JuliaSIMD / JuliaSIMD/LoopVectorization.jl
Matrix Multiplication benchmark analysis
- Dominant language
- Julia
- Stars
- 789
- Forks
- 73
- PR merge metrics
- No merged PRs in 30d
Description
See #355 for the background. I am now applying the same methodology to the matrix multiplication benchmark:
* https://juliasimd.github.io/LoopVectorization.jl/stable/examples/matrix_multiplication/
I modified the kernel to not zero `C`, to simplify things a bit:
```console
julia> N = 64
64
julia> A = rand(N,N); B = rand(N,N); C = rand(N,N);
julia> function A_mul_B2!(C, A, B)
@turbo for n ∈ indices((C,B), 2), m ∈ indices((C,A), 1)
for k ∈ indices((A,B), (2,1))
C[m,n] += A[m,k] * B[k,n]
end
end
end
A_mul_B2! (generic function with 1 method)
julia> @benchmark A_mul_B2!($C, $A, $B)
BenchmarkTools.Trial: 10000 samples with 1 evaluation.
Range (min … max): 23.708 μs … 47.333 μs ┊ GC (min … max): 0.00% … 0.00%
Time (median): 24.250 μs ┊ GC (median): 0.00%
Time (mean ± σ): 24.294 μs ± 717.909 ns ┊ GC (mean ± σ): 0.00% ± 0.00%
▂ ▁ ▂ ▆ █ ▆ ▄ ▃ ▁ ▂
▃▁▁█▁▁█▁▁█▁▁▇▁▁▅▁▁▁▄▁▁▄▁▁▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▁█▁▁█▁▁▁█▁▁█▁▁█▁▁█▁▁█▁▁▆▁▁▄ █
23.7 μs Histogram: log(frequency) by time 24.5 μs <
Memory estimate: 0 bytes, allocs estimate: 0.
julia> cpu_freq = 3.2e9 # Ghz
3.2e9
julia> 23.708e-6 * cpu_freq / N^3
0.289404296875
```
In C++ I tested two kernels:
```c++
void gemm_mnk(double* C, double* A, double* B, long M, long K, long N){
for (long m = 0; m < M; m++){
for (long n = 0; n < N; n++){
for (long k = 0; k < K; k++){
C[m + n*M] += A[m + k*M] * B[k + n*K];
}
}
}
return;
}
void gemm_nkm(double* C, double* A, double* B, long M, long K, long N){
for (long n = 0; n < N; n++){
for (long k = 0; k < K; k++){
for (long m = 0; m < M; m++){
C[m + n*M] += A[m + k*M] * B[k + n*K];
}
}
}
return;
}
```
For N=64, I am getting:
```
gemm_mnk: 1.78319
gemm_nkm: 0.21441
```
Aren't these two kernels equivalent? They seem to operate on the same matrix layout and return exactly the same answer, they just differ in loop ordering.
The inner loop from `gemm_nkm` as generated by Clang seems to be:
```asm
LBB7_5: ; Parent Loop BB7_3 Depth=1
; Parent Loop BB7_4 Depth=2
; => This Inner Loop Header: Depth=3
ldr d0, [x13, x14]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-256]
fmla.2d v10, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v9, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-224]
fmla.2d v8, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v31, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-192]
fmla.2d v30, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v29, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-160]
fmla.2d v28, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v27, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-128]
fmla.2d v26, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v25, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-96]
fmla.2d v24, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v23, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-64]
fmla.2d v22, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v21, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #-32]
fmla.2d v20, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v19, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4]
fmla.2d v18, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v17, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #32]
fmla.2d v16, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v7, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #64]
fmla.2d v6, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v5, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #96]
fmla.2d v4, v1, v0[0]
ldp q1, q3, [sp, #96] ; 32-byte Folded Reload
fmla.2d v1, v2, v0[0]
str q1, [sp, #96] ; 16-byte Folded Spill
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #128]
fmla.2d v3, v1, v0[0]
ldr q1, [sp, #128] ; 16-byte Folded Reload
fmla.2d v1, v2, v0[0]
stp q3, q1, [sp, #112] ; 32-byte Folded Spill
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #160]
fmla.2d v12, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v11, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #192]
fmla.2d v13, v1, v0[0]
fmla.2d v15, v2, v0[0]
ldp q1, q2, [x4, #224]
fmla.2d v14, v1, v0[0]
ldr q1, [sp, #144] ; 16-byte Folded Reload
fmla.2d v1, v2, v0[0]
str q1, [sp, #144] ; 16-byte Folded Spill
add x14, x14, #8 ; =8
add x4, x4, #512 ; =512
cmp x14, #512 ; =512
b.ne LBB7_5
```
Contributor guide
No contributing guide indexed for this repository
Assessment
This issue has not been assessed yet.