Intro: I write high-performance code in C#. Yes, I know C++ would give me better optimization, but I still choose to use C#. I do not wish to debate that choice. Rather, I'd like to hear from those who, like me, are trying to write high-performance code on the .NET Framework.
Questions:
- Why is the operator in the code below slower than the equivalent method call??
- Why is the method passing two doubles in the code below faster than the equivalent method passing a struct that has two doubles inside? (A: older JITs optimize structs poorly)
- Is there a way to get the .NET JIT Compiler to treat simple structs as efficiently as the members of the struct? (A: get newer JIT)
What I think I know: The original .NET JIT Compiler would not inline anything that involved a struct. Bizarre given structs should only be used where you need small value types that should be optimized like built-ins, but true. Fortunately, in .NET 3.5SP1 and .NET 2.0SP2, they made some improvements to the JIT Optimizer, including improvements to inlining, particularly for structs. (I am guessing they did that because otherwise the new Complex struct that they were introducing would have performed horribly... so the Complex team was probably pounding on the JIT Optimizer team.) So, any documentation prior to .NET 3.5 SP1 is probably not too relevant to this issue.
What my testing shows: I have verified that I do have the newer JIT Optimizer by checking that C:\Windows\Microsoft.NET\Framework\v2.0.50727\mscorwks.dll file does have version >= 3053 and so should have those improvements to the JIT optimizer. However, even with that, what my timings and looks at the disassembly both show are:
The JIT-produced code for passing a struct with two doubles is far less efficient than code that directly passes the two doubles.
The JIT-produced code for a struct method passes in 'this' far more efficiently than if you passed a struct as an argument.
The JIT still inlines better if you pass two doubles rather than passing a struct with two doubles, even with the multiplier due to being clearly in a loop.
The Timings: Actually, looking at the disassembly I realize that most of the time in the loops is just accessing the test data out of the List. The difference between the four ways of making the same calls is dramatically different if you factor out the overhead code of the loop and the accessing of the data. I get anywhere from 5x to 20x speedups for doing PlusEqual(double, double) instead of PlusEqual(Element). And 10x to 40x for doing PlusEqual(double, double) instead of operator +=. Wow. Sad.
Here's one set of timings:
Populating List<Element> took 320ms.
The PlusEqual() method took 105ms.
The 'same' += operator took 131ms.
The 'same' -= operator took 139ms.
The PlusEqual(double, double) method took 68ms.
The do nothing loop took 66ms.
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 124%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 132%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 64%.
If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...
The ratio of operator with constructor to method is 166%.
The ratio of operator without constructor to method is 187%.
The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is 5%.
The Code:
namespace OperatorVsMethod
{
public struct Element
{
public double Left;
public double Right;
public Element(double left, double right)
{
this.Left = left;
this.Right = right;
}
public static Element operator +(Element x, Element y)
{
return new Element(x.Left + y.Left, x.Right + y.Right);
}
public static Element operator -(Element x, Element y)
{
x.Left += y.Left;
x.Right += y.Right;
return x;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(Element that)
{
this.Left += that.Left;
this.Right += that.Right;
}
/// <summary>
/// Like the += operator; but faster.
/// </summary>
public void PlusEqual(double thatLeft, double thatRight)
{
this.Left += thatLeft;
this.Right += thatRight;
}
}
[TestClass]
public class UnitTest1
{
[TestMethod]
public void TestMethod1()
{
Stopwatch stopwatch = new Stopwatch();
// Populate a List of Elements to multiply together
int seedSize = 4;
List<double> doubles = new List<double>(seedSize);
doubles.Add(2.5d);
doubles.Add(100000d);
doubles.Add(-0.5d);
doubles.Add(-100002d);
int size = 2500000 * seedSize;
List<Element> elts = new List<Element>(size);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
int di = ii % seedSize;
double d = doubles[di];
elts.Add(new Element(d, d));
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long populateMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of += operator (calls ctor)
Element operatorCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorCtorResult += elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of -= operator (+= without ctor)
Element operatorNoCtorResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
operatorNoCtorResult -= elts[ii];
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long operatorNoCtorMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(Element) method
Element plusEqualResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
plusEqualResult.PlusEqual(elts[ii]);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of PlusEqual(double, double) method
Element plusEqualDDResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
plusEqualDDResult.PlusEqual(elt.Left, elt.Right);
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long plusEqualDDMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Measure speed of doing nothing but accessing the Element
Element doNothingResult = new Element(1d, 1d);
stopwatch.Reset();
stopwatch.Start();
for (int ii = 0; ii < size; ++ii)
{
Element elt = elts[ii];
double left = elt.Left;
double right = elt.Right;
}
stopwatch.Stop();
long doNothingMS = stopwatch.ElapsedMilliseconds;
// Report results
Assert.AreEqual(1d, operatorCtorResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, operatorNoCtorResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, plusEqualResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, plusEqualDDResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
Assert.AreEqual(1d, doNothingResult.Left, "The operator += did not compute the right result!");
// Report speeds
Console.WriteLine("Populating List<Element> took {0}ms.", populateMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual() method took {0}ms.", plusEqualMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' += operator took {0}ms.", operatorCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The 'same' -= operator took {0}ms.", operatorNoCtorMS);
Console.WriteLine("The PlusEqual(double, double) method took {0}ms.", plusEqualDDMS);
Console.WriteLine("The do nothing loop took {0}ms.", doNothingMS);
// Compare speeds
long percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
operatorCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
operatorNoCtorMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualMS -= doNothingMS;
plusEqualDDMS -= doNothingMS;
Console.WriteLine("If we remove the overhead time for the loop accessing the elements from the List...");
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator with constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * operatorNoCtorMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of operator without constructor to method is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
percentageRatio = 100L * plusEqualDDMS / plusEqualMS;
Console.WriteLine("The ratio of PlusEqual(double,double) to PlusEqual(Element) is {0}%.", percentageRatio);
}
}
}
The IL: (aka. what some of the above gets compiled into)
public void PlusEqual(Element that)
{
00000000 push ebp
00000001 mov ebp,esp
00000003 push edi
00000004 push esi
00000005 push ebx
00000006 sub esp,30h
00000009 xor eax,eax
0000000b mov dword ptr [ebp-10h],eax
0000000e xor eax,eax
00000010 mov dword ptr [ebp-1Ch],eax
00000013 mov dword ptr [ebp-3Ch],ecx
00000016 cmp dword ptr ds:[04C87B7Ch],0
0000001d je 00000024
0000001f call 753081B1
00000024 nop
this.Left += that.Left;
00000025 mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000028 fld qword ptr [ebp+8]
0000002b fadd qword ptr [eax]
0000002d fstp qword ptr [eax]
this.Right += that.Right;
0000002f mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000032 fld qword ptr [ebp+10h]
00000035 fadd qword ptr [eax+8]
00000038 fstp qword ptr [eax+8]
}
0000003b nop
0000003c lea esp,[ebp-0Ch]
0000003f pop ebx
00000040 pop esi
00000041 pop edi
00000042 pop ebp
00000043 ret 10h
public void PlusEqual(double thatLeft, double thatRight)
{
00000000 push ebp
00000001 mov ebp,esp
00000003 push edi
00000004 push esi
00000005 push ebx
00000006 sub esp,30h
00000009 xor eax,eax
0000000b mov dword ptr [ebp-10h],eax
0000000e xor eax,eax
00000010 mov dword ptr [ebp-1Ch],eax
00000013 mov dword ptr [ebp-3Ch],ecx
00000016 cmp dword ptr ds:[04C87B7Ch],0
0000001d je 00000024
0000001f call 75308159
00000024 nop
this.Left += thatLeft;
00000025 mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000028 fld qword ptr [ebp+10h]
0000002b fadd qword ptr [eax]
0000002d fstp qword ptr [eax]
this.Right += thatRight;
0000002f mov eax,dword ptr [ebp-3Ch]
00000032 fld qword ptr [ebp+8]
00000035 fadd qword ptr [eax+8]
00000038 fstp qword ptr [eax+8]
}
0000003b nop
0000003c lea esp,[ebp-0Ch]
0000003f pop ebx
00000040 pop esi
00000041 pop edi
00000042 pop ebp
00000043 ret 10h
