c++ - std::vector performance regression when enabling C++11

Question

I have found an interesting performance regression in a small C++ snippet, when I enable C++11:

#include <vector>

struct Item
{
  int a;
  int b;
};

int main()
{
  const std::size_t num_items = 10000000;
  std::vector<Item> container;
  container.reserve(num_items);
  for (std::size_t i = 0; i < num_items; ++i) {
    container.push_back(Item());
  }
  return 0;
}

With g++ (GCC) 4.8.2 20131219 (prerelease) and C++03 I get:

milian:/tmp$ g++ -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        35.206824 task-clock                #    0.988 CPUs utilized            ( +-  1.23% )
                4 context-switches          #    0.116 K/sec                    ( +-  4.38% )
                0 cpu-migrations            #    0.006 K/sec                    ( +- 66.67% )
              849 page-faults               #    0.024 M/sec                    ( +-  6.02% )
       95,693,808 cycles                    #    2.718 GHz                      ( +-  1.14% ) [49.72%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
       95,282,359 instructions              #    1.00  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.65% ) [75.27%]
       30,104,021 branches                  #  855.062 M/sec                    ( +-  0.87% ) [77.46%]
            6,038 branch-misses             #    0.02% of all branches          ( +- 25.73% ) [75.53%]

      0.035648729 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  1.22% )

With C++11 enabled on the other hand, the performance degrades significantly:

milian:/tmp$ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        86.485313 task-clock                #    0.994 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.50% )
                9 context-switches          #    0.104 K/sec                    ( +-  1.66% )
                2 cpu-migrations            #    0.017 K/sec                    ( +- 26.76% )
              798 page-faults               #    0.009 M/sec                    ( +-  8.54% )
      237,982,690 cycles                    #    2.752 GHz                      ( +-  0.41% ) [51.32%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
      135,730,319 instructions              #    0.57  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.32% ) [75.77%]
       30,880,156 branches                  #  357.057 M/sec                    ( +-  0.25% ) [75.76%]
            4,188 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches          ( +-  7.59% ) [74.08%]

    0.087016724 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.50% )

Can someone explain this? So far my experience was that the STL gets faster by enabling C++11, esp. thanks to move semantics.

EDIT: As suggested, using container.emplace_back(); instead the performance gets on par with the C++03 version. How can the C++03 version achieve the same for push_back?

milian:/tmp$ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 main.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

        36.229348 task-clock                #    0.988 CPUs utilized            ( +-  0.81% )
                4 context-switches          #    0.116 K/sec                    ( +-  3.17% )
                1 cpu-migrations            #    0.017 K/sec                    ( +- 36.85% )
              798 page-faults               #    0.022 M/sec                    ( +-  8.54% )
       94,488,818 cycles                    #    2.608 GHz                      ( +-  1.11% ) [50.44%]
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-frontend 
  <not supported> stalled-cycles-backend  
       94,851,411 instructions              #    1.00  insns per cycle          ( +-  0.98% ) [75.22%]
       30,468,562 branches                  #  840.991 M/sec                    ( +-  1.07% ) [76.71%]
            2,723 branch-misses             #    0.01% of all branches          ( +-  9.84% ) [74.81%]

   0.036678068 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  0.80% )

Answer 1

I can reproduce your results on my machine with those options you write in your post.

However, if I also enable link time optimization (I also pass the -flto flag to gcc 4.7.2), the results are identical:

(I am compiling your original code, with container.push_back(Item());)

$ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 -flto regr.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out 

 Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

         35.426793 task-clock                #    0.986 CPUs utilized            ( +-  1.75% )
                 4 context-switches          #    0.116 K/sec                    ( +-  5.69% )
                 0 CPU-migrations            #    0.006 K/sec                    ( +- 66.67% )
            19,801 page-faults               #    0.559 M/sec                  
        99,028,466 cycles                    #    2.795 GHz                      ( +-  1.89% ) [77.53%]
        50,721,061 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   51.22% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  3.74% ) [79.47%]
        25,585,331 stalled-cycles-backend    #   25.84% backend  cycles idle     ( +-  4.90% ) [73.07%]
       141,947,224 instructions              #    1.43  insns per cycle        
                                             #    0.36  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  0.52% ) [88.72%]
        37,697,368 branches                  # 1064.092 M/sec                    ( +-  0.52% ) [88.75%]
            26,700 branch-misses             #    0.07% of all branches          ( +-  3.91% ) [83.64%]

       0.035943226 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  1.79% )



$ g++ -std=c++98 -O3 -flto regr.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out 

 Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

         35.510495 task-clock                #    0.988 CPUs utilized            ( +-  2.54% )
                 4 context-switches          #    0.101 K/sec                    ( +-  7.41% )
                 0 CPU-migrations            #    0.003 K/sec                    ( +-100.00% )
            19,801 page-faults               #    0.558 M/sec                    ( +-  0.00% )
        98,463,570 cycles                    #    2.773 GHz                      ( +-  1.09% ) [77.71%]
        50,079,978 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   50.86% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  2.20% ) [79.41%]
        26,270,699 stalled-cycles-backend    #   26.68% backend  cycles idle     ( +-  8.91% ) [74.43%]
       141,427,211 instructions              #    1.44  insns per cycle        
                                             #    0.35  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  0.23% ) [87.66%]
        37,366,375 branches                  # 1052.263 M/sec                    ( +-  0.48% ) [88.61%]
            26,621 branch-misses             #    0.07% of all branches          ( +-  5.28% ) [83.26%]

       0.035953916 seconds time elapsed  

As for the reasons, one needs to look at the generated assembly code (g++ -std=c++11 -O3 -S regr.cpp). In C++11 mode the generated code is significantly more cluttered than for C++98 mode and inlining the function
void std::vector<Item,std::allocator<Item>>::_M_emplace_back_aux<Item>(Item&&)
fails in C++11 mode with the default inline-limit.

This failed inline has a domino effect. Not because this function is being called (it is not even called!) but because we have to be prepared: If it is called, the function argments (Item.a and Item.b) must already be at the right place. This leads to a pretty messy code.

Here is the relevant part of the generated code for the case where inlining succeeds:

.L42:
    testq   %rbx, %rbx  # container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_finish
    je  .L3 #,
    movl    $0, (%rbx)  #, container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_finish_136->a
    movl    $0, 4(%rbx) #, container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_finish_136->b
.L3:
    addq    $8, %rbx    #, container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_finish
    subq    $1, %rbp    #, ivtmp.106
    je  .L41    #,
.L14:
    cmpq    %rbx, %rdx  # container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_finish, container$D13376$_M_impl$_M_end_of_storage
    jne .L42    #,

This is a nice and compact for loop. Now, let's compare this to that of the failed inline case:

.L49:
    testq   %rax, %rax  # D.15772
    je  .L26    #,
    movq    16(%rsp), %rdx  # D.13379, D.13379
    movq    %rdx, (%rax)    # D.13379, *D.15772_60
.L26:
    addq    $8, %rax    #, tmp75
    subq    $1, %rbx    #, ivtmp.117
    movq    %rax, 40(%rsp)  # tmp75, container.D.13376._M_impl._M_finish
    je  .L48    #,
.L28:
    movq    40(%rsp), %rax  # container.D.13376._M_impl._M_finish, D.15772
    cmpq    48(%rsp), %rax  # container.D.13376._M_impl._M_end_of_storage, D.15772
    movl    $0, 16(%rsp)    #, D.13379.a
    movl    $0, 20(%rsp)    #, D.13379.b
    jne .L49    #,
    leaq    16(%rsp), %rsi  #,
    leaq    32(%rsp), %rdi  #,
    call    _ZNSt6vectorI4ItemSaIS0_EE19_M_emplace_back_auxIIS0_EEEvDpOT_   #

This code is cluttered and there is a lot more going on in the loop than in the previous case. Before the function call (last line shown), the arguments must be placed appropriately:

leaq    16(%rsp), %rsi  #,
leaq    32(%rsp), %rdi  #,
call    _ZNSt6vectorI4ItemSaIS0_EE19_M_emplace_back_auxIIS0_EEEvDpOT_   #

Even though this is never actually executed, the loop arranges the things before:

movl    $0, 16(%rsp)    #, D.13379.a
movl    $0, 20(%rsp)    #, D.13379.b

This leads to the messy code. If there is no function call because inlining succeeds, we have only 2 move instructions in the loop and there is no messing going with the %rsp (stack pointer). However, if the inlining fails, we get 6 moves and we mess a lot with the %rsp.

Just to substantiate my theory (note the -finline-limit), both in C++11 mode:

 $ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 -finline-limit=105 regr.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

 Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

         84.739057 task-clock                #    0.993 CPUs utilized            ( +-  1.34% )
                 8 context-switches          #    0.096 K/sec                    ( +-  2.22% )
                 1 CPU-migrations            #    0.009 K/sec                    ( +- 64.01% )
            19,801 page-faults               #    0.234 M/sec                  
       266,809,312 cycles                    #    3.149 GHz                      ( +-  0.58% ) [81.20%]
       206,804,948 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   77.51% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  0.91% ) [81.25%]
       129,078,683 stalled-cycles-backend    #   48.38% backend  cycles idle     ( +-  1.37% ) [69.49%]
       183,130,306 instructions              #    0.69  insns per cycle        
                                             #    1.13  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  0.85% ) [85.35%]
        38,759,720 branches                  #  457.401 M/sec                    ( +-  0.29% ) [85.43%]
            24,527 branch-misses             #    0.06% of all branches          ( +-  2.66% ) [83.52%]

       0.085359326 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  1.31% )

 $ g++ -std=c++11 -O3 -finline-limit=106 regr.cpp && perf stat -r 10 ./a.out

 Performance counter stats for './a.out' (10 runs):

         37.790325 task-clock                #    0.990 CPUs utilized            ( +-  2.06% )
                 4 context-switches          #    0.098 K/sec                    ( +-  5.77% )
                 0 CPU-migrations            #    0.011 K/sec                    ( +- 55.28% )
            19,801 page-faults               #    0.524 M/sec                  
       104,699,973 cycles                    #    2.771 GHz                      ( +-  2.04% ) [78.91%]
        58,023,151 stalled-cycles-frontend   #   55.42% frontend cycles idle     ( +-  4.03% ) [78.88%]
        30,572,036 stalled-cycles-backend    #   29.20% backend  cycles idle     ( +-  5.31% ) [71.40%]
       140,669,773 instructions              #    1.34  insns per cycle        
                                             #    0.41  stalled cycles per insn  ( +-  1.40% ) [88.14%]
        38,117,067 branches                  # 1008.646 M/sec                    ( +-  0.65% ) [89.38%]
            27,519 branch-misses             #    0.07% of all branches          ( +-  4.01% ) [86.16%]

       0.038187580 seconds time elapsed                                          ( +-  2.05% )

Indeed, if we ask the compiler to try just a little bit harder to inline that function, the difference in performance goes away.

---

So what is the take away from this story? That failed inlines can cost you a lot and you should make full use of the compiler capabilities: I can only recommend link time optimization. It gave a significant performance boost to my programs (up to 2.5x) and all I needed to do is to pass the -flto flag. That's a pretty good deal! ;)

However, I do not recommend trashing your code with the inline keyword; let the compiler decide what to do. (The optimizer is allowed to treat the inline keyword as white space anyway.)

---

Great question, +1!