questions about costs of nativeint vs int

questions about costs of nativeint vs int

[Norman Ramsey]

We're designing interfaces for tools that will sometimes have to
manipulate 32-bit integers, but will often be able to make do with the
limited precision provided by the int type.  I would love to get some
information about the relative cost of int vs nativeint in both
parameter passing and datatype representation.

For example, what are the relative costs (e.g., memory requirements)
of these two definitions?

  type loc = Cell of char * int * width
           | Slice of ...

  type loc' = Cell of char * nativeint * width
            | Slice of ...

As another example, what are the costs of calling these functions:

  type t
  val add  : rd:int       -> rs1:int       -> rs2:int       -> t
  val add' : rd:nativeint -> rs1:nativeint -> rs2:nativeint -> t

To extend the question, what happens if I use int32 or int64 in place
of nativeint?


Finally, a procedural question: should I be posting these sorts of
questions to comp.lang.ml instead of sending them to
caml-list@inria.fr?


Thanks in advance for any help!


Norman

Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones.

[Sven LUTHER]

On Wed, Jan 10, 2001 at 01:25:27PM -0500, Norman Ramsey wrote:
> We're designing interfaces for tools that will sometimes have to
> manipulate 32-bit integers, but will often be able to make do with the
> limited precision provided by the int type.  I would love to get some
> information about the relative cost of int vs nativeint in both
> parameter passing and datatype representation.
> 

A (somewhat) related question would be, what is the cost of polymorphic
variants compared to noarmal ones ?

The normal variants are coded as integers, and using them is fast, while
polymorphic variants use some kind of hash functionn, but very simple.

If i use a datatype that i will be pattern matching very often and i want it
to be quick, how much is the overhead of using polymorphic patterns over
noraml ones ?

Or did i misunderstand the way it works ?

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones.

[Alain Frisch]

On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:

> A (somewhat) related question would be, what is the cost of polymorphic
> variants compared to noarmal ones ?
> 
> The normal variants are coded as integers, and using them is fast, while
> polymorphic variants use some kind of hash functionn, but very simple.

AFAIK, the hashing is done only during the compilation (or explicitly
by external C functions). For instance (output of ocaml -dinstr):
# function `ABC -> 10 | `DEF -> 20;;
        closure L1, 0
        return 1
L1:     const 3247170
        push
        acc 1
        eqint
        branchifnot L2
        const 10
        return 1
L2:     const 20
        return 1

> If i use a datatype that i will be pattern matching very often and i want it
> to be quick, how much is the overhead of using polymorphic patterns over
> noraml ones ?

There may be a small overhead because the variants tags are large, so
the compiler can't use the "switch" instruction of the abstract machine.
Compare with (type t = ABC | DEF):
# function ABC -> 10 | DEF -> 20;;
        closure L1, 0
        return 1
L1:     acc 0
        switch 3 2/
L3:     const 10
        return 1
L2:     const 20
        return 1

For the native code, the difference is less visible (ocamlopt -S):
.L102:
        cmpl    $6494341, %eax
        jne     .L101
        movl    $21, %eax
        ret
.L101:
        movl    $41, %eax
        ret

and:

.L105:
        sarl    $1, %eax
        testl   %eax, %eax
        je      .L104
        movl    $41, %eax
        ret
.L104:
        movl    $21, %eax
        ret

(I think the new compilation scheme for pattern matching doesn't affect
these cases).

For more complex case, small value for tags allow optimizations. (see for
instance the assembler code produced for:
function `ABC -> 10 | `DEF -> 20 | `GHI -> 30;;
type t = ABC | DEF | GHI;;
function ABC -> 10 | DEF -> 20 | GHI -> 30;;
)


-- 
  Alain Frisch

Re: Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones.

[Sven LUTHER]

On Thu, Jan 11, 2001 at 11:40:05AM +0100, Alain Frisch wrote:
> On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Sven LUTHER wrote:
> 
> > A (somewhat) related question would be, what is the cost of polymorphic
> > variants compared to noarmal ones ?
> > 
> > The normal variants are coded as integers, and using them is fast, while
> > polymorphic variants use some kind of hash functionn, but very simple.
> 
> AFAIK, the hashing is done only during the compilation (or explicitly
> by external C functions). For instance (output of ocaml -dinstr):

Thanks for this info, i almost guessed that such was the cas,e but was not
sure, 

Friendly,

Sven Luther

Re: Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones.

[Jacques Garrigue]

From: Sven LUTHER <luther@dpt-info.u-strasbg.fr>
> A (somewhat) related question would be, what is the cost of polymorphic
> variants compared to noarmal ones ?
> 
> The normal variants are coded as integers, and using them is fast, while
> polymorphic variants use some kind of hash functionn, but very simple.

They are also coded as integers. The hash function is only used at
compile time.

> If i use a datatype that i will be pattern matching very often and i want it
> to be quick, how much is the overhead of using polymorphic patterns over
> noraml ones ?

The difference is that since the integers are the result of a hash
function, you cannot use an indirect jump through a table, like with
normal variants. So pattern matching is compiled as a binary tree of
"if" statements. Same thing happens in C when you switch on scattered
cases.

I did benchmarks a long time ago, and the overhead was rather costly
with the bytecode interpreter, which has a builtin table-switch
operation. Something like 3 times slower for a 10 way match,
which just corresponds to the depth of the decision tree. Yet this is
logarithmic, so a 100-way match would still only be around 6 times
slower.

However I was surprised to see that with the native code compiler
polymorphic variants appeared to be faster than normal ones. That
seems to mean than on modern CPUs, an indirect jump is about 3 times
more expansive than a conditional, and that polymorphic variants are
only going to be slow on huge matches. But this was a single, very
simple benchmark, so I'm not sure this behaviour is stable.

So, I wouldn't suggest using polymorphic variants to encode
instructions in a virtual machine (too many cases), but in almost any
other cases the overhead should be neglectable anyway. Keeping typing
straightforward is another problem.

Jacques Garrigue

Re: questions about costs of nativeint vs int

[Xavier Leroy]

Dear Norman,

> We're designing interfaces for tools that will sometimes have to
> manipulate 32-bit integers, but will often be able to make do with the
> limited precision provided by the int type.  I would love to get some
> information about the relative cost of int vs nativeint in both
> parameter passing and datatype representation.

Values of type "nativeint", "int32" and "int64" are boxed
(heap-allocated and handled through a pointer), while values of type
"int" are unboxed.  So, in terms of space, we have:
        nativeint       1 word for the pointer + 2 words for the heap block
        int32           same
        int64           same on 64-bit machines, add 1 word for a 32-bitter
        int             1 word for the data
In terms of speed, operations on boxed integers are more expensive due
to the extra loads (on operands) and heap allocations (on results).
ocamlopt can avoid loads and allocations that cancel each other in
simple cases, but the fact remains that nativeint arithmetic is more
expensive than int arithmetic.

> For example, what are the relative costs (e.g., memory requirements)
> of these two definitions?
> 
>   type loc = Cell of char * int * width
>            | Slice of ...
> 
>   type loc' = Cell of char * nativeint * width
>             | Slice of ...

A "Cell" requires two more memory words in the latter case.

> As another example, what are the costs of calling these functions:
> 
>   type t
>   val add  : rd:int       -> rs1:int       -> rs2:int       -> t
>   val add' : rd:nativeint -> rs1:nativeint -> rs2:nativeint -> t

Assuming the nativeints are already available, the cost is exactly the
same: a pointer is passed instead of an unboxed integer.  However,
computing the nativeint arguments in the first place can be more expensive
if arithmetic operations are involved.

> To extend the question, what happens if I use int32 or int64 in place
> of nativeint?

No major differences.  On a 32-bit processor, int64 requires one more
memory word than the other two.  And of course 64-bit arithmetic is
slower than 32-bit arithmetic on a 32-bit processor.

Actually, "nativeint" is isomorphic to "int32" on a 32-bit platform
and to "int64" on a 64-bit platform.  The reason for having all three
types is that some applications require 32-bit integers (no more, no
less, regardless of the platform), some require 64-bit integers, and
some just want to get at the natural word size for the architecture.

> Finally, a procedural question: should I be posting these sorts of
> questions to comp.lang.ml instead of sending them to
> caml-list@inria.fr?

For technical questions about the Caml implementation, I think you get
a better chance of a reply here on caml-list.

All the best,

- Xavier

Re: Cost of polymorphic variants over normal ones.

[Markus Mottl]

> However I was surprised to see that with the native code compiler
> polymorphic variants appeared to be faster than normal ones. That
> seems to mean than on modern CPUs, an indirect jump is about 3 times
> more expansive than a conditional, and that polymorphic variants are
> only going to be slow on huge matches. But this was a single, very
> simple benchmark, so I'm not sure this behaviour is stable.

This is also in accordance with a test that I did a few years ago
(in C++): I wondered whether it is more efficient to use function
pointers (jump tables) or case switches to choose the next code part
to be executed. I was surprised to find out that such tables only
started paying off at numbers of around 100 alternatives (I certainly
did this test on Intel chips, but if I remember correctly, it is also
true for Alphas). I guess this may have to do with pipelining and/or
cache effects. Processor experts can probably tell us more...

- Markus Mottl

-- 
Markus Mottl, mottl@miss.wu-wien.ac.at, http://miss.wu-wien.ac.at/~mottl

Re: questions about costs of nativeint vs int

[Norman Ramsey]

 > Values of type "nativeint", "int32" and "int64" are boxed
 > (heap-allocated and handled through a pointer), while values of type
 > "int" are unboxed...
 >
 > >   type loc = Cell of char * int * width
 > >            | Slice of ...
 > > 
 > >   type loc' = Cell of char * nativeint * width
 > >             | Slice of ...
 > 
 > A "Cell" requires two more memory words in the latter case.

Thanks for this very helpful reply.

I think for simplicity, we may go with nativeint now.  Another
question: are there any tools that would enable us to track, e.g.,
how much memory is being occupied by instances of "Cell", or even just
how many "Cells" might be live at a given moment?
That way we could evaluate the potential savings in moving to int for
some variants...


Norman