Article: ARM Goes 64-bit
By: EduardoS (no.delete@this.spam.com), November 26, 2012 11:16 am
Room: Moderated Discussions
EBFE (x.delete@this.y.com) on November 26, 2012 1:24 am wrote:
> Background != Free
> App has to run slow interpreter/baseline compiler.
> Background compilation has a large working set and seriouly competes for LLC.
Background compilation means, when nothing else is using the processor, like, for example, during recharging, who cares about LLC when not using it?
> No, collecting short lived objects is expensive.
So, let's split short lived objects in two categories, those wich the compiler can prove can be allocated at the stack, where allocation and collection are free, but only a few VMs do this, and those wich are collected in the gen 0, and the collection cost is not being copyed to gen 1, once I heard from a VM programmer that they did not implement the logic to allocate objects in stack because gen 0 collections are so cheap that, in the end, there was no measurable performance difference.
> Copying is expensive.
> To make copying possible is also costy.
Copying is done on modern processors at a rate of 8 bytes per cycle or so, pointer derreference is done at a rate of one per 4 cycles, so copying is very cheap.
> However it does hurt throughput.
When there is a single thread of the app running use concurrent GC, when all processor threads are full use a non-concurrent GC, wich part of my previous statement is so hard to understand?
> Allocators waste space.
> VM allocators have no magic over C++ allocators, except that you can't customize.
VM allocators move objects arond to fill memory holes, C++ allocators can't.
> Such small cost accumalates and it results in visible penalty.
Ok, lists other small costs to see how much it accumulates
> Totally irrelevant.
Side note, sanity check as well, to avoid so many claims that C++ is fast by the spec because the spec treats almost everything as undefined behaviour, for our pleasure no compiler do the same.
> So you elaborated that VM has overhead because it has to take more care than C++.
You must take more care when reading.
> How can you know if there is a registered handler?
There is a try...catch block arround the code when there is a registered handler.
> C++ needs 0 check.
True, that's why almost every security flaw are in C/C++ program and almost every shipping C/C++ program is plagged by a security flaw at some point of it's live.
> The optimizer usually has to leave some check uneliminated unhoisted.
> And even redundant checks is diffcult to eliminate.
Yep, there are some proposals to make redundant checks easier to remove, but fortunally the optimizer is able to remove some of them.
> Background != Free
> App has to run slow interpreter/baseline compiler.
> Background compilation has a large working set and seriouly competes for LLC.
Background compilation means, when nothing else is using the processor, like, for example, during recharging, who cares about LLC when not using it?
> No, collecting short lived objects is expensive.
So, let's split short lived objects in two categories, those wich the compiler can prove can be allocated at the stack, where allocation and collection are free, but only a few VMs do this, and those wich are collected in the gen 0, and the collection cost is not being copyed to gen 1, once I heard from a VM programmer that they did not implement the logic to allocate objects in stack because gen 0 collections are so cheap that, in the end, there was no measurable performance difference.
> Copying is expensive.
> To make copying possible is also costy.
Copying is done on modern processors at a rate of 8 bytes per cycle or so, pointer derreference is done at a rate of one per 4 cycles, so copying is very cheap.
> However it does hurt throughput.
When there is a single thread of the app running use concurrent GC, when all processor threads are full use a non-concurrent GC, wich part of my previous statement is so hard to understand?
> Allocators waste space.
> VM allocators have no magic over C++ allocators, except that you can't customize.
VM allocators move objects arond to fill memory holes, C++ allocators can't.
> Such small cost accumalates and it results in visible penalty.
Ok, lists other small costs to see how much it accumulates
> Totally irrelevant.
Side note, sanity check as well, to avoid so many claims that C++ is fast by the spec because the spec treats almost everything as undefined behaviour, for our pleasure no compiler do the same.
> So you elaborated that VM has overhead because it has to take more care than C++.
You must take more care when reading.
> How can you know if there is a registered handler?
There is a try...catch block arround the code when there is a registered handler.
> C++ needs 0 check.
True, that's why almost every security flaw are in C/C++ program and almost every shipping C/C++ program is plagged by a security flaw at some point of it's live.
> The optimizer usually has to leave some check uneliminated unhoisted.
> And even redundant checks is diffcult to eliminate.
Yep, there are some proposals to make redundant checks easier to remove, but fortunally the optimizer is able to remove some of them.
Topic | Posted By | Date |
---|---|---|
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/08/13 11:04 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/13 11:44 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/08/14 12:04 AM |
MIPS MT-ASE | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 08:01 AM |
MONITOR/MWAIT | EduardoS | 2012/08/14 09:08 AM |
MWAIT not specifically MT | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 09:36 AM |
MWAIT not specifically MT | EduardoS | 2012/08/15 02:16 PM |
MONITOR/MWAIT | anonymou5 | 2012/08/14 10:07 AM |
MONITOR/MWAIT | EduardoS | 2012/08/15 02:20 PM |
MIPS MT-ASE | rwessel | 2012/08/14 09:14 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | SHK | 2012/08/14 01:01 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 01:37 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/14 02:57 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 03:29 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/14 03:44 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 04:28 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 04:32 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/08/14 05:06 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/14 04:40 AM |
AArch64 select better than cmov | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 05:08 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 05:12 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/14 05:25 AM |
Predicated ld/store are useful | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 05:48 AM |
Predicated ld/store are useful | none | 2012/08/14 05:56 AM |
Predicated ld/store are useful | anon | 2012/08/14 06:07 AM |
Predicated stores might not be that bad | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 06:27 AM |
Predicated stores might not be that bad | David Kanter | 2012/08/15 12:14 AM |
Predicated stores might not be that bad | Michael S | 2012/08/15 10:41 AM |
Predicated stores might not be that bad | R Byron | 2012/08/17 03:09 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 05:54 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/14 06:04 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 06:43 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/08/14 05:07 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 05:20 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | none | 2012/08/14 05:29 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anon | 2012/08/14 06:00 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Michael S | 2012/08/14 02:43 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/14 05:53 AM |
OT: Conrad's "Youth" | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/14 06:20 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/08/14 05:04 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | mpx | 2012/08/14 07:59 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Antti-Ville Tuunainen | 2012/08/14 08:16 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | anonymou5 | 2012/08/14 10:03 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | name99 | 2012/11/17 02:31 PM |
Microarchitecting a counter register | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/17 06:37 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | bakaneko | 2012/08/14 03:21 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | name99 | 2012/11/17 02:40 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/17 03:52 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Doug S | 2012/11/17 04:48 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | bakaneko | 2012/11/18 04:40 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Wilco | 2012/11/19 06:59 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/19 07:23 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Wilco | 2012/11/19 08:31 AM |
Downloading µarch-specific binaries? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/19 10:21 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/19 10:41 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Wilco | 2012/11/21 06:44 AM |
JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit) | VMguy | 2012/11/22 02:21 AM |
JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit) | David Kanter | 2012/11/22 11:12 AM |
JIT vs. static compilation (Was: New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit) | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/11/23 02:50 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/23 09:09 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EBFE | 2012/11/26 12:24 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/11/26 02:33 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EBFE | 2012/11/27 10:17 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/11/28 01:32 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/26 11:16 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EBFE | 2012/11/27 11:33 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 04:53 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Michael S | 2012/11/28 05:15 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 06:33 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Michael S | 2012/11/28 08:16 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 08:53 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Eugene Nalimov | 2012/11/28 04:58 PM |
Amazing! | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 06:25 PM |
Amazing! (non-italic response) | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 06:25 PM |
Amazing! | EBFE | 2012/11/28 07:20 PM |
Undefined behaviour doubles down | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 08:10 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EBFE | 2012/11/28 06:54 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | EduardoS | 2012/11/28 08:21 PM |
Have you heard of Transmeta? | David Kanter | 2012/11/19 02:47 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | bakaneko | 2012/11/19 08:08 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/11/19 02:40 PM |
Semantic Dictionary Encoding | Ray | 2012/11/19 09:37 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Rohit | 2012/11/20 03:48 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/11/20 10:07 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Wilco | 2012/11/21 05:41 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/11/21 09:12 AM |
A JIT example | Mark Roulo | 2012/11/21 09:30 AM |
A JIT example | Wilco | 2012/11/21 06:04 PM |
A JIT example | rwessel | 2012/11/21 08:05 PM |
A JIT example | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/11/23 02:53 AM |
A JIT example | EduardoS | 2012/11/23 09:13 AM |
A JIT example | Wilco | 2012/11/23 12:41 PM |
A JIT example | EduardoS | 2012/11/23 01:06 PM |
A JIT example | Gabriele Svelto | 2012/11/23 03:09 PM |
A JIT example | Symmetry | 2012/11/26 04:58 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Ray | 2012/11/19 09:27 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/08/14 08:11 AM |
v7-M is Thumb-only | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 05:58 AM |
Minor suggested correction | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/14 07:33 AM |
Minor suggested correction | anon | 2012/08/14 07:57 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Exophase | 2012/08/14 07:33 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/08/14 08:16 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | jigal | 2012/08/15 12:49 PM |
Correction re ARM and BBC Micro | Paul | 2012/08/14 07:59 PM |
Correction re ARM and BBC Micro | Per Hesselgren | 2012/08/15 02:27 AM |
Memory BW so low | Per Hesselgren | 2012/08/15 02:14 AM |
Memory BW so low | none | 2012/08/15 10:16 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | dado | 2012/08/15 09:25 AM |
Number of GPRs | Kenneth Jonsson | 2012/08/16 01:35 PM |
Number of GPRs | Exophase | 2012/08/16 01:52 PM |
Number of GPRs | Kenneth Jonsson | 2012/08/17 01:41 AM |
Ooops, missing link... | Kenneth Jonsson | 2012/08/17 01:44 AM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 05:19 AM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | bakaneko | 2012/08/17 07:37 AM |
Brute force seems to work | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 09:08 AM |
Brute force seems to work | bakaneko | 2012/08/17 10:15 AM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/17 07:46 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 09:43 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/17 11:57 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Howard Chu | 2012/08/22 09:17 PM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/23 03:48 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Howard Chu | 2012/08/23 05:51 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Wilco | 2012/08/17 01:41 PM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/17 03:13 PM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Ricardo B | 2012/08/19 09:44 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Howard Chu | 2012/08/22 09:08 PM |
Unified libraries? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/23 06:49 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/23 07:44 AM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Howard Chu | 2012/08/23 04:17 PM |
Pointer compression is atypical | anon | 2012/08/23 07:15 PM |
Pointer compression is atypical | Howard Chu | 2012/08/23 08:33 PM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | Foo_ | 2012/08/18 11:09 AM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/18 04:25 PM |
64-bit pointers eat some performance | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/18 04:32 PM |
Page-related benefit of small pointers | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/23 07:36 AM |
Number of GPRs | Wilco | 2012/08/17 05:31 AM |
Number of GPRs | Kenneth Jonsson | 2012/08/17 10:54 AM |
Number of GPRs | Exophase | 2012/08/17 11:44 AM |
Number of GPRs | Kenneth Jonsson | 2012/08/17 12:22 PM |
Number of GPRs | Wilco | 2012/08/17 01:53 PM |
What about dynamic utilization? | Exophase | 2012/08/17 08:30 AM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 09:20 AM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | Exophase | 2012/08/17 10:09 AM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | anon | 2012/08/18 01:23 AM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | Ricardo B | 2012/08/19 10:02 AM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | anon | 2012/08/19 05:07 PM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | Ricardo B | 2012/08/19 06:26 PM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | anon | 2012/08/19 09:03 PM |
Compiler vs. assembly aliasing knowledge? | anon | 2012/08/20 12:59 AM |
Number of GPRs | David Kanter | 2012/08/17 11:46 AM |
RAT issues as part of reason 1 | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 01:18 PM |
Number of GPRs | name99 | 2012/11/17 05:37 PM |
Large ARFs increase renaming cost | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/11/17 08:23 PM |
Number of GPRs | David Kanter | 2012/08/16 02:31 PM |
Number of GPRs | Richard Cownie | 2012/08/16 04:17 PM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/16 05:27 PM |
Oops, Message-ID: aaed6e38-c7bd-467e-ba41-f40cf1020e5e@googlegroups.com (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/16 05:29 PM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | Exophase | 2012/08/16 09:06 PM |
R31 as SP/zero is kind of neat (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 05:23 AM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | rwessel | 2012/08/17 07:24 AM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | Exophase | 2012/08/17 08:16 AM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | Max | 2012/08/17 03:19 PM |
32 GPRs ~2-3% | name99 | 2012/11/17 06:43 PM |
Number of GPRs | mpx | 2012/08/17 12:11 AM |
Latency and power | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/17 05:54 AM |
Number of GPRs | bakaneko | 2012/08/17 02:09 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Steve | 2012/08/17 01:12 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | David Kanter | 2012/08/19 11:42 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Doug S | 2012/08/19 01:02 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Anon | 2012/08/19 06:16 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Steve | 2012/08/30 06:51 AM |
Scalar vs Vector registers | Robert David Graham | 2012/08/19 04:19 PM |
Scalar vs Vector registers | David Kanter | 2012/08/19 04:29 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Baserock ARM servers | 2012/08/21 03:13 PM |
Baserock ARM servers | Sysanon | 2012/08/21 03:14 PM |
A-15 virtualization and LPAE? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/21 05:13 PM |
A-15 virtualization and LPAE? | Anon | 2012/08/21 06:13 PM |
Half-depth advantages? | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/21 07:42 PM |
Half-depth advantages? | Anon | 2012/08/22 02:33 PM |
Thanks for the information (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/22 03:04 PM |
A-15 virtualization and LPAE? | C. Ladisch | 2012/08/23 10:12 AM |
A-15 virtualization and LPAE? | Paul | 2012/08/23 02:17 PM |
Excessive pessimism | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/23 03:08 PM |
Excessive pessimism | David Kanter | 2012/08/23 04:05 PM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Michael S | 2012/08/22 06:12 AM |
BTW, Baserock==product, Codethink==company (NT) | Paul A. Clayton | 2012/08/22 07:56 AM |
New Article: ARM Goes 64-bit | Reinoud Zandijk | 2012/08/21 10:27 PM |