问题描述
以下Java程序平均需要在0.50到0.55之间运行：
The following Java program takes on average between 0.50s and 0.55s to run:
public static void main(String[] args) {
long startTime = System.nanoTime();
int n = 0;
for (int i = 0; i < 1000000000; i++) {
n += 2 * (i * i);
}
System.out.println((double) (System.nanoTime() - startTime) / 1000000000 + " s");
System.out.println("n = " + n);
}
如果我更换 2 *（i * i） 2 * i * i ，运行时需要0.60到0.65秒。怎么来？
If I replace 2 * (i * i) with 2 * i * i, it takes between 0.60 and 0.65s to run. How come?
我运行了15次的每个版本的程序，在两者之间交替。结果如下：
I ran each version of the program 15 times, alternating between the two. Here are the results:
2*(i*i) | 2*i*i
----------+----------
0.5183738 | 0.6246434
0.5298337 | 0.6049722
0.5308647 | 0.6603363
0.5133458 | 0.6243328
0.5003011 | 0.6541802
0.5366181 | 0.6312638
0.515149 | 0.6241105
0.5237389 | 0.627815
0.5249942 | 0.6114252
0.5641624 | 0.6781033
0.538412 | 0.6393969
0.5466744 | 0.6608845
0.531159 | 0.6201077
0.5048032 | 0.6511559
0.5232789 | 0.6544526
最快的 2 * i * i 花费的时间超过 2 *（i * i）的最慢运行时间。如果它们同样有效，那么发生这种情况的可能性将小于1/2 ^ 15 = 0.00305％。
The fastest run of 2 * i * i took longer than the slowest run of 2 * (i * i). If they were both as efficient, the probability of this happening would be less than 1/2^15 = 0.00305%.
推荐答案
字节码的顺序略有不同。
There is a slight difference in the ordering of the bytecode.
2 *（i * i）：
iconst_2
iload0
iload0
imul
imul
iadd
vs 2 * i * i ：
iconst_2
iload0
imul
iload0
imul
iadd
乍一看，这不应该有所作为;如果有的话，第二个版本更优，因为它使用的一个槽少。
At first sight this should not make a difference; if anything the second version is more optimal since it uses one slot less.
所以我们需要深入挖掘更低层次（JIT）.
请记住，JIT倾向于非常积极地展开小循环。事实上，我们观察到16倍展开 2 *（i * i）案例：
Remember that JIT tends to unroll small loops very aggressively. Indeed we observe a 16x unrolling for the 2 * (i * i) case:
030 B2: # B2 B3 <- B1 B2 Loop: B2-B2 inner main of N18 Freq: 1e+006
030 addl R11, RBP # int
033 movl RBP, R13 # spill
036 addl RBP, #14 # int
039 imull RBP, RBP # int
03c movl R9, R13 # spill
03f addl R9, #13 # int
043 imull R9, R9 # int
047 sall RBP, #1
049 sall R9, #1
04c movl R8, R13 # spill
04f addl R8, #15 # int
053 movl R10, R8 # spill
056 movdl XMM1, R8 # spill
05b imull R10, R8 # int
05f movl R8, R13 # spill
062 addl R8, #12 # int
066 imull R8, R8 # int
06a sall R10, #1
06d movl [rsp + #32], R10 # spill
072 sall R8, #1
075 movl RBX, R13 # spill
078 addl RBX, #11 # int
07b imull RBX, RBX # int
07e movl RCX, R13 # spill
081 addl RCX, #10 # int
084 imull RCX, RCX # int
087 sall RBX, #1
089 sall RCX, #1
08b movl RDX, R13 # spill
08e addl RDX, #8 # int
091 imull RDX, RDX # int
094 movl RDI, R13 # spill
097 addl RDI, #7 # int
09a imull RDI, RDI # int
09d sall RDX, #1
09f sall RDI, #1
0a1 movl RAX, R13 # spill
0a4 addl RAX, #6 # int
0a7 imull RAX, RAX # int
0aa movl RSI, R13 # spill
0ad addl RSI, #4 # int
0b0 imull RSI, RSI # int
0b3 sall RAX, #1
0b5 sall RSI, #1
0b7 movl R10, R13 # spill
0ba addl R10, #2 # int
0be imull R10, R10 # int
0c2 movl R14, R13 # spill
0c5 incl R14 # int
0c8 imull R14, R14 # int
0cc sall R10, #1
0cf sall R14, #1
0d2 addl R14, R11 # int
0d5 addl R14, R10 # int
0d8 movl R10, R13 # spill
0db addl R10, #3 # int
0df imull R10, R10 # int
0e3 movl R11, R13 # spill
0e6 addl R11, #5 # int
0ea imull R11, R11 # int
0ee sall R10, #1
0f1 addl R10, R14 # int
0f4 addl R10, RSI # int
0f7 sall R11, #1
0fa addl R11, R10 # int
0fd addl R11, RAX # int
100 addl R11, RDI # int
103 addl R11, RDX # int
106 movl R10, R13 # spill
109 addl R10, #9 # int
10d imull R10, R10 # int
111 sall R10, #1
114 addl R10, R11 # int
117 addl R10, RCX # int
11a addl R10, RBX # int
11d addl R10, R8 # int
120 addl R9, R10 # int
123 addl RBP, R9 # int
126 addl RBP, [RSP + #32 (32-bit)] # int
12a addl R13, #16 # int
12e movl R11, R13 # spill
131 imull R11, R13 # int
135 sall R11, #1
138 cmpl R13, #999999985
13f jl B2 # loop end P=1.000000 C=6554623.000000
我们看到有1个寄存器被溢出到堆栈上。
We see that there is 1 register that is "spilled" onto the stack.
对于 2 * i * i 版本：
05a B3: # B2 B4 <- B1 B2 Loop: B3-B2 inner main of N18 Freq: 1e+006
05a addl RBX, R11 # int
05d movl [rsp + #32], RBX # spill
061 movl R11, R8 # spill
064 addl R11, #15 # int
068 movl [rsp + #36], R11 # spill
06d movl R11, R8 # spill
070 addl R11, #14 # int
074 movl R10, R9 # spill
077 addl R10, #16 # int
07b movdl XMM2, R10 # spill
080 movl RCX, R9 # spill
083 addl RCX, #14 # int
086 movdl XMM1, RCX # spill
08a movl R10, R9 # spill
08d addl R10, #12 # int
091 movdl XMM4, R10 # spill
096 movl RCX, R9 # spill
099 addl RCX, #10 # int
09c movdl XMM6, RCX # spill
0a0 movl RBX, R9 # spill
0a3 addl RBX, #8 # int
0a6 movl RCX, R9 # spill
0a9 addl RCX, #6 # int
0ac movl RDX, R9 # spill
0af addl RDX, #4 # int
0b2 addl R9, #2 # int
0b6 movl R10, R14 # spill
0b9 addl R10, #22 # int
0bd movdl XMM3, R10 # spill
0c2 movl RDI, R14 # spill
0c5 addl RDI, #20 # int
0c8 movl RAX, R14 # spill
0cb addl RAX, #32 # int
0ce movl RSI, R14 # spill
0d1 addl RSI, #18 # int
0d4 movl R13, R14 # spill
0d7 addl R13, #24 # int
0db movl R10, R14 # spill
0de addl R10, #26 # int
0e2 movl [rsp + #40], R10 # spill
0e7 movl RBP, R14 # spill
0ea addl RBP, #28 # int
0ed imull RBP, R11 # int
0f1 addl R14, #30 # int
0f5 imull R14, [RSP + #36 (32-bit)] # int
0fb movl R10, R8 # spill
0fe addl R10, #11 # int
102 movdl R11, XMM3 # spill
107 imull R11, R10 # int
10b movl [rsp + #44], R11 # spill
110 movl R10, R8 # spill
113 addl R10, #10 # int
117 imull RDI, R10 # int
11b movl R11, R8 # spill
11e addl R11, #8 # int
122 movdl R10, XMM2 # spill
127 imull R10, R11 # int
12b movl [rsp + #48], R10 # spill
130 movl R10, R8 # spill
133 addl R10, #7 # int
137 movdl R11, XMM1 # spill
13c imull R11, R10 # int
140 movl [rsp + #52], R11 # spill
145 movl R11, R8 # spill
148 addl R11, #6 # int
14c movdl R10, XMM4 # spill
151 imull R10, R11 # int
155 movl [rsp + #56], R10 # spill
15a movl R10, R8 # spill
15d addl R10, #5 # int
161 movdl R11, XMM6 # spill
166 imull R11, R10 # int
16a movl [rsp + #60], R11 # spill
16f movl R11, R8 # spill
172 addl R11, #4 # int
176 imull RBX, R11 # int
17a movl R11, R8 # spill
17d addl R11, #3 # int
181 imull RCX, R11 # int
185 movl R10, R8 # spill
188 addl R10, #2 # int
18c imull RDX, R10 # int
190 movl R11, R8 # spill
193 incl R11 # int
196 imull R9, R11 # int
19a addl R9, [RSP + #32 (32-bit)] # int
19f addl R9, RDX # int
1a2 addl R9, RCX # int
1a5 addl R9, RBX # int
1a8 addl R9, [RSP + #60 (32-bit)] # int
1ad addl R9, [RSP + #56 (32-bit)] # int
1b2 addl R9, [RSP + #52 (32-bit)] # int
1b7 addl R9, [RSP + #48 (32-bit)] # int
1bc movl R10, R8 # spill
1bf addl R10, #9 # int
1c3 imull R10, RSI # int
1c7 addl R10, R9 # int
1ca addl R10, RDI # int
1cd addl R10, [RSP + #44 (32-bit)] # int
1d2 movl R11, R8 # spill
1d5 addl R11, #12 # int
1d9 imull R13, R11 # int
1dd addl R13, R10 # int
1e0 movl R10, R8 # spill
1e3 addl R10, #13 # int
1e7 imull R10, [RSP + #40 (32-bit)] # int
1ed addl R10, R13 # int
1f0 addl RBP, R10 # int
1f3 addl R14, RBP # int
1f6 movl R10, R8 # spill
1f9 addl R10, #16 # int
1fd cmpl R10, #999999985
204 jl B2 # loop end P=1.000000 C=7419903.000000
在这里，我们观察到更多的溢出以及对堆栈的更多访问 [RSP + ...] ，由于需要保留的更多中间结果。
Here we observe much more "spilling" and more accesses to the stack [RSP + ...], due to more intermediate results that need to be preserved.
因此问题的答案很简单： 2 *（i * i）比 2 * i * i 快，因为JIT为第一种情况生成了更优的汇编代码。
Thus the answer to the question is simple: 2 * (i * i) is faster than 2 * i * i because the JIT generates more optimal assembly code for the first case.
但很明显，第一版和第二版都没有任何好处;循环可以真正受益于矢量化，因为任何x86-64 CPU至少具有SSE2支持。
But of course it is obvious that neither the first nor the second version is any good; the loop could really benefit from vectorization, since any x86-64 CPU has at least SSE2 support.
所以这是优化器的一个问题;通常情况下，它会过于积极地展开并在脚下射击，一直错过各种其他机会。
So it's an issue of the optimizer; as is often the case, it unrolls too aggressively and shoots itself in the foot, all the while missing out on various other opportunities.
实际上，现代的x86-64 CPU将指令进一步细分为微操作（µ ops），并具有寄存器重命名，微操作和操作缓存以及循环缓冲等功能，循环优化比简单展开以获得最佳性能要精细得多。 ：
In fact, modern x86-64 CPUs break down the instructions further into micro-ops (µops) and with features like register renaming, µop caches and loop buffers, loop optimization takes a lot more finesse than a simple unrolling for optimal performance. According to Agner Fog's optimization guide:
- 确保关键循环足够小以适应μop缓存。
- 将最关键的循环条目和函数条目与32对齐。
- 避免不必要的循环展开。
- 避免使用额外加载时间的指令
。 。 。
- Make sure that critical loops are small enough to fit into the µop cache.
- Align the most critical loop entries and function entries by 32.
- Avoid unnecessary loop unrolling.
- Avoid instructions that have extra load time
. . .
关于这些加载时间 - ，一个额外的寄存器和µ op，所以是的，甚至一些访问内存会损害紧密循环中的性能。
Regarding those load times - even the fastest L1D hit costs 4 cycles, an extra register and µop, so yes, even a few accesses to memory will hurt performance in tight loops.
但回到矢量化机会 - 看它有多快，，它直接对它进行矢量化（AVX2显示，SSE2类似） ：
But back to the vectorization opportunity - to see how fast it can be, we can compile a similar C application with GCC, which outright vectorizes it (AVX2 is shown, SSE2 is similar):
vmovdqa ymm0, YMMWORD PTR .LC0[rip]
vmovdqa ymm3, YMMWORD PTR .LC1[rip]
xor eax, eax
vpxor xmm2, xmm2, xmm2
.L2:
vpmulld ymm1, ymm0, ymm0
inc eax
vpaddd ymm0, ymm0, ymm3
vpslld ymm1, ymm1, 1
vpaddd ymm2, ymm2, ymm1
cmp eax, 125000000 ; 8 calculations per iteration
jne .L2
vmovdqa xmm0, xmm2
vextracti128 xmm2, ymm2, 1
vpaddd xmm2, xmm0, xmm2
vpsrldq xmm0, xmm2, 8
vpaddd xmm0, xmm2, xmm0
vpsrldq xmm1, xmm0, 4
vpaddd xmm0, xmm0, xmm1
vmovd eax, xmm0
vzeroupper
运行时间：
- SSE：0.24 s，或者快2倍。
- AVX：0.15秒，或者快3倍。
- AVX2：0.08秒，或者快5倍。
这篇关于为什么2 *（i * i）比Java中的2 * i * i更快？的文章就介绍到这了，希望我们推荐的答案对大家有所帮助，也希望大家多多支持！