Optimise `Entity` with repr align & manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` #10558

Bluefinger · 2023-11-14T15:51:47Z

Objective

Follow up on Optimize Entity::eq #10519, diving deeper into optimising Entity due to the derived PartialOrd partial_cmp not being optimal with codegen: derived PartialOrd::le is non-optimal for 2-field struct of primitive integers rust-lang/rust#106107
Fixes Entity cmp::Eq improvement #2346.

Solution

Given the previous PR's solution and the other existing LLVM codegen bug, there seemed to be a potential further optimisation possible with Entity. In exploring providing manual PartialOrd impl, it turned out initially that the resulting codegen was not immediately better than the derived version. However, once Entity was given #[repr(align(8)], the codegen improved remarkably, even more once the fields in Entity were rearranged to correspond to a u64 layout (Rust doesn't automatically reorder fields correctly it seems). The field order and align(8) additions also improved to_bits codegen to be a single mov op. In turn, this led me to replace the previous "non-shortcircuiting" impl of PartialEq::eq to use direct to_bits comparison.

The result was remarkably better codegen across the board, even for hastable lookups.

The current baseline codegen is as follows: https://godbolt.org/z/zTW1h8PnY

Assuming the following example struct that mirrors with the existing Entity definition:

#[derive(Clone, Copy, Eq, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Ord)]
pub struct FakeU64 {
    high: u32,
    low: u32,
}

the output for to_bits is as follows:

example::FakeU64::to_bits:
        shl     rdi, 32
        mov     eax, esi
        or      rax, rdi
        ret

Changing the struct to:

#[derive(Clone, Copy, Eq)]
#[repr(align(8))]
pub struct FakeU64 {
    low: u32,
    high: u32,
}

and providing manual implementations for PartialEq/PartialOrd/Ord, to_bits now optimises to:

example::FakeU64::to_bits:
        mov     rax, rdi
        ret

The full codegen example for this PR is here for reference: https://godbolt.org/z/n4Mjx165a

To highlight, gt comparison goes from

example::greater_than:
        cmp     edi, edx
        jae     .LBB3_2
        xor     eax, eax
        ret
.LBB3_2:
        setne   dl
        cmp     esi, ecx
        seta    al
        or      al, dl
        ret

to

example::greater_than:
        cmp     rdi, rsi
        seta    al
        ret

As explained on Discord by @scottmcm :

The root issue here, as far as I understand it, is that LLVM's middle-end is inexplicably unwilling to merge loads if that would make them under-aligned. It leaves that entirely up to its target-specific back-end, and thus a bunch of the things that you'd expect it to do that would fix this just don't happen.

Benchmarks

Before discussing benchmarks, everything was tested on the following specs:

AMD Ryzen 7950X 16C/32T CPU
64GB 5200 RAM
AMD RX7900XT 20GB Gfx card
Manjaro KDE on Wayland

I made use of the new entity hashing benchmarks to see how this PR would improve things there. With the changes in place, I first did an implementation keeping the existing "non shortcircuit" PartialEq implementation in place, but with the alignment and field ordering changes, which in the benchmark is the ord_shortcircuit column. The to_bits PartialEq implementation is the ord_to_bits column. The main_ord column is the current existing baseline from main branch.

My machine is not super set-up for benchmarking, so some results are within noise, but there's not just a clear improvement between the non-shortcircuiting implementation, but even further optimisation taking place with the to_bits implementation.

On my machine, a fair number of the stress tests were not showing any difference (indicating other bottlenecks), but I was able to get a clear difference with many_foxes with a fox count of 10,000:

Test with cargo run --example many_foxes --features bevy/trace_tracy,wayland --release -- --count 10000:

On avg, a framerate of about 28-29FPS was improved to 30-32FPS. "This trace" represents the current PR's perf, while "External trace" represents the main branch baseline.

Changelog

Changed: micro-optimized Entity align and field ordering as well as providing manual PartialOrd/Ord impls to help LLVM optimise further.

Migration Guide

Any unsafe code relying on field ordering of Entity or sufficiently cursed shenanigans should change to reflect the different internal representation and alignment requirements of Entity.

Co-authored-by: james7132 contact@jamessliu.com
Co-authored-by: NathanW nathansward@comcast.net

alice-i-cecile · 2023-11-14T17:16:09Z

@scottmcm could we get your review here? :) Really cool to see this work paying off.

killercup

Looks logically correct to me.

Codegen on ARM seems good too: https://godbolt.org/z/1o6oMGrbE

scottmcm · 2023-11-14T19:08:16Z

@alice-i-cecile My instinct here is that it might be a good idea to split this PR.

The manual PartialOrd+Ord and the reversed field ordering is unambiguously good. (Maybe worse on BE, but does bevy even run on any BE targets?) That part I'd say definitely take.

The #[repr(align(8))], though, (and the change to PartialEq that depends on it), is not so clear-cut. It means, for example, that Option<Entity> will be 16 bytes instead of the 12 bytes today. Similarly, any struct with an Entity that didn't also have something 8-byte aligned already might be bigger. And it changes the ABI of passing around Entitys from passing as a scalar pair of i32s to being passed as a single i64. That might be better -- less register pressure -- but also might be worse -- more shifting to get at things. See https://rust.godbolt.org/z/6PGKMEYPs for example. (Those specific examples would always be inlined, but they're the simplest thing I can make that shows the ABI and shifting differences.) Also, I don't know how much you care about 32-bit targets, but if you're on a target where align_of::<u64>() == 4, then I think the repr(align(8)) is just going to pessimize layout without a perf improvement.

It's also possible that it could be better to just store a u64 instead of messing with the alignment to make it behave like that, something like scottmcm@scalar-entity, since then the derives just work again and all the repr+field ordering stuff becomes unnecessary.

TL/DR: it's possible that the align change is great, but it might be a good idea to double-check it on more benchmarks -- it's unrealistically good on the hashmap ones, since hashing calls to_bits on &Entity -- especially looking at memory usage too.

scottmcm

Just a couple of smaller thoughts. Most aren't things for which I'd block the PR, personally.

crates/bevy_ecs/src/entity/mod.rs

scottmcm · 2023-11-14T19:14:25Z

crates/bevy_ecs/src/entity/mod.rs

+// Alignment repr necessary to allow LLVM to better output
+// optimised codegen for `to_bits`, `PartialEq` and `Ord`.
+// See <https://github.com/rust-lang/rust/issues/106107>
+#[repr(align(8))]


YMMV: you could consider adding an align: [u64; 0] field instead of the repr, which would make it aligned the same as u64, and thus less-aligned on smaller targets that don't care about 8-byte alignment for u64.

Adding a field would complicate this PR, as then I'd have to change initialisation usages of Entity within the file. It would add either complication, or noise to change things to use new instead (which in my view, should be the case with constructors anyway). Also, the only 32-bit platform mainstream enough to worry about is wasm32, which should handle u64 just fine as it is a native type. All in all, I'd rather not complicate the structure of Entity too much. Maybe something for a different PR to explore if there's further potential there (or something to bake into #9797)

crates/bevy_ecs/src/entity/mod.rs

scottmcm · 2023-11-14T19:24:24Z

Rust doesn't automatically reorder fields correctly it seems

Currently it'll reorder them to reduce padding, but no, it doesn't look at the entire program to deduce from how it's use what order would be best for them to be in (yet 😏).

scottmcm · 2023-11-14T19:58:27Z

Come to think of it, if #9907 lands to add a niche to Entity, that would allow the align(8) without the extra-4-bytes cost to Option<Entity>.

Oh, interesting: while looking for that PR above I accidentally found "Endianness based Entity representation" from Jan 2022 that looks like it proposed almost the same thing as what's here:
https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/3788/files#diff-64745065a7cefb843c5c5a881c561330ee9d06d3f1f36c28321788b97e64d88fR51

james7132

This shares a lot of overlap with #3788. I'm not sure if some of the results here are portable to non-little endian systems or if this would be an explicit rustc/LLVM-focused micro-optimization.

Also do note this has a knock-on effect for any type that has Entity as a member due to the alignment change, though that is probably OK given the number of types that already have u64s, usizes, and pointers within them.

Otherwise though, the results look good to me.

maniwani

This seems alright to me.

Just for future reference, it's important for future internal work that Entity values (or well, the underlying unified ID type as in #9797) sort in a specific way. So, for example, if we sort the following three Entity values, 3v1, 4v0, and 1v1, in ascending order, we should get 4v0, 1v1, 3v1. (i.e. to_bits returns generation in high bits, index in low bits)

We probably shouldn't make any guarantees about this for third-party usage though.

maniwani · 2023-11-15T00:00:55Z

The #[repr(align(8))], though, (and the change to PartialEq that depends on it), is not so clear-cut. It means, for example, that Option<Entity> will be 16 bytes instead of the 12 bytes today. Similarly, any struct with an Entity that didn't also have something 8-byte aligned already might be bigger.

If it's guaranteed to return to being the same size as a u64 if one of these fields was a NonZeroU32, then this should be OK.

scottmcm · 2023-11-15T00:12:10Z

Just for future reference, it's important for future internal work that Entity values (or well, the underlying unified ID type as in #9797) sort in a specific way.

I added tests for ordering in https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/pull/10519/files#diff-64745065a7cefb843c5c5a881c561330ee9d06d3f1f36c28321788b97e64d88fR940, if you're wondering why they're not in this PR.

We probably shouldn't make any guarantees about this for third-party usage though.

If Ord is implemented, I suspect it will be hard to keep people from depending on it.

Should there be a goal to keep this from being relied upon, it might be better to not implement the trait but have the internal code use a comparator of some sort. (I don't know how the ordering is used internally, though.)

james7132 · 2023-11-15T00:19:50Z

If Ord is implemented, I suspect it will be hard to keep people from depending on it.

TypeId implements Ord/PartialOrd, but the docs explicitly state not to rely on any particular ordering, primarily to enable the use of HashMap and BTreeMap keyed on the type. The same thing can apply here too.

Bluefinger · 2023-11-15T08:01:12Z

I've added a few bits brought up in the feedback, including fixing the struct layout with repr(C) and also providing endian layout from #3788. I also improved the wording of some comments so hopefully it is all. I also ran benchmarks on the changes to ensure there were no regressions on my end:

Bluefinger · 2023-11-15T08:06:18Z

This seems alright to me.

Just for future reference, it's important for future internal work that Entity values (or well, the underlying unified ID type as in #9797) sort in a specific way. So, for example, if we sort the following three Entity values, 3v1, 4v0, and 1v1, in ascending order, we should get 4v0, 1v1, 3v1. (i.e. to_bits returns generation in high bits, index in low bits)

We probably shouldn't make any guarantees about this for third-party usage though.

Ideally, the bit representation ordering is kinda what we want if we want to separate Pair entities from normal entities, as the flag is on the MSB. For normal entities, "fresh" Entities being sorted first and "recycled" Entities being last seems to me to be logically "correct" because recycled entities go through a removal (taken from the list) and then get readded. The ordering thus reflects oldest or longest lived to newest or shortest-lived Entities (roughly). Pairs would then be ordered by their "kind". So I don't think the bit-based ordering will be problematic.

killercup · 2023-11-15T09:53:27Z

If it's guaranteed to return to being the same size as a u64 if one of these fields was a NonZeroU32, then this should be OK.

Still works https://godbolt.org/z/fhdxWGPP8

james7132

Added myself and @NathanSWard as co-authors in the PR description for the prior work on #3788 and #2372.

@superdump

# Objective Keep essentially the same structure of `EntityHasher` from #9903, but rephrase the multiplication slightly to save an instruction. cc @superdump Discord thread: https://discord.com/channels/691052431525675048/1172033156845674507/1174969772522356756 ## Solution Today, the hash is ```rust self.hash = i | (i.wrapping_mul(FRAC_U64MAX_PI) << 32); ``` with `i` being `(generation << 32) | index`. Expanding things out, we get ```rust i | ( (i * CONST) << 32 ) = (generation << 32) | index | ((((generation << 32) | index) * CONST) << 32) = (generation << 32) | index | ((index * CONST) << 32) // because the generation overflowed = (index * CONST | generation) << 32 | index ``` What if we do the same thing, but with `+` instead of `|`? That's almost the same thing, except that it has carries, which are actually often better in a hash function anyway, since it doesn't saturate. (`|` can be dangerous, since once something becomes `-1` it'll stay that, and there's no mixing available.) ```rust (index * CONST + generation) << 32 + index = (CONST << 32 + 1) * index + generation << 32 = (CONST << 32 + 1) * index + (WHATEVER << 32 + generation) << 32 // because the extra overflows and thus can be anything = (CONST << 32 + 1) * index + ((CONST * generation) << 32 + generation) << 32 // pick "whatever" to be something convenient = (CONST << 32 + 1) * index + ((CONST << 32 + 1) * generation) << 32 = (CONST << 32 + 1) * index +((CONST << 32 + 1) * (generation << 32) = (CONST << 32 + 1) * (index + generation << 32) = (CONST << 32 + 1) * (generation << 32 | index) = (CONST << 32 + 1) * i ``` So we can do essentially the same thing using a single multiplication instead of doing multiply-shift-or. LLVM was already smart enough to merge the shifting into a multiplication, but this saves the extra `or`: ![image](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/18526288/d9396614-2326-4730-abbe-4908c01b5ace) <https://rust.godbolt.org/z/MEvbz4eo4> It's a very small change, and often will disappear in load latency anyway, but it's a couple percent faster in lookups: ![image](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/18526288/c365ec85-6adc-4f6d-8fa6-a65146f55a75) (There was more of an improvement here before #10558, but with `to_bits` being a single `qword` load now, keeping things mostly as it is turned out to be better than the bigger changes I'd tried in #10605.) --- ## Changelog (Probably skip it) ## Migration Guide (none needed)

@scottmcm

…gine#10558) # Objective - Follow up on bevyengine#10519, diving deeper into optimising `Entity` due to the `derive`d `PartialOrd` `partial_cmp` not being optimal with codegen: rust-lang/rust#106107 - Fixes bevyengine#2346. ## Solution Given the previous PR's solution and the other existing LLVM codegen bug, there seemed to be a potential further optimisation possible with `Entity`. In exploring providing manual `PartialOrd` impl, it turned out initially that the resulting codegen was not immediately better than the derived version. However, once `Entity` was given `#[repr(align(8)]`, the codegen improved remarkably, even more once the fields in `Entity` were rearranged to correspond to a `u64` layout (Rust doesn't automatically reorder fields correctly it seems). The field order and `align(8)` additions also improved `to_bits` codegen to be a single `mov` op. In turn, this led me to replace the previous "non-shortcircuiting" impl of `PartialEq::eq` to use direct `to_bits` comparison. The result was remarkably better codegen across the board, even for hastable lookups. The current baseline codegen is as follows: https://godbolt.org/z/zTW1h8PnY Assuming the following example struct that mirrors with the existing `Entity` definition: ```rust #[derive(Clone, Copy, Eq, PartialEq, PartialOrd, Ord)] pub struct FakeU64 { high: u32, low: u32, } ``` the output for `to_bits` is as follows: ``` example::FakeU64::to_bits: shl rdi, 32 mov eax, esi or rax, rdi ret ``` Changing the struct to: ```rust #[derive(Clone, Copy, Eq)] #[repr(align(8))] pub struct FakeU64 { low: u32, high: u32, } ``` and providing manual implementations for `PartialEq`/`PartialOrd`/`Ord`, `to_bits` now optimises to: ``` example::FakeU64::to_bits: mov rax, rdi ret ``` The full codegen example for this PR is here for reference: https://godbolt.org/z/n4Mjx165a To highlight, `gt` comparison goes from ``` example::greater_than: cmp edi, edx jae .LBB3_2 xor eax, eax ret .LBB3_2: setne dl cmp esi, ecx seta al or al, dl ret ``` to ``` example::greater_than: cmp rdi, rsi seta al ret ``` As explained on Discord by @scottmcm : >The root issue here, as far as I understand it, is that LLVM's middle-end is inexplicably unwilling to merge loads if that would make them under-aligned. It leaves that entirely up to its target-specific back-end, and thus a bunch of the things that you'd expect it to do that would fix this just don't happen. ## Benchmarks Before discussing benchmarks, everything was tested on the following specs: AMD Ryzen 7950X 16C/32T CPU 64GB 5200 RAM AMD RX7900XT 20GB Gfx card Manjaro KDE on Wayland I made use of the new entity hashing benchmarks to see how this PR would improve things there. With the changes in place, I first did an implementation keeping the existing "non shortcircuit" `PartialEq` implementation in place, but with the alignment and field ordering changes, which in the benchmark is the `ord_shortcircuit` column. The `to_bits` `PartialEq` implementation is the `ord_to_bits` column. The main_ord column is the current existing baseline from `main` branch. ![Screenshot_20231114_132908](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/3116268/cb9090c9-ff74-4cc5-abae-8e4561332261) My machine is not super set-up for benchmarking, so some results are within noise, but there's not just a clear improvement between the non-shortcircuiting implementation, but even further optimisation taking place with the `to_bits` implementation. On my machine, a fair number of the stress tests were not showing any difference (indicating other bottlenecks), but I was able to get a clear difference with `many_foxes` with a fox count of 10,000: Test with `cargo run --example many_foxes --features bevy/trace_tracy,wayland --release -- --count 10000`: ![Screenshot_20231114_144217](https://github.com/bevyengine/bevy/assets/3116268/89bdc21c-7209-43c8-85ae-efbf908bfed3) On avg, a framerate of about 28-29FPS was improved to 30-32FPS. "This trace" represents the current PR's perf, while "External trace" represents the `main` branch baseline. ## Changelog Changed: micro-optimized Entity align and field ordering as well as providing manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` impls to help LLVM optimise further. ## Migration Guide Any `unsafe` code relying on field ordering of `Entity` or sufficiently cursed shenanigans should change to reflect the different internal representation and alignment requirements of `Entity`. Co-authored-by: james7132 <contact@jamessliu.com> Co-authored-by: NathanW <nathansward@comcast.net>

Bluefinger added 4 commits November 14, 2023 12:23

Optimise Entity with repr align & manual PartialOrd

7321fe4

Add extra inlining hints for Entity

59bacbd

Add issue ref to LLVM output bug for PartialOrd

39d9259

Comment on Entity field order

a99626a

Bluefinger mentioned this pull request Nov 14, 2023

Unified identifer for entities & relations #9797

Merged

alice-i-cecile added A-ECS Entities, components, systems, and events C-Performance A change motivated by improving speed, memory usage or compile times M-Needs-Migration-Guide A breaking change to Bevy's public API that needs to be noted in a migration guide labels Nov 14, 2023

alice-i-cecile approved these changes Nov 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

killercup approved these changes Nov 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

scottmcm suggested changes Nov 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

james7132 approved these changes Nov 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

alice-i-cecile added S-Ready-For-Final-Review This PR has been approved by the community. It's ready for a maintainer to consider merging it D-Complex Quite challenging from either a design or technical perspective. Ask for help! labels Nov 14, 2023

maniwani approved these changes Nov 14, 2023

View reviewed changes

Endian repr, comment cleanup and clarifications

b025e55

james7132 approved these changes Nov 18, 2023

View reviewed changes

james7132 added this pull request to the merge queue Nov 18, 2023

james7132 mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2023

Endianness based Entity representation #3788

Closed

Merged via the queue into bevyengine:main with commit 9c0fca0 Nov 18, 2023
21 checks passed

scottmcm mentioned this pull request Nov 18, 2023

Tweak EntityHasher for more speed #10605

Closed

Bluefinger deleted the entity-partialord-optimisation branch November 19, 2023 17:16

scottmcm mentioned this pull request Nov 19, 2023

Save an instruction in EntityHasher #10648

Merged

atlv24 mentioned this pull request Jan 23, 2024

Migrated to f32::total_cmp() function in FloatOrd::cmp() #5208

Closed

nicopap mentioned this pull request Jan 29, 2024

0.13 announcement post bevyengine/bevy-website#891

Merged

NthTensor mentioned this pull request Aug 22, 2024

Use the freshly stabilized f32::total_cmp methods #5152

Open

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

Optimise `Entity` with repr align & manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` #10558

Optimise `Entity` with repr align & manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` #10558

Bluefinger commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited by james7132

Loading

alice-i-cecile commented Nov 14, 2023

killercup left a comment

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

scottmcm left a comment

scottmcm Nov 14, 2023

Bluefinger Nov 15, 2023

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023

james7132 left a comment

maniwani left a comment •

edited

Loading

maniwani commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

scottmcm commented Nov 15, 2023

james7132 commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Bluefinger commented Nov 15, 2023

Bluefinger commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

killercup commented Nov 15, 2023

james7132 left a comment

Optimise Entity with repr align & manual PartialOrd/Ord #10558

Optimise Entity with repr align & manual PartialOrd/Ord #10558

Conversation

Bluefinger commented Nov 14, 2023 • edited by james7132 Loading

Objective

Solution

Benchmarks

Changelog

Migration Guide

alice-i-cecile commented Nov 14, 2023

killercup left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023 • edited Loading

scottmcm left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scottmcm Nov 14, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Bluefinger Nov 15, 2023

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023

james7132 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maniwani left a comment • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

maniwani commented Nov 15, 2023 • edited Loading

scottmcm commented Nov 15, 2023

james7132 commented Nov 15, 2023 • edited Loading

Bluefinger commented Nov 15, 2023

Bluefinger commented Nov 15, 2023 • edited Loading

killercup commented Nov 15, 2023

james7132 left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

Optimise `Entity` with repr align & manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` #10558

Optimise `Entity` with repr align & manual `PartialOrd`/`Ord` #10558

Bluefinger commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited by james7132

Loading

scottmcm commented Nov 14, 2023 •

edited

Loading

maniwani left a comment •

edited

Loading

maniwani commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

james7132 commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading

Bluefinger commented Nov 15, 2023 •

edited

Loading