Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Performance regression: rustc failed to optimize _mm256_avg_epu8 after 1.75.0 #124216

Open
Nugine opened this issue Apr 21, 2024 · 11 comments
Open
Labels
A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) C-bug Category: This is a bug. E-needs-bisection Call for participation: This issue needs bisection: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo-bisect-rustc I-heavy Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to binary size of generated code. I-slow Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to performance of generated code. P-medium Medium priority regression-from-stable-to-stable Performance or correctness regression from one stable version to another. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.

Comments

@Nugine
Copy link
Contributor

Nugine commented Apr 21, 2024

Code

I tried this code:

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/KG4cT6aPK

use std::arch::x86_64::*;

#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
pub unsafe fn decode(
    x: __m256i,
    ch: __m256i,
    ct: __m256i,
    dh: __m256i,
    dt: __m256i,
) -> Result<__m256i, ()> {
    let shr3 = _mm256_srli_epi32::<3>(x);

    let h1 = _mm256_avg_epu8(shr3, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(ch, x));
    let h2 = _mm256_avg_epu8(shr3, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(dh, x));

    let o1 = _mm256_shuffle_epi8(ct, h1);
    let o2 = _mm256_shuffle_epi8(dt, h2);

    let c1 = _mm256_adds_epi8(x, o1);
    let c2 = _mm256_add_epi8(x, o2);

    if _mm256_movemask_epi8(c1) != 0 {
        return Err(());
    }

    Ok(c2)
}

I expected to see this happen: This code should emit two vpavgb instructions.

Instead, this happened: One of the vpavgb instructions is missing.

Nugine/simd#43

Version it worked on

It most recently worked on: 1.74.1

Version with regression

1.75.0 ~ nightly

rustc 1.79.0-nightly (dbce3b43b 2024-04-20)
binary: rustc
commit-hash: dbce3b43b6cb34dd3ba12c3ec6f708fe68e9c3df
commit-date: 2024-04-20
host: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
release: 1.79.0-nightly
LLVM version: 18.1.4

@rustbot modify labels: +regression-from-stable-to-stable -regression-untriaged

@Nugine Nugine added C-bug Category: This is a bug. regression-untriaged Untriaged performance or correctness regression. labels Apr 21, 2024
@rustbot rustbot added I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. needs-triage This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged. regression-from-stable-to-stable Performance or correctness regression from one stable version to another. and removed regression-untriaged Untriaged performance or correctness regression. labels Apr 21, 2024
@saethlin saethlin added A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue. labels Apr 21, 2024
@saethlin
Copy link
Member

Blaming rust-lang/stdarch#1477

Did you confirm that this is the responsible change or are you guessing?

@workingjubilee workingjubilee added E-needs-bisection Call for participation: This issue needs bisection: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo-bisect-rustc I-heavy Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to binary size of generated code. labels Apr 21, 2024
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

@Nugine This is definitely more instructions and more bytes on each, so I'm marking it with I-heavy, but it appears this comes with a performance regression. Can you be precise about which of the ~19 benchmarks you appear to run have regressed, and on what architecture?

I would rather we not make the 2nd vpavgb instruction come back only for your algorithm to still be dog-slow because some of the other instructions are different.

Also, can you be more precise on what architectures and with what target features you're testing on? GitHub is allowed to change the CPU you run benchmarks on, and does, because their fleet is not perfectly uniform, so -Ctarget-cpu=native makes it more likely your benchmarks can be run-to-run and job-to-job inconsistent.

@Nugine
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nugine commented Apr 21, 2024

Base64-decode in base64-simd has been slower than radix64 since Rust 1.75.0. By comparing the asm generated by 1.74.1 and 1.75.0, I found that one of vpavgb is missing. LLVM doesn't emit vpavgb for one of _mm256_avg_epu8, but a lot of equivalent instructions.

rust-lang/stdarch#1477 made the change. However, the root cause may be elsewhere, possibly LLVM.

To see the asm, you can use the following commands.

git clone https://github.com/Nugine/simd.git
cd simd
rustup override set 1.74.1 # or 1.75.0
RUSTFLAGS="--cfg vsimd_dump_symbols" cargo asm -p base64-simd --lib --simplify --target x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu  --context 1 -- base64_simd::multiversion::decode::avx2 > base64-decode-avx2.asm
cat base64-decode-avx2.asm

Target: x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu
Instruction: AVX2

I have extracted the decode function and reproduced the regression. https://rust.godbolt.org/z/KG4cT6aPK
I'm looking for:

  • a stable workaround method to generate vpavgb
  • why the optimization is missing

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

workingjubilee commented Apr 21, 2024

@Nugine re: the workaround: On current Rust, stable, the decode_asm function here recovers exactly equivalent output to what you had before: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fGEaYME1h

@jhorstmann
Copy link
Contributor

Seems the early exit somehow makes llvm loose track of the equivalence to vpavgb instruction. Another workaround thus seems to be to force llvm to calculate both Ok and Err versions:

#[target_feature(enable = "avx2")]
pub unsafe fn decode(
    x: __m256i,
    ch: __m256i,
    ct: __m256i,
    dh: __m256i,
    dt: __m256i,
) -> Result<__m256i, __m256i> {
    let shr3 = _mm256_srli_epi32::<3>(x);

    let h1 = _mm256_avg_epu8(shr3, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(ch, x));
    let h2 = _mm256_avg_epu8(shr3, _mm256_shuffle_epi8(dh, x));

    let o1 = _mm256_shuffle_epi8(ct, h1);
    let o2 = _mm256_shuffle_epi8(dt, h2);

    let c1 = _mm256_adds_epi8(x, o1);
    let c2 = _mm256_add_epi8(x, o2);

    if _mm256_movemask_epi8(c1) != 0 {
        return Err(c2);
    }

    Ok(c2)
}

But I guess this will break down as soon as the function gets inlined if the error value is not otherwise used.

@Nugine
Copy link
Contributor Author

Nugine commented Apr 21, 2024

@Nugine re: the workaround: On current Rust, stable, the decode_asm function here recovers exactly equivalent output to what you had before: https://rust.godbolt.org/z/fGEaYME1h

Cool! I'll try asm wrapper.

@saethlin saethlin removed the needs-triage This issue may need triage. Remove it if it has been sufficiently triaged. label Apr 21, 2024
@workingjubilee workingjubilee added A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. I-slow Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to performance of generated code. labels Apr 21, 2024
@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

workingjubilee commented Apr 21, 2024

based on jhorstmann's remark, it would be nicest to fix this in LLVM, since LLVM appears to have the information necessary to do this optimization, it just is missing it in the early-return case. I don't think partially reverting a diff is unwarranted, however.

@apiraino
Copy link
Contributor

WG-prioritization assigning priority (Zulip discussion).

@rustbot label -I-prioritize +P-medium

@rustbot rustbot added P-medium Medium priority and removed I-prioritize Issue: Indicates that prioritization has been requested for this issue. labels Apr 24, 2024
@Deniskore
Copy link

I've encountered the same issue. I reverted the minor change concerning pavgb on the stable branch, rebuilt the compiler, and can confirm that this pull request was the primary cause. I understand that the changes in this PR were made with good intentions, so I'm going to use asm! for now.

diff --git a/crates/core_arch/src/x86/avx2.rs b/crates/core_arch/src/x86/avx2.rs
index 75a393d..b4dba69 100644
--- a/crates/core_arch/src/x86/avx2.rs
+++ b/crates/core_arch/src/x86/avx2.rs
@@ -365,10 +365,7 @@ pub unsafe fn _mm256_avg_epu16(a: __m256i, b: __m256i) -> __m256i {
 #[cfg_attr(test, assert_instr(vpavgb))]
 #[stable(feature = "simd_x86", since = "1.27.0")]
 pub unsafe fn _mm256_avg_epu8(a: __m256i, b: __m256i) -> __m256i {
-    let a = simd_cast::<_, u16x32>(a.as_u8x32());
-    let b = simd_cast::<_, u16x32>(b.as_u8x32());
-    let r = simd_shr(simd_add(simd_add(a, b), u16x32::splat(1)), u16x32::splat(1));
-    transmute(simd_cast::<_, u8x32>(r))
+    transmute(pavgb(a.as_u8x32(), b.as_u8x32()))
 }

 /// Blends packed 32-bit integers from `a` and `b` using control mask `IMM4`.
@@ -3645,6 +3642,8 @@ pub unsafe fn _mm256_extract_epi16<const INDEX: i32>(a: __m256i) -> i32 {

 #[allow(improper_ctypes)]
 extern "C" {
+    #[link_name = "llvm.x86.avx2.pavg.b"]
+    fn pavgb(a: u8x32, b: u8x32) -> u8x32;
     #[link_name = "llvm.x86.avx2.phadd.w"]
     fn phaddw(a: i16x16, b: i16x16) -> i16x16;
     #[link_name = "llvm.x86.avx2.phadd.d"]

I've used the code given by @Nugine since the example is much smaller. You can compare the differences between the stable branch and my changes. The issue remains regardless of whether the function is inlined or not, tested with #[inline(always)] and #[inline(never)]

diff --git a/./issue_stable.s b/./issue_my.s
index fc2df6963c0..a11b08d6c92 100644
--- a/./issue_stable.s
+++ b/./issue_my.s
@@ -165,17 +165,11 @@ _ZN5issue6decode17hb5cdd31d54f96558E:
 .LBB6_1:
        mov     rdx, qword ptr [rsp + 40]
        mov     rax, qword ptr [rsp + 48]
-       vpmovzxbw       zmm1, ymm1
-       vpternlogd      zmm2, zmm2, zmm2, 255
-       vpsubw  zmm1, zmm1, zmm2
        vmovdqa ymm3, ymmword ptr [rdx]
        vmovdqa ymm2, ymmword ptr [rax]
        xor     eax, eax
        vpshufb ymm3, ymm3, ymm0
-       vpmovzxbw       zmm3, ymm3
-       vpaddw  zmm1, zmm1, zmm3
-       vpsrlw  zmm1, zmm1, 1
-       vpmovwb ymm1, zmm1
+       vpavgb  ymm1, ymm1, ymm3
        vpshufb ymm1, ymm2, ymm1
        vpaddb  ymm0, ymm1, ymm0
        vmovdqa ymmword ptr [rcx + 32], ymm0

@workingjubilee
Copy link
Member

The -Ctarget-cpu=native in this Godbolt is somewhat confounding, because the host CPU can change, enabling various optimizations, or disabling them. It is also unnecessary to get the correct codegen.

However, what is more interesting is that this:

pub unsafe extern "C" fn genericized_mm256_avg_epu8(a: __m256i, b: __m256i) -> __m256i {
    let a = simd_cast::<u8x32, u16x32>(a.into());
    let b = simd_cast::<u8x32, u16x32>(b.into());
    let r = simd_shr(simd_add(simd_add(a, b), u16x32::splat(1)), u16x32::splat(1));
    transmute(simd_cast::<_, u8x32>(r))
}

compiles to this:

example::genericized_mm256_avg_epu8::hcdc2eb986be9a161:
        vpavgb  ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
        ret

https://rust.godbolt.org/z/sxGY1ffWq

@Deniskore
Copy link

@workingjubilee Because LLVM InstCombineVectorOps or other InstCombiners can recognize and optimize this code into the vpavgb instruction, I've proven it using an IR function.

llc -O3 -mcpu=haswell -mattr=+avx2

define <32 x i8> @genericized_mm256_avg_epu8(<32 x i8> %a, <32 x i8> %b) {
entry:
  ; Cast <32 x i8> to <32 x i16>
  %a_wide = zext <32 x i8> %a to <32 x i16>
  %b_wide = zext <32 x i8> %b to <32 x i16>

  ; Add the two vectors: a + b
  %sum_ab = add <32 x i16> %a_wide, %b_wide

  ; Add 1 to each element in the result
  %sum_ab_plus_one = add <32 x i16> %sum_ab, <i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                                    i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                                    i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                                    i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1>
  
  ; Right shift each element by 1 -> dividing by 2
  %average = lshr <32 x i16> %sum_ab_plus_one, <i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                             i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                             i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, 
                                             i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1, i16 1>
  
  ; Truncate <32 x i16> back to <32 x i8>
  %result = trunc <32 x i16> %average to <32 x i8>

  ret <32 x i8> %result
}

Output:

genericized_mm256_avg_epu8:             # @genericized_mm256_avg_epu8
        vpavgb  ymm0, ymm0, ymm1
        ret

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
A-LLVM Area: Code generation parts specific to LLVM. Both correctness bugs and optimization-related issues. A-SIMD Area: SIMD (Single Instruction Multiple Data) C-bug Category: This is a bug. E-needs-bisection Call for participation: This issue needs bisection: https://github.com/rust-lang/cargo-bisect-rustc I-heavy Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to binary size of generated code. I-slow Issue: Problems and improvements with respect to performance of generated code. P-medium Medium priority regression-from-stable-to-stable Performance or correctness regression from one stable version to another. T-libs Relevant to the library team, which will review and decide on the PR/issue.
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

7 participants