I write a lot of SIMD and I don't really agree with this..
Flaw1:fixed width
I prefer fixed width as it makes the code simpler to write, size is known as compile time so we know the size of our structures. Swizzle algorithms are also customized based on the size.
Flaw2:pipelining
no CPU I care about is in order so mostly irrelevant, and even scalar instructions are pipelined
Flaw3: tail handling
I code with SIMD as the target, and have special containers that pad memory to SIMD width, no need to mask or run a scalar loop. I copy the last valid value into the remaining slots so it doesn't cause any branch divergence.
In AVX-512 we have a platform that rewards the assembly language programmer like few platforms have since the 6502. I see people doing really clever things that are specific to the system and one level it is really cool but on another level it means SIMD is the domain of the specialist, Intel puts out press releases about the really great features they have for the national labs and for Facebook whereas the rest of us are 5-10 years behind the curve for SIMD adoption because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Just before libraries for training neural nets on GPUs became available I worked on a product that had a SIMD based neural network trainer that was written in hand-coded assembly. We were a generation behind in our AVX instructions so we gave up half of the performance we could have got, but that was the least of the challenges we had to overcome to get the product in front of customers. [1]
My software-centric view of Intel's problems is that they've been spending their customers and shareholders money to put features in chips that are fused off or might as well be fused off because they aren't widely supported in the industry. And that they didn't see this as a problem and neither did their enablers in the computing media and software industry. Just for example, Apple used to ship the MKL libraries which like a turbocharger for matrix math back when they were using Intel chips. For whatever reason, Microsoft did not do this with Windows and neither did most Linux distributions so "the rest of us" are stuck with a fraction of the performance that we paid for.
AMD did the right thing in introducing double pumped AVX-512 because at least assembly language wizards have some place where their code runs and the industry gets closer to the place where we can count on using an instruction set defined 12 years ago.
[1] If I'd been tasked with updating the to next generation I would have written a compiler (if I take that many derivatives by hand I'll get one wrong.) My boss would have ordered me not to, I would have done it anyway and not checked it in.
It is kind of a bummer that MKL isn’t open sourced, as that would make inclusion in Linux easier. It is already free-as-in-beer, but of course that doesn’t solve everything.
Baffling that MS didn’t use it. They have a pretty close relationship…
Agree that they are sort of going after hard-to-use niche features nowadays. But I think it is just that the real thing we want—single threaded performance for branchy code—is, like, incredibly difficult to improve nowadays.
I don't understand the push for variable width SIMD. Possibly due to ignorance but I think it's an abstraction that can be specialized for different hardware so the similar tradeoffs between low level languages and high level languages apply. Since I already have to be aware of hardware level concepts such as 256bit shuffle not working across 128bit lanes and different instructions having very different performance characteristics on different CPUs I'm already knee deep in hardware specifics. While in general I like abstractions I've largely given up waiting for a 'sufficiently advanced compiler' that would properly auto-vectorize my code. I think AGI AI is more likely to happen sooner. At a guess it seems to be that SIMD code could work on GPUs but GPU code has different memory access costs so the code there would also be completely different.
So my view is either create a much better higher level SIMD abstraction model with a sufficiently advanced compiler that knows all the tricks or let me work closely at the hardware level.
As an outsider who doesn't really know what is going on it does worry me a bit that it appears that WASM is pushing for variable width SIMDs instead of supporting ISAs generally supported by CPUs. I guess it's a portability vs performance tradeoff - I worry that it may be difficult to make variable as performant as fixed width and would prefer to deal with portability by having alternative branches at code level.
>> Finally, any software that wants to use the new instruction set needs to be rewritten (or at least recompiled). What is worse, software developers often have to target several SIMD generations, and add mechanisms to their programs that dynamically select the optimal code paths depending on which SIMD generation is supported.
Why not marry the two and have variable width SIMD as one of the ISA options and if in the future variable width SIMD become more performant then it would just be another branch to dynamically select.
Part of the motive behind variable width SIMD in WASM is that there's intentionally-ish no mechanism to do feature detection at runtime in WASM. The whole module has to be valid on your target, you can't include a handful of invalid functions and conditionally execute them if the target supports 256-wide or 512-wide SIMD. If you want to adapt you have to ship entire modules for each set of supported feature flags and select the correct module at startup after probing what the target supports.
So variable width SIMD solves this by making any module using it valid regardless of whether the target supports 512-bit vectors, and the VM 'just' has to solve the problem of generating good code.
Personally I think this is a terrible way to do things and there should have just been a feature detection system, but the horse fled the barn on that one like a decade ago.
> I code with SIMD as the target, and have special containers that pad memory to SIMD width...
I think this may be domain-specific. I help maintain several open-source audio libraries, and wind up being the one to review the patches when people contribute SIMD for some specific ISA, and I think without exception they always get the tail handling wrong. Due to other interactions it cannot always be avoided by padding. It can roughly double the complexity of the code [0], and requires a disproportionate amount of thinking time vs. the time the code spends running, but if you don't spend that thinking time you can get OOB reads or writes, and thus CVEs. Masked loads/stores are an improvement, but not universally available. I don't have a lot of concrete suggestions.
I also work with a lot of image/video SIMD, and this is just not a problem, because most operations happen on fixed block sizes, and padding buffers is easy and routine.
I agree I would have picked other things for the other two in my own top-3 list.
I agree; and the article seems to have also quite a few technical flaws:
- Register width: we somewhat maxed out at 512 bits, with Intel going back to 256 bits for non-server CPUs. I don't see larger widths on the horizon (even if SVE theoretically supports up to 2048 bits, I don't know any implementation with ~~>256~~ >512 bits). Larger bit widths are not beneficial for most applications and the few applications that are (e.g., some HPC codes) are nowadays served by GPUs.
- The post mentions available opcode space: while opcode space is limited, a reasonably well-designed ISA (e.g., AArch64) has enough holes for extensions. Adding new instructions doesn't require ABI changes, and while adding new registers requires some kernel changes, this is well understood at this point.
- "What is worse, software developers often have to target several SIMD generations" -- no way around this, though, unless auto-vectorization becomes substantially better. Adjusting the register width is not the big problem when porting code, making better use of available instructions is.
- "The packed SIMD paradigm is that there is a 1:1 mapping between the register width and the execution unit width" -- no. E.g., AMD's Zen 4 does double pumping, and AVX was IIRC originally designed to support this as well (although Intel went directly for 256-bit units).
- "At the same time many SIMD operations are pipelined and require several clock cycles to complete" -- well, they are pipelined, but many SIMD instructions have the same latency as their scalar counterpart.
- "Consequently, loops have to be unrolled in order to avoid stalls and keep the pipeline busy." -- loop unroll has several benefits, mostly to reduce the overhead of the loop and to avoid data dependencies between loop iterations. Larger basic blocks are better for hardware as every branch, even if predicted correctly, has a small penalty. "Loop unrolling also increases register pressure" -- it does, but code that really requires >32 registers is extremely rare, so a good instruction scheduler in the compiler can avoid spilling.
In my experience, dynamic vector sizes make code slower, because they inhibit optimizations. E.g., spilling a dynamically sized vector is like a dynamic stack allocation with a dynamic offset. I don't think SVE delivered any large benefits, both in terms of performance (there's not much hardware with SVE to begin with...) and compiler support. RISC-V pushes further into this direction, we'll see how this turns out.
Which still means you have to write your code at least thrice, which is two times more than with a variable length SIMD ISA.
Also there are processors with larger vector length, e.g. 1024-bit: Andes AX45MPV, SiFive X380, 2048-bit: Akeana 1200, 16384-bit: NEC SX-Aurora, Ara, EPI
> no way around this
You rarely need to rewrite SIMD code to take advantage of new extensions, unless somebody decides to create a new one with a larger SIMD width.
This mostly happens when very specialized instructions are added.
> In my experience, dynamic vector sizes make code slower, because they inhibit optimizations.
Do you have more examples of this?
I don't see spilling as much of a problem, because you want to avoid it regardless, and codegen for dynamic vector sizes is pretty good in my experience.
> I don't think SVE delivered any large benefits
Well, all Arm CPUs except for the A64FX were build to execute NEON as fast as possible.
X86 CPUs aren't built to execute MMX or SSE or the latest, even AVX, as fast as possible.
> Performance was a lot better than I expected, giving between 14 and 63% uplift. Larger block sizes benefitted the most, as we get higher utilization of the wider vectors and fewer idle lanes.
> I found the scale of the uplift somewhat surprising as Neoverse V1 allows 4-wide NEON issue, or 2-wide SVE issue, so in terms of data-width the two should work out very similar.
> Also there are processors with larger vector length
How do these fare in terms of absolute performance? The NEC TSUBASA is not a CPU.
> Do you have more examples of this?
I ported some numeric simulation kernel to the A64Fx some time ago, fixing the vector width gave a 2x improvement. Compilers probably/hopefully have gotten better in the mean time and I haven't redone the experiments since then, but I'd be surprised if this changed drastically. Spilling is sometimes unavoidable, e.g. due to function calls.
> How do these fare in terms of absolute performance? The NEC TSUBASA is not a CPU.
The NEC is an attached accelerator, but IIRC it can run an OS in host mode.
It's hard to tell how the others perform, because most don't have hardware available yet or only they and partner companies have access.
It's also hard to compare, because they don't target the desktop market.
> I ported some numeric simulation kernel to the A64Fx some time ago, fixing the vector width gave a 2x improvement.
Oh, wow. Was this autovectorized or handwritten intrinsics/assembly?
Any chance it's of a small enough scope that I could try to recreate it?
> I was specifically referring to dynamic vector sizes.
Ah, sorry, yes you are correct.
It still shows that supporting VLA mechanisms in an ISA doesn't mean it's slower for fixed-size usage.
I'm not aware of any proper VLA vs VLS comparisons. I benchmarked a VLA vs VLS mandelbrot implementation once where there was no performance difference, but that's a too simple example.
no. Because Intel is full of absolute idiots, Intel atom didn't support AVX 1 until Gracemont. Tremont is missing AVX1, AVX2, FMA, and basically the rest of X86v3, and shipped in CPUs as recently as 2021 (Jasper Lake).
Thanks, I misremembered. However, the microarchitecture is a bit "weird" (really HPC-targeted), with very long latencies (e.g., ADD (vector) 4 cycles, FADD (vector) 9 cycles). I remember that it was much slower than older x86 CPUs for non-SIMD code, and even for SIMD code, it took quite a bit of effort to get reasonable performance through instruction-level parallelism due to the long latencies and the very limited out-of-order capacities (in particular the just 2x20 reservation station entries for FP).
> - Register width: we somewhat maxed out at 512 bits, with Intel going back to 256 bits for non-server CPUs. I don't see larger widths on the horizon (even if SVE theoretically supports up to 2048 bits, I don't know any implementation with >256 bits). Larger bit widths are not beneficial for most applications and the few applications that are (e.g., some HPC codes) are nowadays served by GPUs.
Just to address this, it's pretty evident why scalar values have stabilized at 64-bit and vectors at ~512 (though there are larger implementations). Tell someone they only have 256 values to work with and they immediately see the limit, it's why old 8-bit code wasted so much time shuffling carries to compute larger values. Tell them you have 65536 values and it alleviates a large set of that problem, but you're still going to hit limits frequently. Now you have up to 4294967296 values and the limits are realistically only going to be hit in computational realms, so bump it up to 18446744073709551615. Now even most commodity computational limits are alleviated and the compiler will handle the data shuffling for larger ones.
There was naturally going to be a point where there was enough static computational power on integers that it didn't make sense to continue widening them (at least, not at the previous rate). The same goes for vectorization, but in even more niche and specific fields.
AFAIK about every modern CPU uses out of order von Neumann architecture. The only people who don't are the handful of researchers and people who work with the government research into non van Neumann designed systems.
Do you have examples for problems that are easier to solve in fixed-width SIMD?
I maintain that most problems can be solved in a vector-length-agnostic manner. Even if it's slightly more tricky, it's certainly easier than restructuring all of your memory allocations to add padding and implementing three versions for all the differently sized SIMD extensions your target may support.
And you can always fall back to using a variable-width SIMD ISA in a fixed-width way, when necessary.
There's a category of autovectorization known as Superword-Level Parallelism (SLP) which effectively scavenges an entire basic block for individual instruction sequences that might be squeezed together into a SIMD instruction. This kind of vectorization doesn't work well with vector-length-agnostic ISAs, because you generally can't scavenge more than a few elements anyways, and inducing any sort of dynamic vector length is more likely to slow your code down as a result (since you can't do constant folding).
There's other kinds of interesting things you can do with vectors that aren't improved by dynamic-length vectors. Something like abseil's hash table, which uses vector code to efficiently manage the occupancy bitmap. Dynamic vector length doesn't help that much in that case, particularly because the vector length you can parallelize over is itself intrinsically low (if you're scanning dozens of elements to find an empty slot, something is wrong). Vector swizzling is harder to do dynamically, and in general, at high vector factors, difficult to do generically in hardware, which means going to larger vectors (even before considering dynamic sizes), vectorization is trickier if you have to do a lot of swizzling.
In general, vector-length-agnostic is really only good for SIMT-like codes, which you can express the vector body as more or less independent f(index) for some knowable-before-you-execute-the-loop range of indices. Stuff like DAXPY or BLAS in general. Move away from this model, and that agnosticism becomes overhead that doesn't pay for itself. (Now granted, this kind of model is a large fraction of parallelizable code, but it's far from all of it).
The SLP vectorizer is a good point, but I think it's, in comparison with x86, more a problem of the float and vector register files not being shared (in SVE and RVV).
You don't need to reconfigure the vector length; just use it at the full width.
> Something like abseil's hash table
If I remember this correctly, the abseil lookup does scale with vector length, as long as you use the native data path width. (albeit with small gains)
There is a problem with vector length agnostic handling of abseil, which is the iterator API.
With a different API, or compilers that could eliminate redundant predicated load/stores, this would be easier.
> good for SIMT-like codes
Certainly, but I've also seen/written a lot of vector length agnostic code using shuffles, which don't fit into the SIMT paradigm, which means that the scope is larger than just SIMT.
---
As a general comparison, take AVX10/128, AVX10/256 and AVX10/512, overlap their instruction encodings, remove the few instructions that don't make sense anymore, and add a cheap instruction to query the vector length. (probably also instructions like vid and viota, for easier shuffle synthesization)
Now you have a variable-length SIMD ISA that feels familiar.
I also prefer fixed width. At least in C++, all of the padding, alignment, etc is automagically codegen-ed for the register type in my use cases, so the overhead is approximately zero. All the complexity and cost is in specializing for the capabilities of the underlying SIMD ISA, not the width.
The benefit of fixed width is that optimal data structure and algorithm design on various microarchitectures is dependent on explicitly knowing the register width. SIMD widths aren’t not perfectly substitutable in practice, there is more at play than stride size. You can also do things like explicitly combine separate logic streams in a single SIMD instruction based on knowing the word layout. Compilers don’t do this work in 2025.
The argument for vector width agnostic code seems predicated on the proverbial “sufficiently advanced compiler”. I will likely retire from the industry before such a compiler actually exists. Like fusion power, it has been ten years away my entire life.
> The argument for vector width agnostic code is seems predicated on the proverbial “sufficiently advanced compiler”.
A SIMD ISA having a fixed size or not is orthogonal to autovectorization.
E.g. I've seen a bunch of cases where things get autovectorized for RVV but not for AVX512. The reason isn't fixed vs variable, but rather the supported instructions themselves.
There are two things I'd like from a "sufficiently advanced compiler”, which are sizeless struct support and redundant predicated load/store elimination.
Those don't fundamentally add new capabilities, but makes working with/integrating into existing APIs easier.
> All the complexity and cost is in specializing for the capabilities of the underlying SIMD ISA, not the width.
Wow, it almost sounds like you could take basically the same code and run it with different vector lengths.
> The benefit of fixed width is that optimal data structure and algorithm design on various microarchitectures is dependent on explicitly knowing the register width
Optimal to what degree? Like sure, fixed-width SIMD can always turn your pointer increments from a register add to an immediate add, so it's always more "optimal", but that sort of thing doesn't matter.
The only difference you usually encounter when writing variable instead of fixed size code is that you have to synthesize your shuffles outside the loop.
This usually just takes a few instructions, but loading a constant is certainly easier.
That's probably true.
Last time I looked at it, it seemed like parts of vectorscan could be vectorized VLA, but from my, very limited, understanding of the main matching algorithm, it does seem to require specialization on vector length.
It should be possible to do VLA in some capacity, but it would probably be slower and it's too much work to test.
Keccak on the other hand was optimized for fast execution on scalar ISAs with 32 GPRs. This is hard to vectorize in general, because GPR "moves" are free and liberally applied.
Another example where it's probably worth specializing is quicksort, specifically the leaf part.
I've written a VLA version, which uses bitonic sort to sort within vector registers. I wasn't able to meaningfully compare it against a fixed size implementation, because vqsort was super slow when I tried to compile it for RVV.
Loop unrolling isn't really done because of pipelining but rather to amortize the cost of looping. Any modern out-of-order core will (on the happy path) schedule the operations identically whether you did one copy per loop or four. The only difference is the number of branches.
These days, I strongly believe that loop unrolling is a pessimization, especially with SIMD code.
Scalar code should be unrolled by the compiler to the SIMD word width to expose potential parallelism. But other than that, correctly predicted branches are free, and so is loop instruction overhead on modern wide-dispatch processors. For example, even running a maximally efficient AVX512 kernel on a zen5 machine that dispatches 4 EUs and some load/stores and calculates 2048 bits in the vector units every cycle, you still have a ton of dispatch capacity to handle the loop overhead in the scalar units.
The cost of unrolling is decreased code density and reduced effectiveness of the instruction / uOp cache. I wish Clang in particular would stop unrolling the dang vector loops.
The part that's really weird is that on modern CPUs predicted branches are free iff they're sufficiently rare (<1 out of 8 instructions or so). but if you have too many, you will be bottlenecked on the branch since you aren't allowed to speculate past a 2nd (3rd on zen5 without hyperthreading?) branch.
The limiting thing isn't necessarily speculating, but more just the number of branches per cycle, i.e. number of non-contiguous locations the processor has to query from L1 / uop cache (and which the branch predictor has to determine the location of). You get that limit with unconditional branches too.
Intel still shares ports between vector and scalar on P-cores; a scalar multiply in the loop will definitely fight with a vector port, and the bits of pointer bumps and branch and whatnot can fill up the 1 or 2 scalar-only ports. And maybe there are some minor power savings from wasting resources on the scalar overhead. Still, clang does unroll way too much.
My understanding is that they've changed this for Lion Cove and all future P cores, moving to much more of a Zen-like setup with seperate schedulers and ports for vector and scalar ops.
There are alternative universes where these wouldn't be a problem.
For example, if we didn't settle on executing compiled machine code exactly as-is, and had a instruction-updating pass (less involved than a full VM byte code compilation), then we could adjust SIMD width for existing binaries instead of waiting decades for a new baseline or multiversioning faff.
Another interesting alternative is SIMT. Instead of having a handful of special-case instructions combined with heavyweight software-switched threads, we could have had every instruction SIMDified. It requires structuring programs differently, but getting max performance out of current CPUs already requires SIMD + multicore + predictable branching, so we're doing it anyway, just in a roundabout way.
> if we didn't settle on executing compiled machine code exactly as-is, and had a instruction-updating pass (less involved than a full VM byte code compilation)
Apple tried something like this: they collected the LLVM bitcode of apps so that they could recompile and even port to a different architecture. To my knowledge, this was done exactly once (watchOS armv7->AArch64) and deprecated afterwards. Retargeting at this level is inherently difficult (different ABIs, target-specific instructions, intrinsics, etc.). For the same target with a larger feature set, the problems are smaller, but so are the gains -- better SIMD usage would only come from the auto-vectorizer and a better instruction selector that uses different instructions. The expectable gains, however, are low for typical applications and for math-heavy programs, using optimized libraries or simply recompiling is easier.
WebAssembly is a higher-level, more portable bytecode, but performance levels are quite a bit behind natively compiled code.
> Another interesting alternative is SIMT. Instead of having a handful of special-case instructions combined with heavyweight software-switched threads, we could have had every instruction SIMDified. It requires structuring programs differently, but getting max performance out of current CPUs already requires SIMD + multicore + predictable branching, so we're doing it anyway, just in a roundabout way.
Is that not where we're already going with the GPGPU trend? The big catch with GPU programming is that many useful routines are irreducibly very branchy (or at least, to an extent that removing branches slows them down unacceptably), and every divergent branch throws out a huge chunk of the GPU's performance. So you retain a traditional CPU to run all your branchy code, but you run into memory-bandwidth woes between the CPU and GPU.
It's generally the exception instead of the rule when you have a big block of data elements upfront that can all be handled uniformly with no branching. These usually have to do with graphics, physical simulation, etc., which is why the SIMT model was popularized by GPUs.
BLAS, specifically gemm, is one of the rare things where you naturally need to specialize on vector register width.
Most problems don't require this: E.g. your basic penalizable math stuff, unicode conversion, base64 de/encode, json parsing, set intersection, quicksort*, bigint, run length encoding, chacha20, ...
And if you run into a problem that benefits from knowing the SIMD width, then just specialize on it. You can totally use variable-length SIMD ISA's in a fixed-length way when required. But most of the time it isn't required, and you have code that easily scales between vector lengths.
*quicksort: most time is spent partitioning, which is vector length agnostic, you can handle the leafs in a vector length agnostic way, but you'll get more efficient code if you specialize (idk how big the impact is, in vreg bitonic sort is quite efficient).
1. Not a problem for GPUs. NVdia and AMD are both 32-wide or 1024-bit wide hard coded. AMD can swap to 64-wide mode for backwards compatibility to GCN. 1024-bit or 2048-bit seems to be the right values. Too wide and you get branch divergence issues, so it doesn't seem to make sense to go bigger.
In contrast, the systems that have flexible widths have never taken off. It's seemingly much harder to design a programming language for a flexible width SIMD.
2. Not a problem for GPUs. It should be noted that kernels allocate custom amounts of registers: one kernel may use 56 registers, while another kernel might use 200 registers. All GPUs will run these two kernels simultaneously (256+ registers per CU or SM is commonly supported, so both 200+56 registers kernels can run together).
3. Not a problem for GPUs or really any SIMD in most cases. Tail handling is O(1) problem in general and not a significant contributor to code length, size, or benchmarks.
Overall utilization issues are certainly a concern. But in my experience this is caused by branching most often. (Branching in GPUs is very inefficient and forces very low utilization).
Tail handling is not significant for loops with tons of iterations, but there are a ton of real-world situations where you might have a loop take only like 5 iterations or something (even at like 100 iterations, with a loop processing 8 elements at a time (i.e. 256-bit vectors, 32-bit elements), that's 12 vectorized iterations plus up to 7 scalar ones, which is still quite significant. At 1000 iterations you could still have the scalar tail be a couple percent; and still doubling the L1/uop-cache space the loop takes).
It's absolutely a significant contributor to code size (..in scenarios where vectorized code in general is a significant contributor to code size, which admittedly is only very-specialized software).
The three “flaws” that this post lists are exactly what the industry has been moving away from for the last decade.
Arm’s SVE, and RISC-V’s vector extension are all vector-length-agnostic. RISC-V’s implementation is particularly nice, you only have to compile for one code path (unlike avx with the need for fat-binary else/if trees).
> Since the register size is fixed there is no way to scale the ISA to new levels of hardware parallelism without adding new instructions and registers.
I look at SIMD as the same idea as any other aspect of the x86 instruction set. If you are directly interacting with it, you should probably have a good reason to be.
I primarily interact with these primitives via types like Vector<T> in .NET's System.Numerics namespace. With the appropriate level of abstraction, you no longer have to worry about how wide the underlying architecture is, or if it even supports SIMD at all.
I'd prefer to let someone who is paid a very fat salary by a F100 spend their full time job worrying about how to emit SIMD instructions for my program source.
x86 SIMD suffers from register aliasing. xmm0 is actually the low-half of ymm0, so you need to explicitly tell the processor what your input type is to properly handle overflow and signing. Actual vectorized instructions don’t have this problem but you also can’t change it now.
Oh man, totally get the pain with compilers and SIMD tricks - the struggle's so real. Ever feel like keeping low level control is the only way stuff actually runs as smooth as you want, or am I just too stubborn to give abstractions a real shot?
> Another problem is that each new SIMD generation requires new instruction opcodes and encodings.
It requires new opcodes. It does not strictly require new encodings. Several new encodings are legacy compatible and can encode previous generations vector instructions.
> so the architecture must provide enough SIMD registers to avoid register spilling.
Or the architecture allows memory operands. The great joy of basic x86 encoding is that you don't actually need to put things in registers to operate on them.
> Usually you also need extra control logic before the loop. For instance if the array length is less than the SIMD register width, the main SIMD loop should be skipped.
What do you want? No control overhead or the speed enabled by SIMD? This isn't a flaw. This is a necessary price to achieve the efficiency you do in the main loop.
The tricky part with reductions is that they are somewhat inherently slow since they often need to be done pairwise and a pairwise reduction over 16 elements will naturally have pretty limited parallelism.
kinda? this is sort of a direct result of the 'vectors are just sliced registers' model. if i do a pairwise operation and divide my domain by 2 at each step, is the resulting vector sparse or dense? if its dense then I only really top out when i'm in the last log2slice steps.
I write a lot of SIMD and I don't really agree with this..
Flaw1:fixed width
I prefer fixed width as it makes the code simpler to write, size is known as compile time so we know the size of our structures. Swizzle algorithms are also customized based on the size.
Flaw2:pipelining
no CPU I care about is in order so mostly irrelevant, and even scalar instructions are pipelined
Flaw3: tail handling
I code with SIMD as the target, and have special containers that pad memory to SIMD width, no need to mask or run a scalar loop. I copy the last valid value into the remaining slots so it doesn't cause any branch divergence.
In AVX-512 we have a platform that rewards the assembly language programmer like few platforms have since the 6502. I see people doing really clever things that are specific to the system and one level it is really cool but on another level it means SIMD is the domain of the specialist, Intel puts out press releases about the really great features they have for the national labs and for Facebook whereas the rest of us are 5-10 years behind the curve for SIMD adoption because the juice isn't worth the squeeze.
Just before libraries for training neural nets on GPUs became available I worked on a product that had a SIMD based neural network trainer that was written in hand-coded assembly. We were a generation behind in our AVX instructions so we gave up half of the performance we could have got, but that was the least of the challenges we had to overcome to get the product in front of customers. [1]
My software-centric view of Intel's problems is that they've been spending their customers and shareholders money to put features in chips that are fused off or might as well be fused off because they aren't widely supported in the industry. And that they didn't see this as a problem and neither did their enablers in the computing media and software industry. Just for example, Apple used to ship the MKL libraries which like a turbocharger for matrix math back when they were using Intel chips. For whatever reason, Microsoft did not do this with Windows and neither did most Linux distributions so "the rest of us" are stuck with a fraction of the performance that we paid for.
AMD did the right thing in introducing double pumped AVX-512 because at least assembly language wizards have some place where their code runs and the industry gets closer to the place where we can count on using an instruction set defined 12 years ago.
[1] If I'd been tasked with updating the to next generation I would have written a compiler (if I take that many derivatives by hand I'll get one wrong.) My boss would have ordered me not to, I would have done it anyway and not checked it in.
It is kind of a bummer that MKL isn’t open sourced, as that would make inclusion in Linux easier. It is already free-as-in-beer, but of course that doesn’t solve everything.
Baffling that MS didn’t use it. They have a pretty close relationship…
Agree that they are sort of going after hard-to-use niche features nowadays. But I think it is just that the real thing we want—single threaded performance for branchy code—is, like, incredibly difficult to improve nowadays.
I have similar thoughts,
I don't understand the push for variable width SIMD. Possibly due to ignorance but I think it's an abstraction that can be specialized for different hardware so the similar tradeoffs between low level languages and high level languages apply. Since I already have to be aware of hardware level concepts such as 256bit shuffle not working across 128bit lanes and different instructions having very different performance characteristics on different CPUs I'm already knee deep in hardware specifics. While in general I like abstractions I've largely given up waiting for a 'sufficiently advanced compiler' that would properly auto-vectorize my code. I think AGI AI is more likely to happen sooner. At a guess it seems to be that SIMD code could work on GPUs but GPU code has different memory access costs so the code there would also be completely different.
So my view is either create a much better higher level SIMD abstraction model with a sufficiently advanced compiler that knows all the tricks or let me work closely at the hardware level.
As an outsider who doesn't really know what is going on it does worry me a bit that it appears that WASM is pushing for variable width SIMDs instead of supporting ISAs generally supported by CPUs. I guess it's a portability vs performance tradeoff - I worry that it may be difficult to make variable as performant as fixed width and would prefer to deal with portability by having alternative branches at code level.
Why not marry the two and have variable width SIMD as one of the ISA options and if in the future variable width SIMD become more performant then it would just be another branch to dynamically select.Part of the motive behind variable width SIMD in WASM is that there's intentionally-ish no mechanism to do feature detection at runtime in WASM. The whole module has to be valid on your target, you can't include a handful of invalid functions and conditionally execute them if the target supports 256-wide or 512-wide SIMD. If you want to adapt you have to ship entire modules for each set of supported feature flags and select the correct module at startup after probing what the target supports.
So variable width SIMD solves this by making any module using it valid regardless of whether the target supports 512-bit vectors, and the VM 'just' has to solve the problem of generating good code.
Personally I think this is a terrible way to do things and there should have just been a feature detection system, but the horse fled the barn on that one like a decade ago.
> I code with SIMD as the target, and have special containers that pad memory to SIMD width...
I think this may be domain-specific. I help maintain several open-source audio libraries, and wind up being the one to review the patches when people contribute SIMD for some specific ISA, and I think without exception they always get the tail handling wrong. Due to other interactions it cannot always be avoided by padding. It can roughly double the complexity of the code [0], and requires a disproportionate amount of thinking time vs. the time the code spends running, but if you don't spend that thinking time you can get OOB reads or writes, and thus CVEs. Masked loads/stores are an improvement, but not universally available. I don't have a lot of concrete suggestions.
I also work with a lot of image/video SIMD, and this is just not a problem, because most operations happen on fixed block sizes, and padding buffers is easy and routine.
I agree I would have picked other things for the other two in my own top-3 list.
[0] Here is a fun one, which actually performs worst when len is a multiple of 8 (which it almost always is), and has 59 lines of code for tail handling vs. 33 lines for the main loop: https://gitlab.xiph.org/xiph/opus/-/blob/main/celt/arm/celt_...
I agree; and the article seems to have also quite a few technical flaws:
- Register width: we somewhat maxed out at 512 bits, with Intel going back to 256 bits for non-server CPUs. I don't see larger widths on the horizon (even if SVE theoretically supports up to 2048 bits, I don't know any implementation with ~~>256~~ >512 bits). Larger bit widths are not beneficial for most applications and the few applications that are (e.g., some HPC codes) are nowadays served by GPUs.
- The post mentions available opcode space: while opcode space is limited, a reasonably well-designed ISA (e.g., AArch64) has enough holes for extensions. Adding new instructions doesn't require ABI changes, and while adding new registers requires some kernel changes, this is well understood at this point.
- "What is worse, software developers often have to target several SIMD generations" -- no way around this, though, unless auto-vectorization becomes substantially better. Adjusting the register width is not the big problem when porting code, making better use of available instructions is.
- "The packed SIMD paradigm is that there is a 1:1 mapping between the register width and the execution unit width" -- no. E.g., AMD's Zen 4 does double pumping, and AVX was IIRC originally designed to support this as well (although Intel went directly for 256-bit units).
- "At the same time many SIMD operations are pipelined and require several clock cycles to complete" -- well, they are pipelined, but many SIMD instructions have the same latency as their scalar counterpart.
- "Consequently, loops have to be unrolled in order to avoid stalls and keep the pipeline busy." -- loop unroll has several benefits, mostly to reduce the overhead of the loop and to avoid data dependencies between loop iterations. Larger basic blocks are better for hardware as every branch, even if predicted correctly, has a small penalty. "Loop unrolling also increases register pressure" -- it does, but code that really requires >32 registers is extremely rare, so a good instruction scheduler in the compiler can avoid spilling.
In my experience, dynamic vector sizes make code slower, because they inhibit optimizations. E.g., spilling a dynamically sized vector is like a dynamic stack allocation with a dynamic offset. I don't think SVE delivered any large benefits, both in terms of performance (there's not much hardware with SVE to begin with...) and compiler support. RISC-V pushes further into this direction, we'll see how this turns out.
> we somewhat maxed out at 512 bits
Which still means you have to write your code at least thrice, which is two times more than with a variable length SIMD ISA.
Also there are processors with larger vector length, e.g. 1024-bit: Andes AX45MPV, SiFive X380, 2048-bit: Akeana 1200, 16384-bit: NEC SX-Aurora, Ara, EPI
> no way around this
You rarely need to rewrite SIMD code to take advantage of new extensions, unless somebody decides to create a new one with a larger SIMD width. This mostly happens when very specialized instructions are added.
> In my experience, dynamic vector sizes make code slower, because they inhibit optimizations.
Do you have more examples of this?
I don't see spilling as much of a problem, because you want to avoid it regardless, and codegen for dynamic vector sizes is pretty good in my experience.
> I don't think SVE delivered any large benefits
Well, all Arm CPUs except for the A64FX were build to execute NEON as fast as possible. X86 CPUs aren't built to execute MMX or SSE or the latest, even AVX, as fast as possible.
Anyway, I know of one comparison between NEON and SVE: https://solidpixel.github.io/astcenc_meets_sve
> Performance was a lot better than I expected, giving between 14 and 63% uplift. Larger block sizes benefitted the most, as we get higher utilization of the wider vectors and fewer idle lanes.
> I found the scale of the uplift somewhat surprising as Neoverse V1 allows 4-wide NEON issue, or 2-wide SVE issue, so in terms of data-width the two should work out very similar.
> Also there are processors with larger vector length
How do these fare in terms of absolute performance? The NEC TSUBASA is not a CPU.
> Do you have more examples of this?
I ported some numeric simulation kernel to the A64Fx some time ago, fixing the vector width gave a 2x improvement. Compilers probably/hopefully have gotten better in the mean time and I haven't redone the experiments since then, but I'd be surprised if this changed drastically. Spilling is sometimes unavoidable, e.g. due to function calls.
> Anyway, I know of one comparison between NEON and SVE: https://solidpixel.github.io/astcenc_meets_sve
I was specifically referring to dynamic vector sizes. This experiment uses sizes fixed at compile-time, from the article:
> For the astcenc implementation of SVE I decided to implement a fixed-width 256-bit implementation, where the vector length is known at compile time.
> How do these fare in terms of absolute performance? The NEC TSUBASA is not a CPU.
The NEC is an attached accelerator, but IIRC it can run an OS in host mode. It's hard to tell how the others perform, because most don't have hardware available yet or only they and partner companies have access. It's also hard to compare, because they don't target the desktop market.
> I ported some numeric simulation kernel to the A64Fx some time ago, fixing the vector width gave a 2x improvement.
Oh, wow. Was this autovectorized or handwritten intrinsics/assembly?
Any chance it's of a small enough scope that I could try to recreate it?
> I was specifically referring to dynamic vector sizes.
Ah, sorry, yes you are correct. It still shows that supporting VLA mechanisms in an ISA doesn't mean it's slower for fixed-size usage.
I'm not aware of any proper VLA vs VLS comparisons. I benchmarked a VLA vs VLS mandelbrot implementation once where there was no performance difference, but that's a too simple example.
> Which still means you have to write your code at least thrice, which is two times more than with a variable length SIMD ISA.
256 and 512 bits are the only reasonable widths. 256 bit AVX2 is what, 13 or 14 years old now.
no. Because Intel is full of absolute idiots, Intel atom didn't support AVX 1 until Gracemont. Tremont is missing AVX1, AVX2, FMA, and basically the rest of X86v3, and shipped in CPUs as recently as 2021 (Jasper Lake).
Oh damn. I've dropped SSE ages ago and no one complained. I guess the customer base didn't use those chips...
Fujitsu A64FX used in the Fugaku supercomputer uses SVE with 512 bit width
Thanks, I misremembered. However, the microarchitecture is a bit "weird" (really HPC-targeted), with very long latencies (e.g., ADD (vector) 4 cycles, FADD (vector) 9 cycles). I remember that it was much slower than older x86 CPUs for non-SIMD code, and even for SIMD code, it took quite a bit of effort to get reasonable performance through instruction-level parallelism due to the long latencies and the very limited out-of-order capacities (in particular the just 2x20 reservation station entries for FP).
> - Register width: we somewhat maxed out at 512 bits, with Intel going back to 256 bits for non-server CPUs. I don't see larger widths on the horizon (even if SVE theoretically supports up to 2048 bits, I don't know any implementation with >256 bits). Larger bit widths are not beneficial for most applications and the few applications that are (e.g., some HPC codes) are nowadays served by GPUs.
Just to address this, it's pretty evident why scalar values have stabilized at 64-bit and vectors at ~512 (though there are larger implementations). Tell someone they only have 256 values to work with and they immediately see the limit, it's why old 8-bit code wasted so much time shuffling carries to compute larger values. Tell them you have 65536 values and it alleviates a large set of that problem, but you're still going to hit limits frequently. Now you have up to 4294967296 values and the limits are realistically only going to be hit in computational realms, so bump it up to 18446744073709551615. Now even most commodity computational limits are alleviated and the compiler will handle the data shuffling for larger ones.
There was naturally going to be a point where there was enough static computational power on integers that it didn't make sense to continue widening them (at least, not at the previous rate). The same goes for vectorization, but in even more niche and specific fields.
AFAIK about every modern CPU uses out of order von Neumann architecture. The only people who don't are the handful of researchers and people who work with the government research into non van Neumann designed systems.
Low power RISC cores (both ARM and RISC-V) are typically in-order actually!
But any core I can think of as 'high-performance' is OOO.
MIPS as well as Alpha AFAIR. And technically itanium, otoh It seems to me a bit like a niche for any performance advantages...
> I prefer fixed width
Do you have examples for problems that are easier to solve in fixed-width SIMD?
I maintain that most problems can be solved in a vector-length-agnostic manner. Even if it's slightly more tricky, it's certainly easier than restructuring all of your memory allocations to add padding and implementing three versions for all the differently sized SIMD extensions your target may support. And you can always fall back to using a variable-width SIMD ISA in a fixed-width way, when necessary.
There's a category of autovectorization known as Superword-Level Parallelism (SLP) which effectively scavenges an entire basic block for individual instruction sequences that might be squeezed together into a SIMD instruction. This kind of vectorization doesn't work well with vector-length-agnostic ISAs, because you generally can't scavenge more than a few elements anyways, and inducing any sort of dynamic vector length is more likely to slow your code down as a result (since you can't do constant folding).
There's other kinds of interesting things you can do with vectors that aren't improved by dynamic-length vectors. Something like abseil's hash table, which uses vector code to efficiently manage the occupancy bitmap. Dynamic vector length doesn't help that much in that case, particularly because the vector length you can parallelize over is itself intrinsically low (if you're scanning dozens of elements to find an empty slot, something is wrong). Vector swizzling is harder to do dynamically, and in general, at high vector factors, difficult to do generically in hardware, which means going to larger vectors (even before considering dynamic sizes), vectorization is trickier if you have to do a lot of swizzling.
In general, vector-length-agnostic is really only good for SIMT-like codes, which you can express the vector body as more or less independent f(index) for some knowable-before-you-execute-the-loop range of indices. Stuff like DAXPY or BLAS in general. Move away from this model, and that agnosticism becomes overhead that doesn't pay for itself. (Now granted, this kind of model is a large fraction of parallelizable code, but it's far from all of it).
The SLP vectorizer is a good point, but I think it's, in comparison with x86, more a problem of the float and vector register files not being shared (in SVE and RVV). You don't need to reconfigure the vector length; just use it at the full width.
> Something like abseil's hash table
If I remember this correctly, the abseil lookup does scale with vector length, as long as you use the native data path width. (albeit with small gains) There is a problem with vector length agnostic handling of abseil, which is the iterator API. With a different API, or compilers that could eliminate redundant predicated load/stores, this would be easier.
> good for SIMT-like codes
Certainly, but I've also seen/written a lot of vector length agnostic code using shuffles, which don't fit into the SIMT paradigm, which means that the scope is larger than just SIMT.
---
As a general comparison, take AVX10/128, AVX10/256 and AVX10/512, overlap their instruction encodings, remove the few instructions that don't make sense anymore, and add a cheap instruction to query the vector length. (probably also instructions like vid and viota, for easier shuffle synthesization) Now you have a variable-length SIMD ISA that feels familiar.
The above is basically what SVE is.
I also prefer fixed width. At least in C++, all of the padding, alignment, etc is automagically codegen-ed for the register type in my use cases, so the overhead is approximately zero. All the complexity and cost is in specializing for the capabilities of the underlying SIMD ISA, not the width.
The benefit of fixed width is that optimal data structure and algorithm design on various microarchitectures is dependent on explicitly knowing the register width. SIMD widths aren’t not perfectly substitutable in practice, there is more at play than stride size. You can also do things like explicitly combine separate logic streams in a single SIMD instruction based on knowing the word layout. Compilers don’t do this work in 2025.
The argument for vector width agnostic code seems predicated on the proverbial “sufficiently advanced compiler”. I will likely retire from the industry before such a compiler actually exists. Like fusion power, it has been ten years away my entire life.
> The argument for vector width agnostic code is seems predicated on the proverbial “sufficiently advanced compiler”.
A SIMD ISA having a fixed size or not is orthogonal to autovectorization. E.g. I've seen a bunch of cases where things get autovectorized for RVV but not for AVX512. The reason isn't fixed vs variable, but rather the supported instructions themselves.
There are two things I'd like from a "sufficiently advanced compiler”, which are sizeless struct support and redundant predicated load/store elimination. Those don't fundamentally add new capabilities, but makes working with/integrating into existing APIs easier.
> All the complexity and cost is in specializing for the capabilities of the underlying SIMD ISA, not the width.
Wow, it almost sounds like you could take basically the same code and run it with different vector lengths.
> The benefit of fixed width is that optimal data structure and algorithm design on various microarchitectures is dependent on explicitly knowing the register width
Optimal to what degree? Like sure, fixed-width SIMD can always turn your pointer increments from a register add to an immediate add, so it's always more "optimal", but that sort of thing doesn't matter.
The only difference you usually encounter when writing variable instead of fixed size code is that you have to synthesize your shuffles outside the loop. This usually just takes a few instructions, but loading a constant is certainly easier.
> Do you have examples for problems that are easier to solve in fixed-width SIMD?
Regular expression matching and encryption come to mind.
> Regular expression matching
That's probably true. Last time I looked at it, it seemed like parts of vectorscan could be vectorized VLA, but from my, very limited, understanding of the main matching algorithm, it does seem to require specialization on vector length.
It should be possible to do VLA in some capacity, but it would probably be slower and it's too much work to test.
> encryption
From the things I've looked at, it's mixed.
E.g. chacha20 and poly1305 vectorize well in a VLA scheme: https://camel-cdr.github.io/rvv-bench-results/bpi_f3/chacha2..., https://camel-cdr.github.io/rvv-bench-results/bpi_f3/poly130...
Keccak on the other hand was optimized for fast execution on scalar ISAs with 32 GPRs. This is hard to vectorize in general, because GPR "moves" are free and liberally applied.
Another example where it's probably worth specializing is quicksort, specifically the leaf part.
I've written a VLA version, which uses bitonic sort to sort within vector registers. I wasn't able to meaningfully compare it against a fixed size implementation, because vqsort was super slow when I tried to compile it for RVV.
Loop unrolling isn't really done because of pipelining but rather to amortize the cost of looping. Any modern out-of-order core will (on the happy path) schedule the operations identically whether you did one copy per loop or four. The only difference is the number of branches.
These days, I strongly believe that loop unrolling is a pessimization, especially with SIMD code.
Scalar code should be unrolled by the compiler to the SIMD word width to expose potential parallelism. But other than that, correctly predicted branches are free, and so is loop instruction overhead on modern wide-dispatch processors. For example, even running a maximally efficient AVX512 kernel on a zen5 machine that dispatches 4 EUs and some load/stores and calculates 2048 bits in the vector units every cycle, you still have a ton of dispatch capacity to handle the loop overhead in the scalar units.
The cost of unrolling is decreased code density and reduced effectiveness of the instruction / uOp cache. I wish Clang in particular would stop unrolling the dang vector loops.
The part that's really weird is that on modern CPUs predicted branches are free iff they're sufficiently rare (<1 out of 8 instructions or so). but if you have too many, you will be bottlenecked on the branch since you aren't allowed to speculate past a 2nd (3rd on zen5 without hyperthreading?) branch.
The limiting thing isn't necessarily speculating, but more just the number of branches per cycle, i.e. number of non-contiguous locations the processor has to query from L1 / uop cache (and which the branch predictor has to determine the location of). You get that limit with unconditional branches too.
Intel still shares ports between vector and scalar on P-cores; a scalar multiply in the loop will definitely fight with a vector port, and the bits of pointer bumps and branch and whatnot can fill up the 1 or 2 scalar-only ports. And maybe there are some minor power savings from wasting resources on the scalar overhead. Still, clang does unroll way too much.
My understanding is that they've changed this for Lion Cove and all future P cores, moving to much more of a Zen-like setup with seperate schedulers and ports for vector and scalar ops.
There are alternative universes where these wouldn't be a problem.
For example, if we didn't settle on executing compiled machine code exactly as-is, and had a instruction-updating pass (less involved than a full VM byte code compilation), then we could adjust SIMD width for existing binaries instead of waiting decades for a new baseline or multiversioning faff.
Another interesting alternative is SIMT. Instead of having a handful of special-case instructions combined with heavyweight software-switched threads, we could have had every instruction SIMDified. It requires structuring programs differently, but getting max performance out of current CPUs already requires SIMD + multicore + predictable branching, so we're doing it anyway, just in a roundabout way.
> if we didn't settle on executing compiled machine code exactly as-is, and had a instruction-updating pass (less involved than a full VM byte code compilation)
Apple tried something like this: they collected the LLVM bitcode of apps so that they could recompile and even port to a different architecture. To my knowledge, this was done exactly once (watchOS armv7->AArch64) and deprecated afterwards. Retargeting at this level is inherently difficult (different ABIs, target-specific instructions, intrinsics, etc.). For the same target with a larger feature set, the problems are smaller, but so are the gains -- better SIMD usage would only come from the auto-vectorizer and a better instruction selector that uses different instructions. The expectable gains, however, are low for typical applications and for math-heavy programs, using optimized libraries or simply recompiling is easier.
WebAssembly is a higher-level, more portable bytecode, but performance levels are quite a bit behind natively compiled code.
> Another interesting alternative is SIMT. Instead of having a handful of special-case instructions combined with heavyweight software-switched threads, we could have had every instruction SIMDified. It requires structuring programs differently, but getting max performance out of current CPUs already requires SIMD + multicore + predictable branching, so we're doing it anyway, just in a roundabout way.
Is that not where we're already going with the GPGPU trend? The big catch with GPU programming is that many useful routines are irreducibly very branchy (or at least, to an extent that removing branches slows them down unacceptably), and every divergent branch throws out a huge chunk of the GPU's performance. So you retain a traditional CPU to run all your branchy code, but you run into memory-bandwidth woes between the CPU and GPU.
It's generally the exception instead of the rule when you have a big block of data elements upfront that can all be handled uniformly with no branching. These usually have to do with graphics, physical simulation, etc., which is why the SIMT model was popularized by GPUs.
There's more to SIMD than BLAS. https://branchfree.org/2024/06/09/a-draft-taxonomy-of-simd-u... .
BLAS, specifically gemm, is one of the rare things where you naturally need to specialize on vector register width.
Most problems don't require this: E.g. your basic penalizable math stuff, unicode conversion, base64 de/encode, json parsing, set intersection, quicksort*, bigint, run length encoding, chacha20, ...
And if you run into a problem that benefits from knowing the SIMD width, then just specialize on it. You can totally use variable-length SIMD ISA's in a fixed-length way when required. But most of the time it isn't required, and you have code that easily scales between vector lengths.
*quicksort: most time is spent partitioning, which is vector length agnostic, you can handle the leafs in a vector length agnostic way, but you'll get more efficient code if you specialize (idk how big the impact is, in vreg bitonic sort is quite efficient).
1. Not a problem for GPUs. NVdia and AMD are both 32-wide or 1024-bit wide hard coded. AMD can swap to 64-wide mode for backwards compatibility to GCN. 1024-bit or 2048-bit seems to be the right values. Too wide and you get branch divergence issues, so it doesn't seem to make sense to go bigger.
In contrast, the systems that have flexible widths have never taken off. It's seemingly much harder to design a programming language for a flexible width SIMD.
2. Not a problem for GPUs. It should be noted that kernels allocate custom amounts of registers: one kernel may use 56 registers, while another kernel might use 200 registers. All GPUs will run these two kernels simultaneously (256+ registers per CU or SM is commonly supported, so both 200+56 registers kernels can run together).
3. Not a problem for GPUs or really any SIMD in most cases. Tail handling is O(1) problem in general and not a significant contributor to code length, size, or benchmarks.
Overall utilization issues are certainly a concern. But in my experience this is caused by branching most often. (Branching in GPUs is very inefficient and forces very low utilization).
Tail handling is not significant for loops with tons of iterations, but there are a ton of real-world situations where you might have a loop take only like 5 iterations or something (even at like 100 iterations, with a loop processing 8 elements at a time (i.e. 256-bit vectors, 32-bit elements), that's 12 vectorized iterations plus up to 7 scalar ones, which is still quite significant. At 1000 iterations you could still have the scalar tail be a couple percent; and still doubling the L1/uop-cache space the loop takes).
It's absolutely a significant contributor to code size (..in scenarios where vectorized code in general is a significant contributor to code size, which admittedly is only very-specialized software).
The three “flaws” that this post lists are exactly what the industry has been moving away from for the last decade.
Arm’s SVE, and RISC-V’s vector extension are all vector-length-agnostic. RISC-V’s implementation is particularly nice, you only have to compile for one code path (unlike avx with the need for fat-binary else/if trees).
> Since the register size is fixed there is no way to scale the ISA to new levels of hardware parallelism without adding new instructions and registers.
I look at SIMD as the same idea as any other aspect of the x86 instruction set. If you are directly interacting with it, you should probably have a good reason to be.
I primarily interact with these primitives via types like Vector<T> in .NET's System.Numerics namespace. With the appropriate level of abstraction, you no longer have to worry about how wide the underlying architecture is, or if it even supports SIMD at all.
I'd prefer to let someone who is paid a very fat salary by a F100 spend their full time job worrying about how to emit SIMD instructions for my program source.
x86 SIMD suffers from register aliasing. xmm0 is actually the low-half of ymm0, so you need to explicitly tell the processor what your input type is to properly handle overflow and signing. Actual vectorized instructions don’t have this problem but you also can’t change it now.
Oh man, totally get the pain with compilers and SIMD tricks - the struggle's so real. Ever feel like keeping low level control is the only way stuff actually runs as smooth as you want, or am I just too stubborn to give abstractions a real shot?
> Another problem is that each new SIMD generation requires new instruction opcodes and encodings.
It requires new opcodes. It does not strictly require new encodings. Several new encodings are legacy compatible and can encode previous generations vector instructions.
> so the architecture must provide enough SIMD registers to avoid register spilling.
Or the architecture allows memory operands. The great joy of basic x86 encoding is that you don't actually need to put things in registers to operate on them.
> Usually you also need extra control logic before the loop. For instance if the array length is less than the SIMD register width, the main SIMD loop should be skipped.
What do you want? No control overhead or the speed enabled by SIMD? This isn't a flaw. This is a necessary price to achieve the efficiency you do in the main loop.
> The great joy of basic x86 encoding is that you don't actually need to put things in registers to operate on them.
That's just spilling with fewer steps. The executed uops should be the same.
> That's just spilling with fewer steps.
Another way to say this is it's "more efficient."
> The executed uops should be the same.
And "more densely coded."
hm, I was wondering how the density compares with x86 having more complex encodings in general.
vaddps zmm1,zmm0,ZMMWORD PTR [r14]
takes six bytes to encode:
62 d1 7c 48 58 0e
In SVE and RVV a load+add takes 8 bytes to encode.
i would certainly add lack of reductions ('horizontal' operations) and a more generalized model of communication to the list.
The tricky part with reductions is that they are somewhat inherently slow since they often need to be done pairwise and a pairwise reduction over 16 elements will naturally have pretty limited parallelism.
kinda? this is sort of a direct result of the 'vectors are just sliced registers' model. if i do a pairwise operation and divide my domain by 2 at each step, is the resulting vector sparse or dense? if its dense then I only really top out when i'm in the last log2slice steps.