c) 2023, Oracle and/or its affiliates. All rights reserved. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14227#issuecomment-1693790589
