Hacker News Reader

Comment by DarkShikari | Hacker News Reader

remember reading in Intel's optimisation documents that shift instructions take around 3 times as long as an add

Shift and add are both one cycle on all modern CPUs. I think this might be different on the Pentium 4, but we x86 programmers pretend that the Pentium 4 didn't exist.

With regard to the other bitwise operations (and, or, xor), I don't know any CPU in existence where these are slower than add.*

*Except for the Pentium 4, where the add/sub unit is double-pumped and nothing else on the chip is, but that's a bizarre exception.

View on HN

> Shift and add are both one cycle on all modern CPUs.

It's common for variable-length shifts to be slow on modern CPUs once you move outside of the x86 space. On the PS3's PPU and the Xbox 360's PowerPC cores they are very slow and to be avoided.

> I think this might be different on the Pentium 4

What was particularly slow on the P4 were variable-length shifts and rotates. With an immediate operand they still had 1 cycle throughput. That sounds good until you realize that the P4 had a double-pumped ALU design (as you also mentioned) and it had two ALUs. Whereas shifts and rotates could only execute on the general integer unit.

It's common for variable-length shifts to be slow on modern CPUs once you move outside of the x86 space. On the PS3's PPU and the Xbox 360's PowerPC cores they are very slow and to be avoided.

They're hardly modern CPUs -- even outside the x86 space, slow variable-shifts are pretty rare. They're horrifically crippled, with the PS3's PPU not being intended to be used for any serious processing (supplemented by the SPEs), and the Xbox 360's CPU just being plain bad. Fast variable-shifts are critical for bitstream reading -- the end result of this crippling is that despite having 3 highly-clocked cores, and being supplemented by GPU processing, the Xbox 360 still can't play Blu-ray video.

> They're hardly modern CPUs

They're annoying to program but why aren't they modern? You're just redefining terms to try to win an argument. They were intentionally scraped down to lower power consumption and manufacturing costs. That doesn't make them not modern.

Both the Cell and the Xenon are around 7 years old now and the POWER4-based PowerPC 970, their direct ancestor, is over 9 years old. They're not ancient in the sense of a Z80 being ancient but since the PPC970's inception IBM has itself iterated the Power architecture 3 more times (the current generation is POWER7), not to mention the strides that AMD and Intel have both made in processor architectures since that time.

What's your definition of modern? The latest and greatest ARM processor (Cortex-A9) has a penalty for shifting. Their shifts are a bit strange, because any alu op can shift one of the operands. For standard alu ops, shifting by an immediate costs one extra cycle, and shifting by a register costs two extra cycles. Mov, i.e, a pure shift, only costs an extra cycle in the register case, but it’s still more expensive than, say, an add.

I haven't done any Itanium assembly since McKinley (Itanium 2), but their shifts had 3 extra cycles of latency. Making a fast shifter has only become a harder problem since then, because the ratio of wire:gate delay has grown; they could have a single cycle shifter in the current implementation, but it would cost them even more than it did back then.

x86 is unique among modern architectures because it has so much legacy baggage. Shifts are only fast on x86 because when Intel implanted slow shifts on the P4, it killed performance in a lot of apps that were compiled with compilers that were accustomed to having fast shifts, so that they would substitute shifts for multiplies whenever possible.

The latest and greatest ARM processor (Cortex-A9) has a penalty for shifting. Their shifts are a bit strange, because any alu op can shift one of the operands. For standard alu ops, shifting by an immediate costs one extra cycle, and shifting by a register costs two extra cycles. Mov, i.e, a pure shift, only costs an extra cycle in the register case, but it’s still more expensive than, say, an add.

That is not true whatsoever.

How so? The table of cycle timings on ARM's website agrees with what he said:

http://infocenter.arm.com/help/index.jsp?topic=/com.arm.doc....

On the classic ARM processors like ARM9TDMI, I think post-ALU immediate shifts were free and register shifts were 1 extra cycle.

That table is vastly simplified. As the document explains, the exact timings cannot be listed in a simple table due to the complexities of out-of-order multi-issue execution.

A shifted operand is frequently required to be available as input one cycle earlier than a non-shifted one, simply because the shift happens in an earlier pipeline stage than the main ALU ops, which is presumably what the figure in the table is meant to reflect. If the operand is ready, there is no additional delay. In ARM9 documentation, this behaviour is frequently referred to as the instruction having one or more "early" operands.

I verified this just now on an actual A9 using the cycle counter. A sequence of independent adds with shifted inputs executes at two instructions per cycle. If each add is made to depend on the previous, two cycles per instruction are needed as suggested by the table. Short chains of dependent instructions are executed out of order masking the added latency.

No ARM processor has ever had a "post-ALU" shift.

Thanks, that makes sense. My ARM knowledge has been either second hand or from book reading, so this is good to know.

> No ARM processor has ever had a "post-ALU" shift.

Typo. I meant pre-ALU.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com