Launchpad has imported 10 comments from the remote bug at https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=1421121.
If you reply to an imported comment from within Launchpad, your comment will be sent to the remote bug automatically. Read more about Launchpad's inter-bugtracker facilities at https://help.launchpad.net/InterBugTracking. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T12:09:55+00:00 Oleg wrote: Bug [0] has been introduced in Glibc 2.23 [1] and fixed in Glibc 2.25 [2]. Fedora 24 and Fedora 25 are affected because they use either Glibc 2.23 or 2.24. Bug introduces serious (2x-4x) performance degradation of math functions (pow, exp/exp2/exp10, log/log2/log10, sin/cos/sincos/tan, asin/acos/atan/atan2, sinh/cosh/tanh, asinh/acosh/atanh) provided by libm. Bug can be reproduced on any AVX-capable x86-64 machine. This bug is all about AVX-SSE transition penalty [3]. 256-bit YMM registers used by AVX-256 instructions extend 128-bit registers used by SSE (XMM0 is a low half of YMM0 and so on). Every time CPU executes SSE instruction after AVX-256 instruction it has to store upper half of the YMM register to the internal buffer and then restore it when execution returns back to AVX instructions. Store/restore is required because old- fashioned SSE knows nothing about the upper halves of its registers and may damage them. This store/restore operation is time consuming (several tens of clock cycles for each operation). To deal with this issue, Intel introduced AVX-128 instructions which operate on the same 128-bit XMM register as SSE but take into account upper halves of YMM registers. Hence, no store/restore required. Practically speaking, AVX-128 instructions is a new smart form of SSE instructions which can be used together with full-size AVX-256 instructions without any penalty. Intel recommends to use AVX-128 instructions instead of SSE instructions wherever possible. To sum things up, it's okay to mix SSE with AVX-128 and AVX-128 with AVX-256. Mixing AVX-128 with AVX-256 is allowed because both types of instructions are aware of 256-bit YMM registers. Mixing SSE with AVX-128 is okay because CPU can guarantee that the upper halves of YMM registers don't contain any meaningful data (how one can put it there without using AVX-256 instructions) and avoid doing store/restore operation (why to care about random trash in the upper halves of the YMM registers). It's not okay to mix SSE with AVX-256 due to the transition penalty. Scalar floating-point instructions used by routines mentioned above are implemented as a subset of SSE and AVX-128 instructions. They operate on a small fraction of 128-bit register but still considered SSE/AVX-128 instruction. And they suffer from SSE/AVX transition penalty as well. Glibc inadvertently triggers a chain of AVX/SSE transition penalties due to inappropriate use of AVX-256 instructions inside _dl_runtime_resolve() procedure. By using AVX-256 instructions to push/pop YMM registers, Glibc makes CPU think that the upper halves of XMM registers contain meaningful data which needs to be preserved during execution of SSE instructions. With such a 'dirty' flag set every switch between SSE and AVX instructions (AVX-128 or AVX-256) leads to a time consuming store/restore procedure. This 'dirty' flag never gets cleared during the whole program execution which leads to a serious overall slowdown. Fixed implementation [2] of _dl_runtime_resolve() procedure tries to avoid using AVX-256 instructions if possible. Buggy _dl_runtime_resolve() gets called every time when dynamic linker tries to resolve a symbol (any symbol, not just ones mentioned above). It's enough for _dl_runtime_resolve() to be called just once to touch the upper halves of the YMM registers and provoke AVX/SSE transition penalty in the future. It's safe to say that all dynamically linked application call _dl_runtime_resolve() at least once which means that all of them may experience slowdown. Performance degradation takes place when such application mixes AVX and SSE instructions (switches from AVX to SSE or back). There are two types of math routines provided by libm: (a) ones that have AVX-optimized version (exp, sin/cos, tan, atan, log and other) (b) ones that don't have AVX-optimized version and rely on general purpose SSE implementation (pow, exp2/exp10, asin/acos, sinh/cosh/tanh, asinh/acosh/atanh and others) For the former group of routines slowdown happens when they get called from SSE code (i.e. from the application compiled with -mno-avx) because SSE -> AVX transition takes place. For the latter one slowdown happens when routines get called from AVX code (i.e. from the application compiled with -mavx) because AVX -> SSE transition takes place. Both situations look realistic. SSE code gets generated by gcc to target x86-64 and AVX-optimized code gets generated by gcc -march=native on AVX-capable machines. ============================================================================ Let's take one routine from the group (a) and try to reproduce the slowdown. #include <math.h> #include <stdio.h> int main () { double a, b; for (a = b = 0.0; b < 2.0; b += 0.00000005) a += exp(b); printf("%f\n", a); return 0; } $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -o exp exp.c -lm $ time ./exp <..> 2.801s <..> $ time LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./exp <..> 0.660s <..> You can see that application demonstrates 4x better performance when _dl_runtime_resolve() doesn't get called. That's how serious the impact of AVX/SSE transition can be. ============================================================================ Let's take one routine from the group (b) and try to reproduce the slowdown. #include <math.h> #include <stdio.h> int main () { double a, b; for (a = b = 0.0; b < 2.0; b += 0.00000005) a += pow(M_PI, b); printf("%f\n", a); return 0; } # note that -mavx option has been passed $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow pow.c -lm $ time ./pow <..> 4.157s <..> $ time LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./pow <..> 2.123s <..> You can see that application demonstrates 2x better performance when _dl_runtime_resolve() doesn't get called. ============================================================================ [!] It's important to mention that the context of this bug might be even wider. After a call to buggy _dl_runtime_resolve() any transition between AVX-128 and SSE (otherwise legitimate) will suffer from performance degradation. Any application which mixes AVX-128 floating point code with SSE floating point code (e.g. by using external SSE-only library) will experience serious slowdown. [0] https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20495 [1] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=f3dcae82d54e5097e18e1d6ef4ff55c2ea4e621e [2] https://sourceware.org/git/?p=glibc.git;a=commit;h=fb0f7a6755c1bfaec38f490fbfcaa39a66ee3604 [3] https://software.intel.com/en-us/articles/intel-avx-state-transitions-migrating-sse-code-to-avx Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/3 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T14:10:06+00:00 Carlos wrote: I don't see anywhere near the performance degradation you're seeing, so it must be heavily dependent on the family and stepping that you're using. e.g. [carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ time LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./pow-test 154964150.331550 real 0m1.831s user 0m1.820s sys 0m0.003s [carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ time ./pow-test 154964150.331550 real 0m1.830s user 0m1.820s sys 0m0.001s Verified pow-test built without DT_FLAGS BIND_NOW. I agree that it is less than optimal to have processor state transitions like those you indicate for every time the dynamic loader trampoline is called. We'll look into this. Fedora 26 will not have this problem since it's based on glibc 2.25 with the fix you indicate already present. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/4 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T14:38:55+00:00 Oleg wrote: Hi Carlos, Many thanks for looking into this! Could you please confirm that you used the following command to compile pow test with gcc: $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow pow.c -lm Passing -mavx is the key thing for this example to work as expected. You want to compile pow() test WITH -mavx but exp() test WITHOUT -mavx. I'd also appreciate if you tell me on which CPU you do testing. It's impossible for me run this test on every possible CPU (tried on Sandy Bridge and Ivy Bridge machines so far) and this information would be really helpful. Thanks! Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/5 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T14:49:23+00:00 Carlos wrote: (In reply to Oleg Strikov from comment #4) > Hi Carlos, > > Many thanks for looking into this! Could you please confirm that you used > the following command to compile pow test with gcc: > > $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow pow.c -lm I can confirm that I used these options on an F25 system. The dynamic loader trampoline is only called once in the loop to resolve the singular math function call, and after that it's the same sequence over and over again without any explicit software save/restore (though the CPU might do something for the transition). carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow-test pow-test.c -lm [carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ time ./pow-test 154964150.331550 real 0m1.829s user 0m1.819s sys 0m0.002s [carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ time LD_BIND_NOW=1 ./pow-test 154964150.331550 real 0m1.833s user 0m1.819s sys 0m0.005s gcc version 6.3.1 20161221 (Red Hat 6.3.1-1) (GCC) > Passing -mavx is the key thing for this example to work as expected. You > want to compile pow() test WITH -mavx but exp() test WITHOUT -mavx. > > I'd also appreciate if you tell me on which CPU you do testing. It's > impossible for me run this test on every possible CPU (tried on Sandy Bridge > and Ivy Bridge machines so far) and this information would be really helpful. I ran this on an i5-4690K, so a Haswell series CPU, but without AVX512. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/6 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T14:54:20+00:00 Florian wrote: (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #5) > (In reply to Oleg Strikov from comment #4) > > Hi Carlos, > > > > Many thanks for looking into this! Could you please confirm that you used > > the following command to compile pow test with gcc: > > > > $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow pow.c -lm > > I can confirm that I used these options on an F25 system. > > The dynamic loader trampoline is only called once in the loop to resolve the > singular math function call, and after that it's the same sequence over and > over again without any explicit software save/restore (though the CPU might > do something for the transition). Right, that's why I found the claim about the substantial performance impact always a bit puzzling. What happens if you use LD_BIND_NOT=1? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/7 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T15:09:47+00:00 Carlos wrote: (In reply to Florian Weimer from comment #6) > (In reply to Carlos O'Donell from comment #5) > > (In reply to Oleg Strikov from comment #4) > > > Hi Carlos, > > > > > > Many thanks for looking into this! Could you please confirm that you used > > > the following command to compile pow test with gcc: > > > > > > $ gcc -O3 -march=x86-64 -mavx -o pow pow.c -lm > > > > I can confirm that I used these options on an F25 system. > > > > The dynamic loader trampoline is only called once in the loop to resolve the > > singular math function call, and after that it's the same sequence over and > > over again without any explicit software save/restore (though the CPU might > > do something for the transition). > > Right, that's why I found the claim about the substantial performance impact > always a bit puzzling. Agreed. > What happens if you use LD_BIND_NOT=1? [carlos@athas rhbz1421121]$ time LD_BIND_NOT=1 ./pow-test 154964150.331550 real 0m4.527s user 0m4.505s sys 0m0.003s Terrible performance as expected though. Surprisingly inline with Oleg's numbers. However, LD_BIND_NOT performance is never the default, you'd have to be running with a preloaded audit library (LD_AUDIT) to trigger that kind of behaviour. Perhaps something is wrong with Oleg's system configuration? Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/8 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T15:35:50+00:00 Oleg wrote: To my understanding, once trampoline touched upper halves of YMM registers ALL future switches between AVX and SSE require time consuming store/restore operation (i. e. all future calls to pow will suffer). Touching upper halves sets somewhat like a dirty flag (which forces cpu to do store/restore) and this flag never gets dropped during the whole program execution. That's why impact is so serious. I was able to reproduce the issue using f25 live cd. So it looks like a cpu model depending issue. We were able to repro on E5-1630 (haswell) though. Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/9 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T16:37:16+00:00 Marcel wrote: Hi, I'm the one that Oleg referred to who had this issue on an E5-1630 CPU. It turns out, that I actually /cannot/ reproduce it with a Fedora 25 live CD (before and after an update of glibc)! I don't normally use Fedora on this machine, I originally encountered the problem with Ubuntu 16.04 (which has glibc 2.23 and not 2.24 as Fedora 25) -- there it is perfectly reproducible with Oleg's code, with very similar timings to the ones that Oleg reported. This is very confusing, I can try with a Fedora 24 live CD as well, but Oleg seems to be able to reproduce it on Fedora 25, so... Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/10 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-10T16:57:45+00:00 Marcel wrote: Um, sorry for the noise, but it seems that the bug was fixed with Fedora's glibc 2.24-4 release: * Fri Dec 23 2016 Carlos O'Donell <carlos@...> - 2.24-4 - Auto-sync with upstream release/2.24/master, commit e9e69e468039fcd57276f783a16aa771a8e4214e, fixing: - [...] - Fix runtime resolver routines in the presence of AVX512 (swbz#20508) - [...] That would explain why Oleg saw it with the Fedora 25 live CD (which still has 2.24-3) while Carlos did not see it on his system. Now what I don't understand is why I myself could not reproduce with the live CD, even though I tried compiling/running it before updating glibc... Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/11 ------------------------------------------------------------------------ On 2017-02-11T13:00:19+00:00 Oleg wrote: I just rerun all the tests again on F24 and F25. I can confirm that the performance issue disappears on F25 when glibc package gets updated to version 2.24-4. It is still observable on F24 because the fix has not been propagated there. I'm very sorry for such a stupid mistake (not updating livecd packages before running tests). Thanks to Marcel for pointing that out, it saved me huge amount of time. We also did some kind of investigation regarding specific CPU models which suffer from such kind of performance degradation. Quite reliable source [1] says that 'AMD processors and later Intel processors (Skylake and Knights Landing) do not have such a state switch'. It means that only Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell, and Broadwell CPUs are affected. Many thanks to Carlos and Florian for such fast and straight to the point response. I really appreciate that. [1] http://www.agner.org/optimize/blog/read.php?i=761#761 Reply at: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/glibc/+bug/1663280/comments/12 ** Changed in: glibc (Fedora) Status: Unknown => Fix Released ** Changed in: glibc (Fedora) Importance: Unknown => Undecided ** Bug watch added: Sourceware.org Bugzilla #20495 https://sourceware.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=20495 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1663280 Title: Serious performance degradation of math functions To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.launchpad.net/glibc/+bug/1663280/+subscriptions -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
