Modern processors execute instructions in parallel in many different ways: multi-core parallelism is just one of them. The kind of memory-level parallelism I am interested in has to do with out-of-cache memory accesses. Thus I use a MB block of memory.
This is large enough not to fit into a processor cache. However, because it is so large, we are likely to suffer from a virtual-memory-related fault. This can significantly limit memory-level parallelism if the page sizes are too small. Empirically, that is too small. Before I continue, let me present the absolute timings in second using a single lane thus no memory-level parallelism.
According to these numbers, the Intel server has the upside over the Apple mobile devices. What happens as you increase the number of lanes while keeping the code single threaded is interesting.
As you increase the number of lanes, Apple processors start to beat the Intel Skylake in absolute, raw speed. We see that the Intel Skylake processor is limited to about a 10x or 11x speedup whereas the Apple processors go much higher.
Further reading : Memory Latency Components. View all posts by Daniel Lemire. That 2x lift between Skylake and the A12 is a little suspicious. Is the benchmark bottlenecked by memory bandwidth? Based on your numbers, the A12 takes about one second for reading MB with only one lane, and the maximum speedup is 25x.
So, the highest transfer rate observed is 6. Not really. Spinning disks for instance can returnbyte sectors a second. But only or so if they are random.
SSDs on the other hand can often return 50, or more random reads. So random access for IO is often referred to as IOPS, and spinning disks only handlebut they handle sequential well. Does the memory access pattern fit in L1, L2, or L3 caches? Is it sequential?All programmers know about multicore parallelism: your CPU is made of several nearly independent processors called cores that can run instructions in parallel. However, our processors are parallel in many different ways.
This is an important form of parallelism because current memory subsystems have high latency: it can take dozens of nanoseconds or more between the moment the processor asks for data and the time the data comes back from RAM.
The general trend has not been a positive one in this respect: in many cases, the more advanced and expensive the processor, the higher the latency.
To compensate for the high latency, we have parallelism: you can ask for many data elements from the memory subsystems at the same time. Intel just released a more recent microarchitecture cannonlake and we have been putting it to the test. Is Intel improving? It seems so. The story is similar to the Apple A12 experiments. This suggests that even though future processors may not have lower latency when accessing memory, we might be better able to hide this latency through more parallelism.
Even if you are writing single-threaded code, you ought to think more and more about parallelism. Our code is available. Further details : Processors access the memory through pages. But since memory is allocated in pages and you may end up with many under-utilized pages if they are too large. To get the good results above, I use huge pages. Because there is just one large memory allocation in my tests, memory fragmentation is not a concern. With small pages, the Cannonlake processor loses its edge over Skylake: they are both limited to about 9 concurrent requests.
Thankfully, on Linux, programmers can request huge pages with a madvise call when they know it is a good idea. View all posts by Daniel Lemire.
Memory-level parallelism: Intel Skylake versus Intel Cannonlake
The Skylake microarchitecture is the last one we have had in a long time. All the recent Intel processors are based on Skylake.The following explanation of IPC has been previously used in our Broadwell review. Being able to do more with less, in the processor space, allows both the task to be completed quicker and often for less power. While the concept of having devices with multiple cores has allowed many programs to run at once, purely parallel compute such as graphics and most things to run faster, we are all still limited by the fact that a lot of software is still relying on one line of code after another.
This is referred to as the serial part of the software, and is the basis for many early programming classes — getting the software to compile and complete is more important than speed. But the truth is that having a few fast cores helps more than several thousand super slow cores. This is where IPC comes in to play. The principles behind extracting IPC are quite complex as one might imagine.
Ideally every instruction a CPU gets should be read, executed and finished in one cycle, however that is never the case. The processor has to take the instruction, decode the instruction, gather the data depends on where the data isperform work on the data, then decide what to do with the result.
Moving has never been more complicated, and the ability for a processor to hide latency, pre-prepare data by predicting future events or keeping hold of previous events for potential future use is all part of the plan. All the meanwhile there is an external focus on making sure power consumption is low and the frequency of the processor can scale depending on what the target device actually is. For the most part, Intel has successfully increased IPC every generation of processor.
As Broadwell to Skylake is an architecture change with what should be large updates, we should expect some good gains. From a pure cache standpoint, here is how each of the processors performed:. Between 4MB and 8MB, the cache latency still seems to be substantially lower than that of the previous generations. Normally in this test, despite all of the CPUs having 8MB of L3 cache, the 8MB test has to spill out to main memory because some of the cache is already filled. It seems that the latency in this region is a lot higher than the others, showing nearly clocks as we move up to 1GB.
But it is worth remembering that these tests are against a memory clock of MHz, whereas the others are at MHz. As a result, the two lines are more or less equal in terms of absolute time, as we would expect.
Dolphin Benchmark: link. Many emulators are often bound by single thread CPU performance, and general reports tended to suggest that Haswell provided a significant boost to emulator performance. This benchmark runs a Wii program that raytraces a complex 3D scene inside the Dolphin Wii emulator. Performance on this benchmark is a good proxy of the speed of Dolphin CPU emulation, which is an intensive single core task using most aspects of a CPU. Results are given in minutes, where the Wii itself scores Cinebench is a benchmark based around Cinema 4D, and is fairly well known among enthusiasts for stressing the CPU for a provided workload.
Results are given as a score, where higher is better. High floating point performance, MHz and IPC wins in the single thread version, whereas the multithread version has to handle the threads and loves more cores. For a brief explanation of the platform agnostic coding behind this benchmark, see my forum post here. Compression — WinRAR 5. We compress a set of files across folders totaling 1.While the maximum memory speeds available range fromor depending upon the CPU selectedthe scope of this post is to review the memory population recommendations.
Below is an image to help demonstrate balanced vs un-balanced memory configurations. In conclusion, make sure you take the time to understand what your options are. He has 20 years of experience in the x86 server marketplace. Since Kevin has worked at several resellers in the Atlanta area, and has a vast array of competitive x86 server knowledge and certifications as well as an in-depth understanding of VMware and Citrix virtualization.
Furthermore, the content is not reviewed, approved or published by any employer. No compensation has been provided for any part of this blog. Blades Made Simple All things blade servers. Making blade servers simple since There are some general guidelines on how to optimize your memory performance: Use a balanced configuration. In a balanced configuration, the memory is interleaved equally across all DIMMs; they uniformly have high bandwidth and they have a centralized memory region.
Note this shows a 2 CPU environment. For single CPU, simply use half of the recommended designs. Use identical DIMM types in your server. This means use the same ranks, size, and speed. Share this: Tweet. Like this: Like Loading Posted on August 28, at pm.
Search for:. Microfusion by Design Sorry, your blog cannot share posts by email.MySQL, with its open source attribute, mature business operation, excellent community operation, and continuous functional iteration and improvement, has become the standard for Internet relational databases. It can be said that X86 server and Linux, which serve as infrastructure, constitute the cornerstone of Internet data storage services together with MySQL.
The three elements complement each other. Hope you can draw inspiration from this case. InIntel released a new generation of server platform - Purley, and reclassified Intel Xeon Scalable Processors into four levels - Platinum, Gold, Silver, and Bronze, making product positioning and framework much clearer.
However, with the increase of online Skylake servers and the launch of a diverse range of services, Meituan MySQL DBA team found that the performance of some MySQL instances was lower than expectations, sometimes even declined to a greater extent. After continuously analyzing performance problems, we identified a performance bottleneck in the Skylake server:. First, we benchmarked CPU performance of the above-mentioned two generations of platforms Grantly and Purley in different operating systems.
We will not specify the reason for this improvement as it does not involve key content of this article. The Red Hat Enterprise Linux 7. It significantly reduces spinlock overhead in large systems, making spinlocks more efficient.
As for normal spinlocks, only one processor can acquire the variable and spin when there are multiple CPU cores. To ensure the correctness of data, the cache coherency protocol will perform operations like synchronization and invalidation on the state and data of all CPU Cache Lines, resulting in decreased performance. It improves related performance by avoiding Cache Line synchronization, etc. However, the community is still controversial about spinlock optimization.
Later, some expert implemented qspinlock based on MSC and patched it on the 4. After having a rough overview of CentOS 7 performance iteration, let's take a deeper analysis of the reasons for decreased performance of Skylake CPU The above-mentioned CPU usage by functions is displayed visually in the flame graph below Figure 3 :.
The PAUSE instruction is typically used with software threads executing on two logical processors located in the same processor core, waiting for a lock to be released. Such short wait loops tend to last between tens and a few hundreds of cycles, so performance-wise it is better to wait while occupying the CPU than yielding to the OS.
It is expected to have negligible impact on less threaded applications if forward progress is not blocked executing a fixed number of looped PAUSE instructions.
Intel® Memory Latency Checker v3.9
There's also a small power benefit in 2-core and 4-core systems. Therefore, with the increase in PAUSE instruction cycles, the spin execution time will also increase, so is the program execution time. This will affect the overall throughput of the system. Next, we will use a test case to roughly validate and compare the cycles executed by CPU of old and new architectures:.
Speaking of the reason for Intel to increase PAUSE instruction cycles, we conjecture that Intel may aim to reduce the probability of spinlock conflict and reduce power consumption.
Trace the source code where wait occurs: buf0flu. SX lock is mutually exclusive with S lock and X lock. Adding SX lock will only block write instead of affecting read.You experience higher than expected CPU or memory usage on Microsoft Azure virtual machines VMs that were recently deployed on computers that are driven by Intel Skylake processors.
You may notice this issue particularly in Microsoft. NET Framework applications. NET Framework. According to Intel, this change was made to improve resource sharing. For more information about the change and its effects, see section 8. Important Follow the steps in this section carefully. Serious problems might occur if you modify the registry incorrectly. Before you modify it, back up the registry for restoration in case problems occur. To fix this issue, install. NET Framework 4.
Note Other customer applications may also be affected by the timer configuration, even though this setting is not enabled by default in any version of. If the workload performance is still affected after the Pause Latency change, consider whether timers are a significant source of lock contention. If you determine that this is true, go to the "Fix for the timers" section. To manually enable the fix, add the Switch.
Value Name: Switch. UseNetCoreTimer Value data: true.
The Intel 6th Gen Skylake Review: Core i7-6700K and i5-6600K Tested
AppContext Class. Q1: Does this change cause any harm if we also have UseNetCoreTimer enabled on all kinds of hardware? A1: The timer fix is not currently enabled by default in any version of. Q2: Are there any other known issues caused by the Pause Latency change in Skylake?
Typically, the value is about 10 ms of CPU time. NET Framework applications may also be short-running tools. The frequent use of such tools may cause greater CPU usage than before the fix was applied. Q3: Is the Skylake Pause Latency fix guaranteed to solve my issue? A3: No, the fix is not guaranteed. There could be other, unrelated elements outside this issue that affect specific workload performance.
The effectiveness of the fix is gated on measurement quality. However, bad measurements can occur when the VM is heavily loaded.For Skylake-X, Intel shrunk Skylake-S' shared last-level cache and transitioned from an inclusive to a non-inclusive scheme. Efficient caching algorithms that maximize the L2 cache hit rate are a key component of this change. The 'rebalancing' reduces per-core L3 cache to 1.
More lower-latency storage space should have a positive effect on performance, though Intel hasn't said how it implemented the silicon-level changes to its Skylake architecture.
Of course, the mesh's latency and bandwidth have an impact on cache and memory throughput, so we conducted a series of tests to compare our contenders, again using SiSoftware Sandra. We did spot slightly higher L2 latency from Core iX compared to Core iX during the in-page random test, but Skylake-X's L2 latency dropped below Broadwell-E during the sequential access pattern.
The multi-threaded cache bandwidth test reported a large performance advantage favoring Core iX. Due to limited time with Skylake-X ahead of its launch, we ran a preliminary set of IPC-oriented benchmarks. It's possible that further optimizations, or a more expansive set of workloads, might return different results, but we'll be sussing that out in the days to come.Memory Latency
We set a static 3 GHz clock rate for the following tests. The single-threaded Cinebench test doesn't show a performance difference between Skylake-X and Skylake-S. However, there is a 1. The Ryzen processors clearly don't get as much done per clock cycle, and both trail.
Switching to the multi-threaded Cinebench benchmark exposes a larger difference between Intel's core contenders and the rest of our pool. Core iX and Core iX remain the focus, though: we record a 1. As such, Core iK has an inherent advantage in the y-cruncher benchmark, a single- and multi-threaded program that computes Pi using AVX instructions. We tested with version 0. The X's single-core SHA test results are nearly twice that of the two previous-generation models due to Intel's targeted AVX2 optimizations for hashing performance.
That same advantage carries over to the threaded test. Intel offers AVX support with the Skylake-X processors but doesn't employ all 11 features in the desktop models.
Instead, the company targets specific feature sets at different market segments. Intel's processors leverage their core count advantage to turn the tables in the threaded AES workload. Home Reviews. Image 2 of 9. Image 3 of 9. Image 4 of 9. Image 5 of 9. Image 6 of 9. Image 7 of 9. Image 8 of 9. Image 9 of 9. Image 1 of 7. Image 2 of 7. Image 3 of 7. Image 4 of 7. Image 5 of 7.