Re: Popcount optimization using AVX512
Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
From: Andres Freund <andres@anarazel.de>
To: Nathan Bossart <nathandbossart@gmail.com>
Cc: "Devulapalli, Raghuveer" <raghuveer.devulapalli@intel.com>, "Shankaran, Akash" <akash.shankaran@intel.com>, Tom Lane <tgl@sss.pgh.pa.us>, David Rowley <dgrowleyml@gmail.com>, Ants Aasma <ants.aasma@cybertec.at>, Alvaro Herrera <alvherre@alvh.no-ip.org>, "Amonson, Paul D" <paul.d.amonson@intel.com>, Noah Misch <noah@leadboat.com>, Matthias van de Meent <boekewurm+postgres@gmail.com>, "pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org" <pgsql-hackers@lists.postgresql.org>
Date: 2024-07-31T02:43:08Z
Lists: pgsql-hackers
Commits
Same data as JSON:
GET /api/v1/messages/:b64id/commits
the thread's linked commits as JSON, with link sources.
API reference →
-
Fix __attribute__((target(...))) usage.
- 41b98ddb77bf 18.0 landed
-
Use __attribute__((target(...))) for AVX-512 support.
- f78667bd910e 18.0 landed
-
Fix code for probing availability of AVX-512.
- 598e0114a3b1 17.0 landed
-
Optimize visibilitymap_count() with AVX-512 instructions.
- 41c51f0c68b2 17.0 landed
-
Optimize pg_popcount() with AVX-512 instructions.
- 792752af4eb5 17.0 landed
-
Inline pg_popcount() for small buffers.
- deb1486c7d36 17.0 landed
-
Avoid function call overhead of pg_popcount() in syslogger.c.
- 4133c1f45c54 17.0 landed
-
Refactor code for setting pg_popcount* function pointers.
- 6687430c98f3 17.0 landed
-
Inline pg_popcount{32,64} into pg_popcount().
- cc4826dd5e52 17.0 landed
-
Remove MSVC scripts
- 1301c80b2167 17.0 cited
-
Use ARMv8 CRC instructions where available.
- f044d71e331d 11.0 cited
-
Use Intel SSE 4.2 CRC instructions where available.
- 3dc2d62d0486 9.5.0 cited
Hi,
On 2024-07-30 21:01:31 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 06:46:51PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> > On 2024-07-30 20:20:34 -0500, Nathan Bossart wrote:
> >> On Tue, Jul 30, 2024 at 05:49:59PM -0700, Andres Freund wrote:
> >> > Why are we actually checking for xsave? We're not using xsave itself and I
> >> > couldn't find a comment in 792752af4eb5 explaining what we're using it as a
> >> > proxy for? Is that just to know if _xgetbv() exists? Is it actually possible
> >> > that xsave isn't available when avx512 is?
> >>
> >> Yes, it's to verify we have XGETBV, which IIUC requires support from both
> >> the processor and the OS (see 598e011 and upthread discussion). AFAIK the
> >> way we are detecting AVX-512 support is quite literally by-the-book unless
> >> I've gotten something wrong.
> >
> > I'm basically wondering whether we need to check for compiler (not OS support)
> > support for xsave if we also check for -mavx512vpopcntdq -mavx512bw
> > support. Afaict the latter implies support for xsave.
>
> The main purpose of the XSAVE compiler check is to determine whether we
> need to add -mxsave in order to use _xgetbv() [0]. If that wasn't a
> factor, we could probably skip it. Earlier versions of the patch used
> inline assembly in the non-MSVC path to call XGETBV, which I was trying to
> avoid.
My point is that _xgetbv() is made available by -mavx512vpopcntdq -mavx512bw
alone, without needing -mxsave:
echo -e '#include <immintrin.h>\nint main() { return _xgetbv(0) & 0xe0; }'|time gcc -march=x86-64 -c -xc - -o /dev/null
-> fails
echo -e '#include <immintrin.h>\nint main() { return _xgetbv(0) & 0xe0;}'|time gcc -march=x86-64 -mavx512vpopcntdq -mavx512bw -c -xc - -o /dev/null
-> succeeds
Greetings,
Andres Freund