Hi.
I performed a micro-benchmark on my dual epyc (zen 2) server and version 1 wins for small values of n.
20 runs:
n version min median mean max stddev noise%
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
n=1 version1 2.440 2.440 2.450 2.550 0.024 4.5%
n=1 version2 4.260 4.280 4.277 4.290 0.007 0.7%
n=2 version1 2.740 2.750 2.757 2.880 0.029 5.1%
n=2 version2 3.970 3.980 3.980 4.020 0.010 1.3%
n=4 version1 4.580 4.595 4.649 4.910 0.094 7.2%
n=4 version2 5.780 5.815 5.809 5.820 0.013 0.7%
But, micro-benchmarks always make me nervous, so I looked at the actual instruction cost for my
platform given the version 1 and version 2 code.
If we count cpu cycles using the AMD Zen 2 instruction latency/throughput tables: version 1 (loop body)
has a critical path of ~5-6 cycles per iteration. version 2 (loop body) has ~3-4 cycles per iteration.
The problem for version 2 is that the call to memcpy is ~24-30 cycles due to the stub + function call + return
and branch predictor pressure on first call. This probably results in ~2.5 ns per iteration cost for version 2.
So, no I wouldn't call it an optimization. But, it will be interesting to hear other opinions on this.
I made dirty and quick tests with two versions:
gcc 15.2.0
gcc -O2 memcpy1.c -o memcpy1
The first test was with keys 10000000 and 10000000 loops:
version1: on memcpy call
done in 1873 nanoseconds
version2: inlined memcpy
not finish
The second test was with keys 4 and 10000000 loops:
version1: one memcpy call
version2: inlined memcpy call
version1: done in 1519 nanoseconds
version2: done in 104981851 nanoseconds
(1.44692e-05 times faster)
version1: done in 1979 nanoseconds
version2: done in 110568901 nanoseconds
(1.78983e-05 times faster)
version1: done in 1814 nanoseconds
version2: done in 108555484 nanoseconds
(1.67103e-05 times faster)
version1: done in 1631 nanoseconds
version2: done in 109867919 nanoseconds
(1.48451e-05 times faster)
version1: done in 1269 nanoseconds
version2: done in 111639106 nanoseconds
(1.1367e-05 times faster)
Unless I'm doing something wrong, one call memcpy wins!
memcpy1.c attached.
best regards,
Ranier Vilela