Vectorize IndexOfAnyExcept<T>(T value)

[stephentoub]

Contributes to #67942

[Params(1,4,16,64,256,1024)]publicintLength{get;set;}privatebyte[]_zeros;[GlobalSetup]publicvoidSetup()=>_zeros=newbyte[Length];[Benchmark]publicboolAllZeroTrue()=>_zeros.AsSpan().IndexOfAnyExcept((byte)0)<0;

Method	Toolchain	Length	Mean	Ratio	Code Size
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	1	0.6482 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	1	1.7013 ns	2.62	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	4	2.6035 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	4	3.5931 ns	1.38	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	16	4.8521 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	16	2.3925 ns	0.49	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	64	18.6816 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	64	3.5615 ns	0.19	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	256	81.8503 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	256	10.3610 ns	0.13	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	1024	310.6106 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	1024	37.1116 ns	0.12	242 B

The one thing that makes me a tad hesitant is the case of the except value being found at the very beginning, in which case this does incur a (very small) penalty even for really long inputs, e.g.

[Params(1024)]publicintLength{get;set;}privatebyte[]_allBitsSet;[GlobalSetup]publicvoidSetup()=>_allBitsSet=Enumerable.Repeat((byte)0xFF,Length).ToArray();[Benchmark]publicboolAllBitsSetLookingForNon0()=>_allBitsSet.AsSpan().IndexOfAnyExcept((byte)0)<0;

Method	Toolchain	Length	Mean	Ratio	RatioSD	Code Size
AllBitsSetLookingForNon0	\main\corerun.exe	1024	0.4979 ns	1.00	0.00	72 B
AllBitsSetLookingForNon0	\pr\corerun.exe	1024	1.7421 ns	3.51	0.11	242 B

I'm not sure what if anything to do about it.

[ghost]

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-memory
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Issue Details

---

Contributes to #67942

[Params(1,4,16,64,256,1024)]publicintLength{get;set;}privatebyte[]_zeros;[GlobalSetup]publicvoidSetup()=>_zeros=newbyte[Length];[Benchmark]publicboolAllZeroTrue()=>_zeros.AsSpan().IndexOfAnyExcept((byte)0)<0;

Method	Toolchain	Length	Mean	Ratio	Code Size
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	1	0.6482 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	1	1.7013 ns	2.62	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	4	2.6035 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	4	3.5931 ns	1.38	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	16	4.8521 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	16	2.3925 ns	0.49	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	64	18.6816 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	64	3.5615 ns	0.19	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	256	81.8503 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	256	10.3610 ns	0.13	242 B
AllZeroTrue	\main\corerun.exe	1024	310.6106 ns	1.00	72 B
AllZeroTrue	\pr\corerun.exe	1024	37.1116 ns	0.12	242 B

The one thing that makes me a tad hesitant is the case of the except value being found at the very beginning, in which case this does incur a (very small) penalty even for really long inputs, e.g.

[Params(1024)]publicintLength{get;set;}privatebyte[]_allBitsSet;[GlobalSetup]publicvoidSetup()=>_allBitsSet=Enumerable.Repeat((byte)0xFF,Length).ToArray();[Benchmark]publicboolAllBitsSetLookingForNon0()=>_allBitsSet.AsSpan().IndexOfAnyExcept((byte)0)<0;

Method	Toolchain	Length	Mean	Ratio	RatioSD	Code Size
AllBitsSetLookingForNon0	\main\corerun.exe	1024	0.4979 ns	1.00	0.00	72 B
AllBitsSetLookingForNon0	\pr\corerun.exe	1024	1.7421 ns	3.51	0.11	242 B

I'm not sure what if anything to do about it.

Author:	stephentoub
Assignees:	-
Labels:	area-System.Memory
Milestone:	7.0.0

[stephentoub]

Failure is #73247

[stephentoub]

@adamsitnik, can you please review this? Thanks.

[adamsitnik]

LGTM, thank you @stephentoub ! I really like the namings you use + lack of gotos ;)

[stephentoub]

Thanks for reviewing, Adam.

[tannergooding]

I'm not sure what if anything to do about it.

I think this is an acceptable tradeoff. The measured difference is just over 1ns which would be about 2-4 clock cycles on most modern computers, this is likely representative of the jump to IndexOfAnyExceptValueType and branch cost for checking the length.

In practice, the actual spilling of args, call, and general memory latency is more than this so most users likely won't see a difference. It's likewise a general avenue we might want to look at improved JIT support around, for being able to ensure that cost for such checks can be minimized.

One think that might help would be making it so that you have a pattern like the following and marking the containing method as AggressiveInlining

if(length<Vector128<T>.Count){ScalarImpl();}else{VectorImpl();}

This would theoretically allow the JIT to hoist, constant fold, or otherwise mitigate the branch for various input kinds.

[tannergooding]

Just wondering, do you have the disassembly the JIT emits for this?

I'd expect it emits a cmp reg, [addr] (where reg contains value0), but I know there were some issues with Unsafe.Add being converted to an [addr] before.

[stephentoub]

this is likely representative of the jump to IndexOfAnyExceptValueType and branch cost for checking the length.

To be clear, I wasn't referring to the case where there are fewer than Count elements, rather the case where there are more than Count elements and the very first element doesn't match the specified value. I expect that to be a fairly common occurrence with some uses of this method.

[EgorBo]

Hm.. looks like this regressed System.Collections.Concurrent.IsEmpty<String>.Dictionary(Size: 512) but none regressions were filed

https://pvscmdupload.blob.core.windows.net/reports/allTestHistory%2frefs%2fheads%2fmain_x64_ubuntu%2018.04%2fSystem.Collections.Concurrent.IsEmpty(String).Dictionary(Size%3a%20512).html

(I blamed this PR because ConcurrentDictionary uses IndexOfAnyExcept for AreAllBucketsEmpty)

[stephentoub]

looks like this regressed System.Collections.Concurrent.IsEmpty.Dictionary(Size: 512) but none regressions were filed

By a nanosecond or two, right? That's largely expected. I'd expect IsEmpty to get a tad slower when the dictionary isn't empty and faster when it is empty; basically an extra branch or two in the check.

[EgorBo]

I totally agree and didn't file an issue for it, it's just needed for perf study report