It's the same aeshash() as before, except we're passing a template
parameter to indicate whether to read half and then zero-extend the
data. That is, it will perform a conversion from Latin1 on the fly.
When running in zero-extending mode, the length parameters are actually
doubled (counting the number of UTF-16 code units) and we then divide
again by 2 when advancing.
The implementation should have the following performance
characteristics:
* QLatin1StringView now will be roughly half as fast as Qt 6.7
* QLatin1StringView now will be roughly as fast as QStringView
For the aeshash128() in default builds of QtCore (will use SSE4.1), the
long loop (32 characters or more) is:
QStringView QLatin1StringView
movdqu -0x20(%rax),%xmm4 | pmovzxbw -0x10(%rdx),%xmm2
movdqu -0x10(%rax),%xmm5 | pmovzxbw -0x8(%rdx),%xmm3
add $0x20,%rax | add $0x10,%rdx
pxor %xmm4,%xmm0 | pxor %xmm2,%xmm0
pxor %xmm5,%xmm1 | pxor %xmm3,%xmm1
aesenc %xmm0,%xmm0 aesenc %xmm0,%xmm0
aesenc %xmm1,%xmm1 aesenc %xmm1,%xmm1
aesenc %xmm0,%xmm0 aesenc %xmm0,%xmm0
aesenc %xmm1,%xmm1 aesenc %xmm1,%xmm1
The number of instructions is identical, but there are actually 2 more
uops per iteration. LLVM-MCA simulation shows this should execute in the
same number of cycles on older CPUs that do not have support for VAES
(see <https://analysis.godbolt.org/z/x95Mrfrf7>).
For the VAES version in aeshash256() and the AVX10 version in
aeshash256_256():
QStringView QLatin1StringView
vpxor -0x40(%rax),%ymm1,%ym | vpmovzxbw -0x20(%rax),%ymm3
vpxor -0x20(%rax),%ymm0,%ym | vpmovzxbw -0x10(%rax),%ymm2
add $0x40,%rax | add $0x20,%rax
| vpxor %ymm3,%ymm0,%ymm0
| vpxor %ymm2,%ymm1,%ymm1
vaesenc %ymm1,%ymm1,%ymm1 <
vaesenc %ymm0,%ymm0,%ymm0 vaesenc %ymm0,%ymm0,%ymm0
vaesenc %ymm1,%ymm1,%ymm1 vaesenc %ymm1,%ymm1,%ymm1
vaesenc %ymm0,%ymm0,%ymm0 vaesenc %ymm0,%ymm0,%ymm0
> vaesenc %ymm1,%ymm1,%ymm1
In this case, the increase in number of instructions matches the
increase in number of uops. The LLVM-MCA simulation says that the
QLatin1StringView version is faster at 11 cycles/iteration vs 14 cyc/it
(see <https://analysis.godbolt.org/z/1Gv1coz13>), but that can't be
right.
Measured performance of CPU cycles, on an Intel Core i9-7940X (Skylake,
no VAES support), normalized on the QString performance (QByteArray is
used as a stand-in for the performance in Qt 6.7):
aeshash | siphash
QByteArray QL1SV QString QByteArray QString
dictionary 94.5% 79.7% 100.0% 150.5%* 159.8%
paths-small 90.2% 93.2% 100.0% 202.8% 290.3%
uuids 81.8% 100.7% 100.0% 215.2% 350.7%
longstrings 42.5% 100.8% 100.0% 185.7% 353.2%
numbers 95.5% 77.9% 100.0% 155.3%* 164.5%
On an Intel Core i7-1165G7 (Tiger Lake, capable of VAES and AVX512VL):
aeshash | siphash
QByteArray QL1SV QString QByteArray QString
dictionary 90.0% 91.1% 100.0% 103.3%* 157.1%
paths-small 99.4% 104.8% 100.0% 237.5% 358.0%
uuids 88.5% 117.6% 100.0% 274.5% 461.7%
longstrings 57.4% 111.2% 100.0% 503.0% 974.3%
numbers 90.6% 89.7% 100.0% 98.7%* 149.9%
On an Intel 4th Generation Xeon Scalable Platinum (Sapphire Rapids, same
Golden Cove core as Alder Lake):
aeshash | siphash
QByteArray QL1SV QString QByteArray QString
dictionary 89.9% 102.1% 100.0% 158.1%* 172.7%
paths-small 78.0% 89.4% 100.0% 159.4% 258.0%
uuids 109.1% 107.9% 100.0% 279.0% 496.3%
longstrings 52.1% 112.4% 100.0% 564.4% 1078.3%
numbers 85.8% 98.9% 100.0% 152.6%* 190.4%
* dictionary contains very short entries (6 characters)
* paths-small contains strings of varying length, but very few over 32
* uuids-list contains fixed-length strings (38 characters)
* longstrings is the same but 304 characters
* numbers also a lot contains very short strings (1 to 6 chars)
What this shows:
* For short strings, the performance difference is negligible between
all three
* For longer strings, QLatin1StringView now costs between 7 and 17% more
than QString on the tested machines instead of up to ~50% less, except on
the older machine (where I think the main QString hashing is suffering
from memory bandwidth limitations)
* The AES hash implementation is anywhere from 1.6 to 11x faster than
Siphash
* Murmurhash (marked with asterisk) is much faster than Siphash, but it
only managed to beat the AES hash in one test
Change-Id: I664b9f014ffc48cbb49bfffd17b045c1811ac0ed
Reviewed-by: Qt CI Bot <qt_ci_bot@qt-project.org>
Reviewed-by: Mårten Nordheim <marten.nordheim@qt.io>
55959aefab