c - 为什么 -O1 比 -O2 快
问题描述
我写了一个这样的C代码:
#include <stdio.h>
#define N 19
int main(void){
int a[N];
int ans = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; ++i){
a[i] = 0;
}
for(;;){
int i;
++ans;
for(i = N - 1; a[i] == 2; --i){
if(i == 0){
printf("%d\n", ans);
return 0;
}else{
a[i] = 0;
}
}
++a[i];
}
}
这计算从 0 到 2 选择 N (= 19 ) 个数字的方式,并打印方式数 (= 3^19 = 1,162,261,467)。
我用 gcc 编译了这段代码。-O1 比 -O2 快。为什么 -O2 优化比 -O1 更差?
- CPU: Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-8565U, x86_64
- 操作系统:Arch Linux (5.9.1-arch1-1)
- 编译器:gcc (GCC) 10.2.0
编辑:
使用 -S 选项运行 gcc 会产生以下汇编代码: -O1
.file "a.c"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "%d\n"
.text
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB11:
.cfi_startproc
subq $104, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 112
movq %fs:40, %rax
movq %rax, 88(%rsp)
xorl %eax, %eax
movq %rsp, %rax
leaq 76(%rsp), %rdx
.L2:
movl $0, (%rax)
addq $4, %rax
cmpq %rdx, %rax
jne .L2
movl $0, %esi
jmp .L7
.L4:
movslq %edx, %rdx
addl $1, %ecx
movl %ecx, (%rsp,%rdx,4)
.L7:
addl $1, %esi
movl 72(%rsp), %ecx
leaq 68(%rsp), %rax
movl $18, %edx
cmpl $2, %ecx
jne .L4
.L5:
movl $0, 4(%rax)
subl $1, %edx
movl (%rax), %ecx
cmpl $2, %ecx
jne .L4
subq $4, %rax
testl %edx, %edx
jne .L5
leaq .LC0(%rip), %rdi
movl $0, %eax
call printf@PLT
movq 88(%rsp), %rax
subq %fs:40, %rax
jne .L14
movl $0, %eax
addq $104, %rsp
.cfi_remember_state
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.L14:
.cfi_restore_state
call __stack_chk_fail@PLT
.cfi_endproc
.LFE11:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.2.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
-O2
.file "a.c"
.text
.section .rodata.str1.1,"aMS",@progbits,1
.LC0:
.string "%d\n"
.section .text.startup,"ax",@progbits
.p2align 4
.globl main
.type main, @function
main:
.LFB11:
.cfi_startproc
subq $104, %rsp
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 112
movl $9, %ecx
xorl %esi, %esi
movq %fs:40, %rax
movq %rax, 88(%rsp)
xorl %eax, %eax
movq %rsp, %rdx
movq %rdx, %rdi
rep stosq
movl $0, (%rdi)
leaq 68(%rsp), %rdi
.L6:
movl 72(%rsp), %ecx
addl $1, %esi
movq %rdi, %rax
movl $18, %edx
cmpl $2, %ecx
je .L4
jmp .L3
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L5:
subq $4, %rax
testl %edx, %edx
je .L14
.L4:
movl (%rax), %ecx
movl $0, 4(%rax)
subl $1, %edx
cmpl $2, %ecx
je .L5
.L3:
movslq %edx, %rdx
addl $1, %ecx
movl %ecx, (%rsp,%rdx,4)
jmp .L6
.p2align 4,,10
.p2align 3
.L14:
xorl %eax, %eax
leaq .LC0(%rip), %rdi
call printf@PLT
movq 88(%rsp), %rax
subq %fs:40, %rax
jne .L15
xorl %eax, %eax
addq $104, %rsp
.cfi_remember_state
.cfi_def_cfa_offset 8
ret
.L15:
.cfi_restore_state
call __stack_chk_fail@PLT
.cfi_endproc
.LFE11:
.size main, .-main
.ident "GCC: (GNU) 10.2.0"
.section .note.GNU-stack,"",@progbits
基准是:
$ gcc a.c -O1
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m0.895s
user 0m0.894s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m0.912s
user 0m0.911s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m0.925s
user 0m0.924s
sys 0m0.001s
$ gcc a.c -O2
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.570s
user 0m1.568s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.567s
user 0m1.562s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.576s
user 0m1.568s
sys 0m0.001s
$ gcc a.c -O3
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.613s
user 0m1.612s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.608s
user 0m1.599s
sys 0m0.003s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.628s
user 0m1.628s
sys 0m0.000s
$ gcc a.c -Ofast
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.571s
user 0m1.570s
sys 0m0.001s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.604s
user 0m1.595s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m1.616s
user 0m1.613s
sys 0m0.000s
$ gcc a.c -O0
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m2.457s
user 0m2.456s
sys 0m0.001s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m2.526s
user 0m2.525s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
1162261467
real 0m2.565s
user 0m2.565s
sys 0m0.000s
编辑:
我编辑了这样的代码:
#include <stdio.h>
#define N 19
volatile int answer;
int main(void){
int a[N];
int ans = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; ++i){
a[i] = 0;
}
for(;;){
int i;
++ans;
for(i = N - 1; a[i] == 2; --i){
if(i == 0){
answer = ans;
return 0;
}else{
a[i] = 0;
}
}
++a[i];
}
}
并再次测量:
$ gcc a.c -O1
$ time ./a.out
real 0m0.924s
user 0m0.924s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
real 0m0.950s
user 0m0.949s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
real 0m0.993s
user 0m0.989s
sys 0m0.004s
$ gcc a.c -O2
$ time ./a.out
real 0m1.637s
user 0m1.636s
sys 0m0.000s
$ time ./a.out
real 0m1.661s
user 0m1.656s
sys 0m0.004s
$ time ./a.out
real 0m1.656s
user 0m1.654s
sys 0m0.001s
编辑:
我[[likely]]
在之后添加了属性for(;;)
:
#include <stdio.h>
#define N 19
int main(void){
int a[N];
int ans = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; ++i){
a[i] = 0;
}
for(;;) [[likely]] {
int i;
++ans;
for(i = N - 1; a[i] == 2; --i){
if(i == 0){
printf("%d\n", ans);
return 0;
}else{
a[i] = 0;
}
}
++a[i];
}
}
然后,基准测试的结果发生了变化:
$ g++ a.cpp -O1
$ for i in {1..5}; do time ./a.out; done
1162261467
./a.out 0.65s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.653 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.65s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.657 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.656 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.665 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.660 total
$ g++ a.cpp -O2
$ for i in {1..5}; do time ./a.out; done
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.661 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.65s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.648 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.659 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.65s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.654 total
1162261467
./a.out 0.66s user 0.00s system 99% cpu 0.657 total
-O2 和 -O1 一样快!谢谢@Acorn。
解决方案
为什么 -O2 优化比 -O1 更差?
在大多数情况下,更高的优化级别应该会给你更好的性能。不过,您可能会发现像这样的例外。特别是在像这样的微基准测试中。
您的程序使用的代码和数据内存非常小,以至于缓存和内存访问不太可能成为问题。但是,它是分支繁重的,这意味着它将归结为静态和动态分支预测。
如果您的编译器出错了,就像在这种情况下,您可以尝试为它提供更多信息,包括可能/不太可能的提示或分析程序。
推荐阅读
- java - 找出最大值和最小值以及它们在数组中出现的次数。找出最大值最先出现和最小值最后出现的位置
- python - 使用 PyQt6 播放声音
- pandas - Pandas Pivot/Reshape/... GroupyBy 行到列
- python-3.x - Cryptolens 抛出错误:未找到有效订阅
- c++ - 使用“新”创建临时对象是什么意思?
- xamarin - Xamarin 表单编辑器换行处理解决方法
- django - 上传的文件无法保存
- reactjs - React useEffect卸载清理问题
- reactjs - 无法在创建反应应用程序中安装 TailwindCSS
- python - 如何使用 Python 和 Selenium 添加 localStorage