On Wed, 20 Sep 2023 17:19:42 GMT, Srinivas Vamsi Parasa <d...@openjdk.org> wrote:
>> The goal is to develop faster sort routines for x86_64 CPUs by taking >> advantage of AVX512 instructions. This enhancement provides an order of >> magnitude speedup for Arrays.sort() using int, long, float and double arrays. >> >> This PR shows upto ~7x improvement for 32-bit datatypes (int, float) and >> upto ~4.5x improvement for 64-bit datatypes (long, double) as shown in the >> performance data below. >> >> >> **Arrays.sort performance data using JMH benchmarks for arrays with random >> data** >> >> | Arrays.sort benchmark | Array Size | Baseline >> (us/op) | AVX512 Sort (us/op) | Speedup | >> | --- | --- | --- | --- | --- >> | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 10 | 0.034 | 0.035 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 25 | 0.116 | 0.089 >> | 1.3 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 50 | 0.282 | 0.291 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 75 | 0.474 | 0.358 >> | 1.3 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 100 | 0.654 | 0.623 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 1000 | 9.274 | 6.331 >> | 1.5 | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 10000 | 323.339 | 71.228 >> | **4.5** | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 100000 | 4471.871 | >> 1002.748 | **4.5** | >> | ArraysSort.doubleSort | 1000000 | 51660.742 | >> 12921.295 | **4.0** | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 10 | 0.045 | 0.046 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 25 | 0.103 | 0.084 >> | 1.2 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 50 | 0.285 | 0.33 >> | 0.9 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 75 | 0.492 | 0.346 >> | 1.4 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 100 | 0.597 | 0.326 >> | 1.8 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 1000 | 9.811 | 5.294 >> | 1.9 | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 10000 | 323.955 | 50.547 >> | **6.4** | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 100000 | 4326.38 | 731.152 >> | **5.9** | >> | ArraysSort.floatSort | 1000000 | 52413.88 | >> 8409.193 | **6.2** | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 10 | 0.033 | 0.033 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 25 | 0.086 | 0.051 >> | 1.7 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 50 | 0.236 | 0.151 >> | 1.6 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 75 | 0.416 | 0.332 >> | 1.3 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 100 | 0.63 | 0.521 >> | 1.2 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 1000 | 10.518 | 4.698 >> | 2.2 | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 10000 | 309.659 | 42.518 >> | **7.3** | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 100000 | 4130.917 | >> 573.956 | **7.2** | >> | ArraysSort.intSort | 1000000 | 49876.307 | >> 6712.812 | **7.4** | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 10 | 0.036 | 0.037 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 25 | 0.094 | 0.08 >> | 1.2 | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 50 | 0.218 | 0.227 >> | 1.0 | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 75 | 0.466 | 0.402 >> | 1.2 | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 100 | 0.76 | 0.58 >> | 1.3 | >> | ArraysSort.longSort | 1000 | 10.449 | 6.... > > Srinivas Vamsi Parasa has updated the pull request incrementally with one > additional commit since the last revision: > > change variable names of indexPivot* to pivotIndex* > Hi Vamsi, > > In this comment [#13568 > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13568#issuecomment-1728082819) > Paul suggested comparing of performance. > > Could you please run benchmarking of the following 4 class? > > [1] current implementation in JDK [2] your AVX12 version based on [1], from > this PR [3] my new version with Radix sort for parallel case plus your AVX12 > changes > https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForParallel.java > [4] my new version with Radix sort for all cases plus your AVX12 changes > https://github.com/iaroslavski/sorting/blob/master/radixsort/DualPivotQuicksort_RadixForAll.java > > Please use this JMH test, run on > > * all sizes > * all inputs > * but for int type only (I applied AVX12 changes in my classes for int) > * for sequential and parallel sorting (sort() and parallelSort()) > > https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/42e17e45b1adc4d77ba5549770ce591d96d4b1fe/test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/java/util/ArraysSort.java > > Before we go ahead, it will be interesting to see the boost of performance of > each improvements. > > Many thanks, Vladimir >From what we (Vamsi and I) see, the two PRs are totally independent. This PR >has its own merit which we have shown through various performance runs by now. >This PR doesn't conflict with the radix sort PR. The perf runs that you ask >for above make sense in the radix sort PR discussion and not here. There also >the onus is on the author of the PR to show the merit of their work through >perf runs and such. ------------- PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/14227#issuecomment-1728555043
