A common idiom in virtual machines or state machines is to read data from a list, execute some code depending on the value we read, advance in the list, rinse and repeat. That could be written as:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
| std::vector<uint8_t> bytecode = readBytecode();
std::size_t pos = 0;
while (pos < bytecode.size())
{
uint8_t inst = bytecode[pos];
pos++;
switch (inst)
{
case DO_THIS:
// ...
break;
case DO_THAT:
// ...
break;
// ...
}
}
|
While this works, there are other ways that do the same thing but are also better in term of performances. This current approach isn’t very branch-predictor friendly because we read data from a vector, select code to execute, break, and repeat. The branch-predictor can not learn what common instructions follow each other.
Definition
A way to solve that is to use computed gotos. We read an instruction, load the next and jump to its code. No more instruction selection, a single stream of code to run -> jump -> repeat, which pleases the branch predictor. It can now learn what instruction Y often follows another instruction X and preload code (even though it can still fail, which degrades performances).
Modifying our code for compute gotos
We’ll use the code shown previously as a basis
Using gotos
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
| std::vector<uint8_t> bytecode = readBytecode();
std::size_t pos = 0;
uint8_t inst = bytecode[pos];
{
dispatch_op:
switch (inst)
{
case DO_THIS:
// ...
inst = bytecode[pos];
pos++;
goto dispatch_op;
case DO_THAT:
// ...
inst = bytecode[pos];
pos++;
goto dispatch_op;
// ...
}
}
|
Here we replaced our while loop with a switch, a label and a goto, nearly achieving the same thing as before. Nearly because we are now loading the next instruction before our goto, and we don’t have any if (pos < bytecode.size()) anymore.
[!NOTE]
While we could add an if (end of bytecode) condition before our goto, an easier solution would be to add a special STOP_INTERPRETER instruction, implemented like this:
1
2
3
| case STOP_INTERPRETER:
break; // or another goto label_end;
// with label_end after the switch
|
This code isn’t any faster or slower than the previous implementation, it is just another way (though not a recommended one due to the presence of gotos) to write a loop, but that will help us for the next transformations.
Making our code slightly better with macros
Now, we have to add instruction fetching into every case. We could make this easier using macros:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
| #define FETCH_INSTRUCTION() \
do { \
inst = bytecode[pos]; \
pos++; \
} while (false)
#define DISPATCH_GOTO() goto dispatch_op
#define DISPATCH() \
FETCH_INSTRUCTION(); \
DISPATCH_GOTO()
std::vector<uint8_t> bytecode = readBytecode();
std::size_t pos = 0;
uint8_t inst = bytecode[pos];
{
dispatch_op:
switch (inst)
{
case DO_THIS:
// ...
DISPATCH();
case DO_THAT:
// ...
DISPATCH();
case STOP_INTERPRETER:
goto label_end;
// ...
}
label_end:
// we can't have a label at the end of a block in C++98-20,
// this only works in C++23 and onward
do {} while (false);
}
|
Computed gotos
With a gcc extension, we can take the address of a label, and store it in an array. Using this, we can goto array[index]; and jump at a given label. What if we put one label per instruction now?
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
| #define FETCH_INSTRUCTION() \
do { \
inst = bytecode[pos]; \
pos++; \
} while (false)
#define DISPATCH_GOTO() goto opcodes[inst]
#define TARGET(op) TARGET_##op
#define DISPATCH() \
FETCH_INSTRUCTION(); \
DISPATCH_GOTO()
std::vector<uint8_t> bytecode = readBytecode();
std::size_t pos = 0;
uint8_t inst = bytecode[pos];
{
const std::array opcodes = {
&&TARGET_DO_THIS,
&&TARGET_DO_THAT,
&&TARGET_STOP_INTERPRETER
};
{
TARGET(DO_THIS)
{
// ...
DISPATCH();
}
TARGET(DO_THAT)
{
// ...
DISPATCH();
}
TARGET(STOP_INTERPRETER)
{
goto label_end;
}
// ...
}
label_end:
do {} while (false);
}
|
Everything together
With some conditions and more macros, we could have a dual implementation, generating a switch or a computed gotos table:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
| #define FETCH_INSTRUCTION() \
do { \
inst = bytecode[pos]; \
pos++; \
} while (false)
#if USE_COMPUTED_GOTO
# define DISPATCH_GOTO() goto opcodes[inst]
# define TARGET(op) TARGET_##op
#else
# define DISPATCH_GOTO() goto dispatch_op
# define TARGET(op) case op:
#end
#define DISPATCH() \
FETCH_INSTRUCTION(); \
DISPATCH_GOTO()
std::vector<uint8_t> bytecode = readBytecode();
std::size_t pos = 0;
uint8_t inst = bytecode[pos];
{
#if !USE_COMPUTED_GOTO
dispatch_op:
switch (inst)
#else
const std::array opcodes = {
&&TARGET_DO_THIS,
&&TARGET_DO_THAT,
&&TARGET_STOP_INTERPRETER
};
#end
{
TARGET(DO_THIS)
{
// ...
DISPATCH();
}
TARGET(DO_THAT)
{
// ...
DISPATCH();
}
TARGET(STOP_INTERPRETER)
{
goto label_end;
}
// ...
}
label_end:
do {} while (false);
}
|
Results
I’ve implemented this in ArkScript, a small scripting language I’ve been working on for a few years now, and this has yielded about a 10% performance improvement:
Machine (M1 MBP):
- Run on (8 X 24 MHz CPU s)
- CPU Caches:
- L1 Data 64 KiB
- L1 Instruction 128 KiB
- L2 Unified 4096 KiB (x8)
Before:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
| Load Average: 3.62, 2.42, 2.46
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quicksort 0.223 ms 0.222 ms 3125
ackermann/iterations:50 97.0 ms 96.9 ms 50
fibonacci/iterations:100 9.23 ms 9.22 ms 100
|
After:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
| Load Average: 2.87, 2.73, 3.07
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Benchmark Time CPU Iterations
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
quicksort 0.218 ms 0.218 ms 3231
ackermann/iterations:50 88.9 ms 88.9 ms 50
fibonacci/iterations:100 8.58 ms 8.57 ms 100
|
Sources