Hi Martin!
On 8/11/18 5:54 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
Hi Ivan,
Oh the allure of bit-twiddling!
Yes :)
I'm skeptical that ntz should ever delegate to nlz, and not only
because of the overhead of a wrapper, but because small numbers are
more common, and we can take that into account when implementing ntz.
I was under impression that the more frequently a function is called the
faster it gets compiled, so all the callers of this function will benefit.
For example, if numberOfTrailingZeros is reduced to numberOfLeadingZeros
then when the later is compiled while the former is still not, it will
still be running faster than the variant with independent implementations.
At least add "1" to the set of numbers to benchmark.
In the last proposed patch, all odd numbers will be processed via a fast
path (because for any odd i, ~i & (i - 1) == 0).
So, I added 1, 16 and 42 -- small numbers with different number of
trailing zeros.
Here's the updated benchmark:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/02/bench/int/MyBenchmark.java
(I only executed four implementations to keep the picture clear.)
Here's my own entry in this race:
static int ntz(int i) {
if (i == 0) return 32;
int n = 0;
if ((i << 16) == 0) { n += 16; i >>>= 16; }
if ((i & 0xFF) == 0) { n += 8; i >>>= 8; }
if ((i & 0xF) == 0) { n += 4; i >>>= 4; }
if ((i & 0x3) == 0) { n += 2; i >>>= 2; }
return n + (~i & 1);
}
Interesting!
You might also avoid inversion at the end, if n is initialized with 1,
and then the last line may be written as return n - (i & 1).
Still this variant appears to be slower in most tried cases.
Here's the graph of the latest benchmark:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/02/bench/int/bench-int-02-client.png
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/02/bench/int/bench-int-02-server.png
The variant from the test01 is the fastest in most cases, but I would
prefer to proceed with the variant from test05:
It's only slightly slower than 01, but contains less bytecode and helps
to warm up numberOfLeadingZeros().
Whatever happens, we ought to check in the microbenchmarks somewhere.
It looks like the new jmh-jdk-microbenchmarks is the place.
I also suspect that tests for these methods could be improved (but
there are existing hotspot tests).
To make sure the new code is correct I ran an exhaustive loop from
Integer.MIN_VALUE to MAX_VALUE inclusive and checked all the tested
variants of implementation.
nlz seems harder than ntz in the sense that for nlz "small ints" and
random bits may have different optimal implementations.
On Fri, Aug 10, 2018 at 7:03 PM, Ivan Gerasimov
<ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com <mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
Thanks Martin!
On 8/9/18 5:42 PM, Martin Buchholz wrote:
On Thu, Aug 9, 2018 at 5:27 PM, Ivan Gerasimov
<ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com <mailto:ivan.gerasi...@oracle.com>> wrote:
I did not use the intrinsified variants of
numberOfLeadingZeros in the benchmark.
Oops! Should have looked more closely!
Did you know about
http://www.hackersdelight.org/hdcodetxt/ntz.c.txt
<http://www.hackersdelight.org/hdcodetxt/ntz.c.txt>
Ah, right, ntz1() is even better because it has less branches.
How could I miss that?
Here's the updated webrev and benchmarks:
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/01/webrev/
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eigerasim/8209171/01/webrev/>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/01/bench/int/MyBenchmark.java
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eigerasim/8209171/01/bench/int/MyBenchmark.java>
http://cr.openjdk.java.net/~igerasim/8209171/01/bench/long/MyBenchmark.java
<http://cr.openjdk.java.net/%7Eigerasim/8209171/01/bench/long/MyBenchmark.java>
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
--
With kind regards,
Ivan Gerasimov
