Improve a vector implementation to support alignment and non-temporal tores

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.

[tannergooding]

No description provided.

[ghost]

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

Issue Details

---

null

Author:	tannergooding
Assignees:	tannergooding
Labels:	area-System.Numerics
Milestone:	-

[EgorBo]

If a function is idempotent (which most of them are) it's enough a single load to align data (like I did in https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93214/files) without any unrolled loops, etc - presumably, you can expose a bool IsIdempotent {get;} property in these abstraction and only align those for simplicity

[tannergooding]

Here are the before/after results for Abs, where Abs1 is the previous implementation and Abs2 is the implementation from this PR. We are faster across the board (except for 16 elements) and more than 2x faster for large inputs, with the gains really showing past 256 elements (1024 bytes).

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Abs1	1	2.609 ns	0.0611 ns	0.0572 ns
Abs2	1	2.562 ns	0.0518 ns	0.0485 ns
Abs1	2	3.142 ns	0.0487 ns	0.0456 ns
Abs2	2	2.563 ns	0.0121 ns	0.0101 ns
Abs1	3	3.309 ns	0.0294 ns	0.0229 ns
Abs2	3	2.742 ns	0.0171 ns	0.0133 ns
Abs1	4	3.090 ns	0.0496 ns	0.0464 ns
Abs2	4	2.572 ns	0.0187 ns	0.0166 ns
Abs1	5	5.198 ns	0.0190 ns	0.0148 ns
Abs2	5	3.133 ns	0.0788 ns	0.0774 ns
Abs1	6	5.275 ns	0.0790 ns	0.0739 ns
Abs2	6	3.098 ns	0.0782 ns	0.0732 ns
Abs1	7	5.322 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Abs2	7	3.164 ns	0.0544 ns	0.0509 ns
Abs1	8	2.936 ns	0.0553 ns	0.0517 ns
Abs2	8	2.573 ns	0.0442 ns	0.0414 ns
Abs1	9	5.454 ns	0.0910 ns	0.0852 ns
Abs2	9	3.165 ns	0.0536 ns	0.0501 ns
Abs1	10	5.431 ns	0.0675 ns	0.0631 ns
Abs2	10	3.230 ns	0.0308 ns	0.0288 ns
Abs1	11	5.369 ns	0.0447 ns	0.0418 ns
Abs2	11	3.199 ns	0.0443 ns	0.0393 ns
Abs1	12	5.571 ns	0.0593 ns	0.0555 ns
Abs2	12	3.211 ns	0.0320 ns	0.0299 ns
Abs1	13	5.585 ns	0.0491 ns	0.0459 ns
Abs2	13	3.262 ns	0.0295 ns	0.0276 ns
Abs1	14	5.766 ns	0.0550 ns	0.0514 ns
Abs2	14	3.264 ns	0.0292 ns	0.0273 ns
Abs1	15	5.865 ns	0.0454 ns	0.0354 ns
Abs2	15	3.254 ns	0.0451 ns	0.0377 ns
Abs1	16	2.790 ns	0.0207 ns	0.0193 ns
Abs2	16	4.984 ns	0.0479 ns	0.0448 ns
Abs1	32	6.515 ns	0.0886 ns	0.0785 ns
Abs2	32	6.012 ns	0.1203 ns	0.1067 ns
Abs1	64	17.126 ns	0.1647 ns	0.1540 ns
Abs2	64	15.343 ns	0.3172 ns	0.3115 ns
Abs1	128	38.650 ns	0.7464 ns	0.6982 ns
Abs2	128	37.150 ns	0.4134 ns	0.3665 ns
Abs1	256	82.113 ns	0.5631 ns	0.4702 ns
Abs2	256	51.379 ns	0.2897 ns	0.2710 ns
Abs1	512	169.559 ns	0.7197 ns	0.6732 ns
Abs2	512	78.668 ns	0.4391 ns	0.4107 ns
Abs1	1024	336.791 ns	1.9587 ns	1.8321 ns
Abs2	1024	133.500 ns	0.7219 ns	0.6400 ns
Abs1	2048	698.482 ns	1.3343 ns	1.1142 ns
Abs2	2048	244.729 ns	1.6655 ns	1.5579 ns
Abs1	4096	1,411.587 ns	5.8918 ns	5.2229 ns
Abs2	4096	471.249 ns	1.2273 ns	1.0880 ns
Abs1	65536	22,871.118 ns	97.4602 ns	91.1643 ns
Abs2	65536	7,306.615 ns	32.3811 ns	30.2893 ns
Abs1	131072	45,773.050 ns	244.2154 ns	228.4393 ns
Abs2	131072	18,461.823 ns	105.6972 ns	93.6978 ns

[tannergooding]

Similar results for Exp

Method	TensorLength	Mean	Error	StdDev
Exp1	1	5.224 ns	0.1122 ns	0.1050 ns
Exp2	1	4.863 ns	0.0823 ns	0.0770 ns
Exp1	2	7.359 ns	0.1578 ns	0.1689 ns
Exp2	2	6.872 ns	0.0975 ns	0.0912 ns
Exp1	3	9.315 ns	0.1091 ns	0.0852 ns
Exp2	3	9.018 ns	0.1643 ns	0.1537 ns
Exp1	4	4.820 ns	0.1094 ns	0.1075 ns
Exp2	4	4.863 ns	0.1028 ns	0.0962 ns
Exp1	5	9.103 ns	0.0672 ns	0.0629 ns
Exp2	5	6.563 ns	0.1169 ns	0.1036 ns
Exp1	6	9.280 ns	0.2022 ns	0.2076 ns
Exp2	6	6.685 ns	0.1498 ns	0.1538 ns
Exp1	7	9.111 ns	0.0848 ns	0.0793 ns
Exp2	7	6.660 ns	0.1413 ns	0.1321 ns
Exp1	8	5.006 ns	0.0963 ns	0.0901 ns
Exp2	8	4.848 ns	0.1006 ns	0.0941 ns
Exp1	9	10.272 ns	0.1189 ns	0.1112 ns
Exp2	9	7.593 ns	0.0876 ns	0.0820 ns
Exp1	10	10.188 ns	0.0713 ns	0.0596 ns
Exp2	10	7.581 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp1	11	10.274 ns	0.1070 ns	0.0949 ns
Exp2	11	7.631 ns	0.1412 ns	0.1320 ns
Exp1	12	10.246 ns	0.0755 ns	0.0670 ns
Exp2	12	7.555 ns	0.0742 ns	0.0658 ns
Exp1	13	10.270 ns	0.1266 ns	0.1184 ns
Exp2	13	7.651 ns	0.0916 ns	0.0857 ns
Exp1	14	10.252 ns	0.1509 ns	0.1411 ns
Exp2	14	7.585 ns	0.1017 ns	0.0951 ns
Exp1	15	10.428 ns	0.0935 ns	0.0875 ns
Exp2	15	7.795 ns	0.0801 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp1	16	7.271 ns	0.0845 ns	0.0749 ns
Exp2	16	19.323 ns	0.3291 ns	0.3078 ns
Exp1	32	18.716 ns	0.2705 ns	0.2530 ns
Exp2	32	25.631 ns	0.3860 ns	0.3610 ns
Exp1	64	48.860 ns	0.4013 ns	0.3753 ns
Exp2	64	50.285 ns	0.9766 ns	0.9135 ns
Exp1	128	109.969 ns	1.6557 ns	1.5487 ns
Exp2	128	110.952 ns	1.4802 ns	1.3846 ns
Exp1	256	230.547 ns	2.4931 ns	2.0819 ns
Exp2	256	193.106 ns	0.8509 ns	0.7105 ns
Exp1	512	477.460 ns	5.6110 ns	5.2486 ns
Exp2	512	317.518 ns	5.5631 ns	5.2037 ns
Exp1	1024	977.141 ns	13.0740 ns	12.2295 ns
Exp2	1024	573.851 ns	7.7362 ns	7.2364 ns
Exp1	2048	1,931.447 ns	12.4202 ns	10.3714 ns
Exp2	2048	1,017.003 ns	19.3625 ns	20.7177 ns
Exp1	4096	3,892.225 ns	27.1610 ns	22.6807 ns
Exp2	4096	1,975.208 ns	26.4692 ns	23.4642 ns
Exp1	65536	61,938.616 ns	354.4827 ns	296.0091 ns
Exp2	65536	32,390.331 ns	590.1723 ns	552.0475 ns
Exp1	131072	125,798.377 ns	2,260.7971 ns	2,114.7510 ns
Exp2	131072	61,126.610 ns	1,091.3727 ns	1,020.8707 ns

[stephentoub]

Can you add a comment about what this is and how the value was chosen?

[tannergooding]

Suggested change

	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;
	/// <summary>Defines the threshold, in bytes, at which non-temporal stores will be used.</summary>
	/// <remarks>
	/// A non-temporal store is one that allows the CPU to bypass the cache when writing to memory.
	///
	/// This can be beneficial when working with large amounts of memory where the writes would otherwise
	/// cause large amounts of repeated updates and evictions. The hardware optimization manuals recommend
	/// the threshold to be roughly half the size of the last level of on-die cache -- that is, if you have approximately
	/// 4MB of L3 cache per core, you'd want this to be approx. 1-2MB, depending on if hyperthreading was enabled.
	///
	/// However, actually computing the amount of L3 cache per core can be tricky or error prone. Native memcpy
	/// algorithms use a constant threshold that is typically around 256KB and we match that here for simplicity. This
	/// threshold accounts for most processors in the last 10-15 years that had approx. 1MB L3 per core and support
	/// hyperthreading, giving a per core last level cache of approx. 512KB.
	/// </remarks>
	privateconstnuintNonTemporalByteThreshold=256*1024;

[stephentoub]

We have two checks on canAlign here. Would it help to eliminate a branch if this were instead structured as:

if(canAlign){
...// do alignmentif(remainder>(NonTemporalByteThreshold/sizeof(float))){
...// handle non-temporal pathgoto AdjustingRefs;}}
...// what's currently in the else blockAdjustingRefs:
...// stuff currently after the else block

?

[tannergooding]

I don't think the additional complexity is worth it here and it can cause subtle issues with control flow analysis that are probably undesirable.

If we were concerned, I'd prefer switching the order so its if ((remainder > (NonTemporalByteThreshold / sizeof(float)) && canAlign) instead.

[stephentoub]

This is good, but it's also going to double the number of test cases we're running. Not a big deal except that on netfx it seems to struggle with the theory count. We should probably subsequently change some of those theories to be loops, e.g. instead of:

[Theory][MemberData(nameof(TensorLengths))]publicvoidFoo(inttensorLength){
...}

do:

[Fact]publicvoidFoo(){foreach(inttensorLengthinTensorLengths){
...}}

[tannergooding]

I'll handle this in the immediately following PR covering binary/ternary.

[lewing]

This appears to have broken the outerloop tests

[tannergooding]

@lewing is there an issue or a link that can be shared so it can be investigated?

[lewing]

https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/runs/17652611530
https://github.com/dotnet/runtime/pull/93407/checks?check_run_id=17652687038
etc

[tannergooding]

#93412 fixes the issue.

Another PR went in that removed unsafe and it didn't conflict, so the nothing caught the issue.