4 ms·
Modern CPU caches are usually loaded in 64-byte units - much larger than 128 bits. I just ran some tests with a C program on an Intel I5 with both AoS and SoA
by prirun 4y ago
Modern CPU caches are usually loaded in 64-byte units - much larger than 128 bits. I just ran some tests with a C program on an Intel I5 with both AoS and SoA using a list of 1B points with 32-bit X and Y components. Looping through the list of points and totaling all X and Y components was the same speed with either AoS or SoA.
It's easy to make intuitive guesses about how things are working that seem completely reasonable. But you have to benchmark because modern CPUs are so complex that reasoning and intuition mostly don't work.
Programs used for testing are below. I ran everything twice because my system wasn't always idle, so take the lower of the 2 runs.
[jim@mbp ~]$ sh -x x
+ cat x1.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM 1000000000
struct {
int x;
int y;
} p[NUM];
int main() {
int i,s;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
p[i].x = i;
p[i].y = i;
}
s=0;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
s += p[i].x + p[i].y;
}
printf("s=%d\n", s);
}
+ cc -o x1 x1.c
+ ./x1
s=1808348672
real 0m12.078s
user 0m7.319s
sys 0m4.363s
+ ./x1
s=1808348672
real 0m9.415s
user 0m6.677s
sys 0m2.685s
+ cat x2.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM 1000000000
int x[NUM];
int y[NUM];
int main() {
int i,s;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
x[i] = i;
y[i] = i;
}
s=0;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
s += x[i] + y[i];
}
printf("s=%d\n", s);
}
+ cc -o x2 x2.c
+ ./x2
s=1808348672
real 0m9.753s
user 0m6.713s
sys 0m2.967s
+ ./x2
s=1808348672
real 0m9.642s
user 0m6.674s
sys 0m2.902s
+ cat x3.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM 1000000000
struct {
int x;
int y;
} p[NUM];
int main() {
int i,s;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
p[i].x = i;
}
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
p[i].y = i;
}
s=0;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
s += p[i].x;
}
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++) {
s += p[i].y;
}
printf("s=%d\n", s);
}
+ cc -o x3 x3.c
+ ./x3
s=1808348672
real 0m13.844s
user 0m11.095s
sys 0m2.700s
+ ./x3
s=1808348672
real 0m13.686s
user 0m11.038s
sys 0m2.611s
+ cat x4.c
#include <stdio.h>
#define NUM 1000000000
int x[NUM];
int y[NUM];
int main() {
int i,s;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++)
x[i] = i;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++)
y[i] = i;
s=0;
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++)
s += x[i];
for (i=0; i<NUM; i++)
s += y[i];
printf("s=%d\n", s);
}
+ cc -o x4 x4.c
+ ./x4
s=1808348672
real 0m13.530s
user 0m10.851s
sys 0m2.633s
+ ./x4
s=1808348672
real 0m13.489s
user 0m10.856s
sys 0m2.603s
- lights0123 4y agoIt appears that you didn't enable optimizations. That's needed for SIMD, which can only be taken advantage of with contiguously packed data.
- prirun 4y agoResults with -O are below. x1 (AoS) vs x2 (SoA): no performance difference x3 (arrays not in structure, both arrays in loop): slower x4 (arrays not in structure, one array in loop): faster My advice is still not to assume that SoA is always faster than AoS without benchmarking. + cc -O -o x1 x1.c + ./x1 s=1808348672 real 0m11.775s user 0m3.540s sys 0m6.592s + ./x1 s=1808348672 real 0m5.427s user 0m2.727s sys 0m2.682s + cc -O -o x2 x2.c + ./x2 s=1808348672 real 0m5.185s user 0m2.296s sys 0m2.872s + ./x2 s=1808348672 real 0m5.140s user 0m2.273s sys 0m2.852s + cc -O -o x3 x3.c + ./x3 s=1808348672 real 0m6.423s user 0m3.745s sys 0m2.660s + ./x3 s=1808348672 real 0m6.485s user 0m3.741s sys 0m2.714s + cc -O -o x4 x4.c + ./x4 s=1808348672 real 0m4.875s user 0m2.205s sys 0m2.651s + ./x4 s=1808348672 real 0m4.894s user 0m2.189s sys 0m2.684s
- Narishma 4y agoThe reason you're not seeing much difference is that your struct is very small, just 16 bytes. In the cases where you're using both x and y in the loop (x1 and x2), you can fit 4 of them in a cache line and you're not wasting space since you need to use both. In the case you're only using one of the values (x3), you're wasting half a cache line and that shows in the benchmark. If you had a bigger struct and/or where you're not using all the members in the calculation, you'd see a much bigger difference in performance between SoA and AoS.
- rpep 4y agoYou need to add “-march=native” to turn on SIMD at the highest level your processor will support, otherwise it will just use SSE4.1 by default on most compilers (the lowest common denominator, as all x86-64 processors have it).