[phobos] byte alignment for arrays

[Steve Schveighoffer]

This only affects arrays that are PAGE size or larger.

A question then -- let's say you have an array of doubles, which are 8 bytes wide, and you want to use these SSE instructions.  Even if the first one is aligned on a 16-byte boundary, wouldn't every other double be misaligned?

-Steve



----- Original Message ----
> From: Jason Spencer <spencer8 at sbcglobal.net>
> To: Discuss the phobos library for D <phobos at puremagic.com>
> Sent: Mon, June 28, 2010 3:00:10 PM
> Subject: Re: [phobos] byte alignment for arrays
> 
> I would recommend changing it to 16-byte aligned.  Lots of SSE instructions 
> won't work or won't work efficiently at 8-byte aligned addresses.  Even 
> without SSE, this makes array access more cache-friendly, and is likely to 
> help.  If we're only talking about arrays larger than page-size, then it's 
> not too much memory overhead.

For less-than-page-sized arrays (or 
> performance-tight code if you DON'T make the change), you'd have to use 
> something like std.c.stdlib or std.<system> _aligned_alloc() to get around 
> this.  Might be worth verifying this is actually available and works (maybe 
> a unit test?. )

Jason



----- Original Message ----
> 
> From: Steve Schveighoffer <
> href="mailto:schveiguy at yahoo.com">schveiguy at yahoo.com>
> To: Phobos 
> <
> href="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com">phobos at puremagic.com>
> Sent: 
> Mon, June 28, 2010 11:36:25 AM
> Subject: [phobos] byte alignment for 
> arrays
> 
> Recently, this bug has surfaced: 
> 
> http://d.puremagic.com/issues/show_bug.cgi?id=4400

In a nutshell, 
> 
> sometimes the byte alignment of arrays is 8 bytes instead 16 
> bytes.

This 
> was caused by my array append patch, because in 
> large arrays, I store the length 
> at the front of the array.  With 
> some queries before I created my patch, I 
> was told that 8 byte 
> alignment was fine.  However, the alignment is easy to 
> change 
> since it's a couple specific functions that determine the padding and 
> 
> alignment.  So changing to 16 bytes is not an issue technically, and 
> 
> functionally, this is only on PAGE sized arrays and larger, so 16 bytes 
> vs. 8 
> bytes isn't likely to cause problems.

Bearophile's main 
> argument stems 
> from this.  I am not a processor or assembly 
> expert, so I have no idea 
> about this at 
> all:

-----------------
The 16 bytes alignment was 
> introduced 
> because instructions like the SSE2 movapd
need 16 byte 
> 
> alignment:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOVAPD

I have recently used 
> 
> it 
> 
> here:
http://www.digitalmars.com/webnews/newsgroups.php?art_group=digitalmars.D&article_id=112670

> 
> 
And some other SSE* instructions work with 8 byte alignment too, but they 
> 
> are
slower (future CPUs can remove such alignment requirements, some 
> of it 
> has
being removed already, so in that future the GC can go 
> back giving 8 
> bytes
aligned memory).
-----------------

So 
> should I change 
> it?

-Steve



      
> 
> 
_______________________________________________
phobos mailing 
> list

> ymailto="mailto:
> href="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com">phobos at puremagic.com" 
> 
> href="mailto:
> href="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com">phobos at puremagic.com">
> ymailto="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com" 
> href="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com">phobos at puremagic.com
http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos
_______________________________________________
phobos 
> mailing list

> href="mailto:phobos at puremagic.com">phobos at puremagic.com

> href="http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos" target=_blank 
> >http://lists.puremagic.com/mailman/listinfo/phobos