Question

I’m working on converting a bit of code to SSE, and while I have the correct output it turns out to be slower than standard c++ code.

The bit of code that I need to do this for is:

float ox = p2x - (px * c - py * s)*m;
float oy = p2y - (px * s - py * c)*m;

What I’ve got for SSE code is:

void assemblycalc(vector4 &p, vector4 &sc, float &m, vector4 &xy)
{
    vector4 r;
    __m128 scale = _mm_set1_ps(m);

__asm
{
    mov     eax,    p       //Load into CPU reg
    mov     ebx,    sc
    movups  xmm0,   [eax]   //move vectors to SSE regs
    movups  xmm1,   [ebx]

    mulps   xmm0,   xmm1    //Multiply the Elements

    movaps  xmm2,   xmm0    //make a copy of the array  
    shufps  xmm2,   xmm0,  0x1B //shuffle the array     

    subps   xmm0,   xmm2    //subtract the elements

    mulps   xmm0,   scale   //multiply the vector by the scale

    mov     ecx,    xy      //load the variable into cpu reg
    movups  xmm3,   [ecx]   //move the vector to the SSE regs

    subps   xmm3,   xmm0    //subtract xmm3 - xmm0

    movups  [r],    xmm3    //Save the retun vector, and use elements 0 and 3
    }
}

Since its very difficult to read the code, I’ll explain what I did:

loaded vector4 , xmm0 _____ p = [px , py , px , py ]
mult. by vector4, xmm1 _ cs = [c , c , s , s ]
__________________________mult—————————-
result,_____________ xmm0 = [pxc, pyc, pxs, pys]

reuse result, xmm0 = [pxc, pyc, pxs, pys]
shuffle result, xmm2 = [pys, pxs, pyc, pxc]
_____________________subtract—————————-
result, xmm0 = [pxc-pys, pyc-pxs, pxs-pyc, pys-pxc]

reuse result, xmm0 = [pxc-pys, pyc-pxs, pxs-pyc, pys-pxc]
load m vector4, scale = [m, m, m, m]
__________________________mult—————————-
result, xmm0 = [(pxc-pys)m, (pyc-px*s)m, (pxs-py*c)m, (pys-px*c)m]

load xy vector4, xmm3 = [p2x, p2x, p2y, p2y]
reuse, xmm0 = [(pxc-py*s)m, (pyc-px*s)m, (pxs-py*c)m, (pys-px*c)m]
_____________________subtract—————————-
result, xmm3 = [p2x-(pxc-py*s)m, p2x-(pyc-px*s)m, p2y-(pxs-py*c)m, p2y-(pys-px*c)*m]

then ox = xmm3[0] and oy = xmm3[3], so I essentially don’t use xmm3[1] or xmm3[4]

I apologize for the difficulty reading this, but I’m hoping someone might be able to provide some guidance for me, as the standard c++ code runs in 0.001444ms and the SSE code runs in 0.00198ms.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to further explain/clean this up a bit. The reason I’m trying to use SSE is because I run this calculation millions of times, and it is a part of what is slowing down my current code.

Thanks in advance for any help!
Brett

Answer 1

The usual way to do this sort of vectorization is to turn the problem “on its side”. Instead of computing a single value of ox and oy, you compute four ox values and four oy values simultaneously. This minimizes wasted computation and shuffles.

In order to do this, you bundle up several x, y, p2x and p2y values into contiguous arrays (i.e. you might have an array of four values of x, an array of four values of y, etc). Then you can just do:

movups  %xmm0,  [x]
movups  %xmm1,  [y]
movaps  %xmm2,  %xmm0
mulps   %xmm0,  [c]    // cx
movaps  %xmm3,  %xmm1
mulps   %xmm1,  [s]    // sy
mulps   %xmm2,  [s]    // sx
mulps   %xmm3,  [c]    // cy
subps   %xmm0,  %xmm1  // cx - sy
subps   %xmm2,  %xmm3  // sx - cy
mulps   %xmm0,  scale  // (cx - sy)*m
mulps   %xmm2,  scale  // (sx - cy)*m
movaps  %xmm1,  [p2x]
movaps  %xmm3,  [p2y]
subps   %xmm1,  %xmm0  // p2x - (cx - sy)*m
subps   %xmm3,  %xmm2  // p2y - (sx - cy)*m
movups  [ox],   %xmm1
movups  [oy],   %xmm3

Using this approach, we compute 4 results simultaneously in 18 instructions, vs. a single result in 13 instructions with your approach. We’re also not wasting any results.

It could still be improved on; since you would have to rearrange data structures anyway to use this approach, you should align the arrays and use aligned loads and stores instead of unaligned. You should load c and s into registers and use them to process many vectors of x and y, instead of reloading them for each vector. For the best performance, two or more vectors worth of computation should be interleaved to make sure the processor has enough work to do an prevent pipeline stalls.

(On a side note: should it be cx + sy instead of cx - sy? That would give you a standard rotation matrix)

Edit

Your comment on what hardware you’re doing your timings on pretty much clears everything up: “Pentium 4 HT, 2.79GHz”. That’s a very old microarchitecture, on which unaligned moves and shuffles are quite slow; you don’t have enough work in the pipeline to hide the latency of the arithmetic operations, and the reorder engine isn’t nearly as clever as it is on newer microarchitectures.

I expect that your vector code would prove to be faster than the scalar code on i7, and probably on Core2 as well. On the other hand, doing four at a time, if you could, would be much faster still.