I am learning assembler quite a while and I am trying to rewrite some simple procedures \ functions to it to see performance benefits (if any). My main development tool is Delphi 2007 and first examples will be in that language but they can be easily translated to other languages as well.
The problem states as:
We have given an unsigned byte value in which each of the eight bits represents a pixel in one row of a screen. Each single pixel can be solid (1) or transparent (0). So in other words, we have 8 pixels packed in one byte value. I want to unpack those pixels into an eight byte array in the way that youngest pixel(bit) will land under the lowest index of the array and so on. Here is an example:
One byte value -----------> eight byte array
10011011 -----------------> [1][1][0][1][1][0][0][1]
Array index number -------> 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Below I present five methods which are solving the problem. Next I will show their time comparison and how I did measure those times.
My questions consist of two parts:
1.
I am asking you for detailed answer concerning methods DecodePixels4a and DecodePixels4b. Why method 4b is somewhat slower than the 4a?
If for example it is slower because my code is not aligned correctly then show me which instructions in a given method could be better aligned and how to do this to not break the method.
I would like to see real examples behind the theory. Please bear in mind that I am learning assembly and I want to gain knowledge from your answers which allows me in the future to writing better optimized code.
2.
Can you write faster routine than DecodePixels4a? If so, please present it and describe optimization steps that you have taken.
By faster routine I mean routine that runs in the shortest period of time in your test environment among all the routines presented here.
All Intel family processors are allowed and those which are compatible with them.
Below you will find routines written by me:
procedure DecodePixels1(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
var
i3: Integer;
begin
DecPixels[0] := EncPixels and $01;
for i3 := 1 to 7 do
begin
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[i3] := EncPixels and $01;
//DecPixels[i3] := (EncPixels shr i3) and $01; //this is even slower if you replace above 2 lines with it
end;
end;
//Lets unroll the loop and see if it will be faster.
procedure DecodePixels2(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
begin
DecPixels[0] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[1] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[2] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[3] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[4] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[5] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[6] := EncPixels and $01;
EncPixels := EncPixels shr 1;
DecPixels[7] := EncPixels and $01;
end;
procedure DecodePixels3(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
begin
asm
push eax;
push ebx;
push ecx;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx], bl;
mov ecx, $00;
@@Decode:
inc ecx;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + ecx], bl;
cmp ecx, $07;
jnz @@Decode;
pop ecx;
pop ebx;
pop eax;
end;
end;
//Unrolled assembly loop
procedure DecodePixels4a(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
begin
asm
push eax;
push ebx;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $01], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $02], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $03], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $04], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $05], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $06], bl;
shr al, $01;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $07], bl;
pop ebx;
pop eax;
end;
end;
// it differs compared to 4a only in switching two instructions (but seven times)
procedure DecodePixels4b(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
begin
asm
push eax;
push ebx;
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $01], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $02], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $03], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $04], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $05], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
shr al, $01; //
mov [edx + $06], bl; //
mov bl, al;
and bl, $01;
mov [edx + $07], bl;
pop ebx;
pop eax;
end;
end;
And here is how do I test them:
program Test;
{$APPTYPE CONSOLE}
uses
SysUtils, Windows;
type
TDecodedPixels = array[0..7] of Byte;
var
Pixels: TDecodedPixels;
Freq, TimeStart, TimeEnd :Int64;
Time1, Time2, Time3, Time4a, Time4b: Extended;
i, i2: Integer;
begin
if QueryPerformanceFrequency(Freq) then
begin
for i2 := 1 to 100 do
begin
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeStart);
for i := 1 to 100000 do
DecodePixels1(155, Pixels);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeEnd);
Time1 := Time1 + ((TimeEnd - TimeStart) / Freq * 1000);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeStart);
for i := 1 to 100000 do
DecodePixels2(155, Pixels);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeEnd);
Time2 := Time2 + ((TimeEnd - TimeStart) / Freq * 1000);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeStart);
for i := 1 to 100000 do
DecodePixels3(155, Pixels);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeEnd);
Time3 := Time3 + ((TimeEnd - TimeStart) / Freq * 1000);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeStart);
for i := 1 to 100000 do
DecodePixels4a(155, Pixels);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeEnd);
Time4a := Time4a + ((TimeEnd - TimeStart) / Freq * 1000);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeStart);
for i := 1 to 100000 do
DecodePixels4b(155, Pixels);
QueryPerformanceCounter(TimeEnd);
Time4b := Time4b + ((TimeEnd - TimeStart) / Freq * 1000);
end;
Writeln('Time1 : ' + FloatToStr(Time1 / 100) + ' ms. <- Delphi loop.');
Writeln('Time2 : ' + FloatToStr(Time2 / 100) + ' ms. <- Delphi unrolled loop.');
Writeln('Time3 : ' + FloatToStr(Time3/ 100) + ' ms. <- BASM loop.');
Writeln('Time4a : ' + FloatToStr(Time4a / 100) + ' ms. <- BASM unrolled loop.');
Writeln('Time4b : ' + FloatToStr(Time4b / 100) + ' ms. <- BASM unrolled loop instruction switch.');
end;
Readln;
end.
Here are the results from my machine ( Intel® Pentium® E2180 on Win32 XP) :
Time1 : 1,68443549919493 ms. <- Delphi loop.
Time2 : 1,33773024572211 ms. <- Delphi unrolled loop.
Time3 : 1,37015271374424 ms. <- BASM loop.
Time4a : 0,822916962526627 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop.
Time4b : 0,862914462301607 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop instruction switch.
The results are pretty stable - times vary only by few percent between each test I've made. And that was always true: Time1 > Time3 > Time 2 > Time4b > Time4a
So I think that de difference between Time4a and Time4b depends of that instructions switch in the method DecodePixels4b. Sometimes it is 4% sometimes it is up to 10% but 4b is always slower than 4a.
I was thinking about another method with usage of MMX instructions to write into memory eight bytes at one time, but I can't figure out fast way to unpack byte into the 64 bit register.
Thank you for your time.
Thank you guys for your valuable input. Whish I could answer all of you at the same time, unfortunately compared to the modern CPU's I have only one "pipe" and can execute only one instruction "reply" at the time ;-) So, I will try sum up some things over here and write additional comments under your answers.
First of all, I wanted to say that before posting my question I came up with the solution presented by Wouter van Nifterick and it was actually way slower then my assembly code. So I've decided not to post that routine here, but you may see that I took the same approach also in my loop Delphi version of the routine. It is commented there because it was giving me worser results.
This is a mystery for me. I've run my code once again with Wouter's and PhilS's routines and here are the results:
Time1 : 1,66535493194387 ms. <- Delphi loop.
Time2 : 1,29115785420688 ms. <- Delphi unrolled loop.
Time3 : 1,33716934524107 ms. <- BASM loop.
Time4a : 0,795041753757838 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop.
Time4b : 0,843520166815013 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop instruction switch.
Time5 : 1,49457681191307 ms. <- Wouter van Nifterick, Delphi unrolled
Time6 : 0,400587402866258 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup Delphi
Time7 : 0,325472442519827 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup Delphi inline
Time8 : 0,37350491544239 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup BASM
Look at the Time5 result, quite strange isn't it? I guess I have different Delphi version, since my generated assembly code differs from that provided by Wouter.
Second major edit:
I know why routine 5 was slower on my machnie. I had checked "Range checking" and "Overflow checking" in my compiler options. I've added assembler directive to routine 9 to see if it helps. It seems that with this directive assembly procedure is as good as Delphi inline variant or even slightly better.
Here are the final results:
Time1 : 1,22508325749317 ms. <- Delphi loop.
Time2 : 1,33004145373084 ms. <- Delphi unrolled loop.
Time3 : 1,1473583622526 ms. <- BASM loop.
Time4a : 0,77322594033463 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop.
Time4b : 0,846033593023372 ms. <- BASM unrolled loop instruction switch.
Time5 : 0,688689382044384 ms. <- Wouter van Nifterick, Delphi unrolled
Time6 : 0,503233741036693 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup Delphi
Time7 : 0,385254722925063 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup Delphi inline
Time8 : 0,432993919452751 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup BASM
Time9 : 0,362680491244212 ms. <- PhiS, table lookup BASM with assembler directive
Third major edit:
In opinion @Pascal Cuoq and @j_random_hacker the difference in execution times between routines 4a, 4b and 5 is caused by the data dependency. However I have to disagree with that opinion basing on the further tests that I've made.
I've also invented new routine 4c based on 4a. Here it is:
procedure DecodePixels4c(EncPixels: Byte; var DecPixels: TDecodedPixels);
begin
asm
push ebx;
mov bl, al;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 1;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $01], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 2;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $02], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 3;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $03], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 4;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $04], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 5;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $05], bl;
mov bl, al;
shr bl, 6;
and bl, 1;
mov [edx + $06], bl;
shr al, 7;
and al, 1;
mov [edx + $07], al;
pop ebx;
end;
end;
I would say it is pretty data dependent.
And here are the tests and results. I've made four tests to make sure there is no accident. I've also added new times for the routines proposed by GJ (Time10a, Time10b).
Test1 Test2 Test3 Test4
Time1 : 1,211 1,210 1,220 1,213
Time2 : 1,280 1,258 1,253 1,332
Time3 : 1,129 1,138 1,130 1,160
Time4a : 0,690 0,682 0,617 0,635
Time4b : 0,707 0,698 0,706 0,659
Time4c : 0,679 0,685 0,626 0,625
Time5 : 0,715 0,682 0,686 0,679
Time6 : 0,490 0,485 0,522 0,514
Time7 : 0,323 0,333 0,336 0,318
Time8 : 0,407 0,403 0,373 0,354
Time9 : 0,352 0,378 0,355 0,355
Time10a : 1,823 1,812 1,807 1,813
Time10b : 1,113 1,120 1,115 1,118
Time10c : 0,652 0,630 0,653 0,633
Time10d : 0,156 0,155 0,172 0,160 <-- current winner!
As you may see the results of 4a, 4b, 4c and 5 are very close to each other.
Why is that? Because I've removed from 4a, 4b (4c already doesn't have it) two instructions: push eax and pop eax. Since I know I wont use anywhere else in my code the value under eax I do not have to prereserve it.
Now my code has only one pair of push/pop so as the routine 5.
Routine 5 prereserves value of eax beacause it firstly make copy of it under ecx but it deson't prereserve ecx.
So my conclusion is that: the difference in time execution of 5 and 4a and 4b (before the third edit) didn't concern data dependecny but was caused by additional pair of push / pop instructions.
I am very interested in your comments.
After a few days GJ invented even faster routine (Time 10d) than PhiS's. Nice work GJ!
