GPU621/Group 1

Analyzing False Sharing

File:False Sahring 2023.pdf

Team Members

Introduction : What is False Sharing?

Cache is an important system component. A cache line is the smallest portion of data that can be mapped into a cache, sometime it can get mistreated by threads when that happens it is called false sharing. The way that it happens is when 2 threads access data that is physically close to one another in memory, which in response may cause it to be used or modified by the 2 threads. False sharing does affect performance when it happens.

Cache

In order to boost system performance, a cache is a high-speed data storage layer that stores frequently accessed or recently used data. By retaining a copy of the most often visited data in a quicker and more convenient storage location, it is intended to decrease the amount of time it takes to access data.

Web servers, databases, operating systems, and CPUs are just a few of the systems that utilise caches. Caching, for instance, enables web servers to keep frequently requested web pages in memory and speed up serving them to consumers. To cut down on the time it takes to access frequently used instructions and data from main memory, CPUs store them in caches.

Caching can enhance system performance by lowering the number of time-consuming or expensive actions needed to access data. If the cached data is not updated when changes are made to the underlying data source, caching also raises the chance of stale data. Cache management and eviction tactics are crucial factors to take into account when building caching systems as a result.

Cache Consistency

Cache consistency refers to the synchronization of data between different caches in a computer system, ensuring that all caches have the most up-to-date version of data. In a multi-core processor or a distributed computing system, multiple processors may have their own local caches that store a copy of the data that is being used by the processor.

Each processor in a Symmetric Multiprocessor (SMP)system has a local cache. The local cache is a smaller, faster memory that stores data copies from frequently accessed main memory locations. Cache lines are closer to the CPU than main memory and are designed to improve memory access efficiency. In a shared memory multiprocessor system with a separate cache memory for each processor, shared data can have multiple copies: one in main memory and one in the local cache of each processor that requested it. When one of the data copies is modified, the other copies must also be modified. Cache coherence is the discipline that ensures that changes in the values of shared operands (data) are propagated in a timely manner throughout the system. Multiprocessor-capable Intel processors use the MESI (Modified/Exclusive/Shared/Invalid) protocol to ensure data consistency across multiple caches.

Cache consistency is important because without it, different processors may have different versions of the same data, which can lead to data inconsistencies and errors in the system. Different cache consistency protocols, such as MESI and MOESI, are used to maintain cache consistency in modern computer systems. These protocols define a set of rules and states for cache coherence and ensure that all caches in the system have the same view of the shared memory.

The MESI protocol

One of the most widely used cache coherence algorithms is the MESI protocol.

MESI (short for Modified, Exclusive, Shared, Invalid) consists of 4 states.

Modified - The only cached duplicate is the modified, distinct from main memory cache line.

Exclusive - The modified, separate from main memory cache line is the only cached copy.

Shared - identical to main memory, but there might be duplicates in other caches.

Invalid - Line data is not valid.

How does it work?

Let's say 2 cores (core 1 and core 2) are close to each other physically and are receiving memory from the same cache line. They are reading long values from main memory (value 1 and value 2).

core 1 is reading value 1 from main memory. It will proceed to fetch values from memory and store them into the cache line.

Once that is done it will mark that cache line as as exclusive because core 1 is the only core operating in the cache line.

For efficiency this core will now read the stored cache value instead of reading the same value from memory when possible this will save time and processing power.

core 2 also starts to read values but from value 2 from the main memory.

Due to core 2 being in the same cache line as core 1 both cores will tag their cache lines as shared.

If core 2 decides to modify the value of 1. It modifies its value in local cache and changes its state from shared to modified

Lastly. core 2 notifies core 1 of the changes in values. which marks the cache line as invalid.

Example

In this example, we have two threads running in parallel, each incrementing a separate counter variable. The volatile keyword is used to ensure that the compiler doesn't optimize away the increments. We also define the cache line size as 64 bytes.

#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>

using namespace std;
using namespace chrono;

// Constants to control the program
const int NUM_THREADS = 2;
const int NUM_ITERATIONS = 100000000;
const int CACHE_LINE_SIZE = 64;

// Define a counter struct to ensure cache line alignment
struct alignas(CACHE_LINE_SIZE) Counter {
    volatile long long value;  // the counter value
    char padding[CACHE_LINE_SIZE - sizeof(long long)];  // padding to align the struct to cache line size
};

// Define two counter variables
Counter counter1, counter2;

// Function to increment counter 1
void increment1() {
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter1.value++;
    }
}

// Function to increment counter 2
void increment2() {
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter2.value++;
    }
}

// Function to check the runtime of the program
void checkRuntime(high_resolution_clock::time_point start_time, high_resolution_clock::time_point end_time) {
    auto duration = duration_cast<milliseconds>(end_time - start_time).count();
    cout << "Runtime: " << duration << " ms" << endl;
}

int main() {
    // Print the cache line size
    cout << "Cache line size: " << CACHE_LINE_SIZE << " bytes" << endl;
    // Run the program using a single thread
    cout << "Running program using a single thread" << endl;
    
    high_resolution_clock::time_point start_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter1.value++;
        counter2.value++;
    }
    high_resolution_clock::time_point end_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    checkRuntime(start_time, end_time);
    cout << "Counter 1: " << counter1.value << endl;
    cout << "Counter 2: " << counter2.value << endl;

    // Run the program using multiple threads
   cout << "Running program using " << NUM_THREADS << " threads" << endl;
    counter1.value = 0;
    counter2.value = 0;

    start_time = high_resolution_clock::now();

    thread t1(increment1);
    thread t2(increment2);
    t1.join();
    t2.join();
    
    end_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    checkRuntime(start_time, end_time);
    cout << "Counter 1: " << counter1.value << endl;
    cout << "Counter 2: " << counter2.value << endl;

    return 0;
}

In this example we have provided we provided a single thread and a multi thread solution.

Based on results the single thread solution runs faster then the multi thread. But why?

The reason for this is the synchronization and cache invalidation overheads cause the slower execution time for the multi-threaded solution. Despite the execution being split between 2 threads.

Although if the number of iterations is increased. At some point running the solution in serial will cause it to run slower then the multi threaded solution. Why is so?

By increasing the NUM_ITERATIONS it causes the serial solution to run slower because the loop in in the serial solution is excecated sequentially.

As a result more work is being applied on the thread which causes it to bottleneck.

Meanwhile the multi threaded solution does not cause a bottle neck because the work is split between 2 threads allowing them to work on less iterations at the same time. As a result it decreases the amount of time it takes to run through those iterations.

Solution

When two threads update different variables that share the same cache line, this is known as false sharing. A performance hit results as a result of each thread invalidating the cache line for the other thread. In order to ensure that each variable is aligned to its own cache line, we can fix this issue by adding padding to the Counter struct. By ensuring that each thread updates a different cache line, false sharing is prevented.

We can further optimize the code by switching to atomic variables from volatile variables, which solves the issue of false sharing as well. In order to ensure that the variables are updated atomically, atomic variables offer a higher level of synchronization.

The updated code, which addresses false sharing and optimization, is provided below:

#include <iostream>
#include <thread>
#include <chrono>
#include <atomic>

using namespace std;
using namespace chrono;

// Constants to control the program
const int NUM_THREADS = 2;
const int NUM_ITERATIONS = 100000000;
const int CACHE_LINE_SIZE = 64;

// Define a counter struct with padding for cache line alignment
struct alignas(CACHE_LINE_SIZE) Counter {
    atomic<long long> value;  // the counter value
    char padding[CACHE_LINE_SIZE - sizeof(atomic<long long>)];  // padding to align the struct to cache line size
};

// Define two counter variables
Counter counter1, counter2;

// Function to increment counter 1
void increment1() {
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter1.value++;
    }
}

// Function to increment counter 2
void increment2() {
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter2.value++;
    }
}

// Function to check the runtime of the program
void checkRuntime(high_resolution_clock::time_point start_time, high_resolution_clock::time_point end_time) {
    auto duration = duration_cast<milliseconds>(end_time - start_time).count();
    cout << "Runtime: " << duration << " ms" << endl;
}

int main() {
    // Print the cache line size
    cout << "Cache line size: " << CACHE_LINE_SIZE << " bytes" << endl;
    
    // Run the program using a single thread
    cout << "Running program using a single thread" << endl;
    high_resolution_clock::time_point start_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    for (int i = 0; i < NUM_ITERATIONS; i++) {
        counter1.value++;
        counter2.value++;
    }
    high_resolution_clock::time_point end_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    checkRuntime(start_time, end_time);
    cout << "Counter 1: " << counter1.value << endl;
    cout << "Counter 2: " << counter2.value << endl;

    // Run the program using multiple threads
    cout << "Running program using " << NUM_THREADS << " threads" << endl;
    counter1.value = 0;
    counter2.value = 0;
    
    start_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    thread t1(increment1);
    thread t2(increment2);
    t1.join();
    t2.join();
    end_time = high_resolution_clock::now();
    checkRuntime(start_time, end_time);
    cout << "Counter 1: " << counter1.value << endl;
    cout << "Counter 2: " << counter2.value << endl;

    return 0;
}

Two counters, counter1 and counter2, as well as two functions, increment1() and increment2(), are defined in the code. These functions increment the values of the corresponding counters. The programme compares the runtimes of both scenarios after performing the increment functions on a single thread and on multiple threads for a predetermined number of iterations.

In order to guarantee alignment with the cache line size, the Counter struct is defined with alignas(CACHE_LINE_SIZE). Since the value member is an atomic long long, concurrent access to the counter is permitted without risk. The remaining bytes are taken up by the padding member, which makes sure the struct is aligned to the cache line size.

The constants NUM_THREADS, NUM_ITERATIONS, and CACHE_LINE_SIZE control the program. NUM_THREADS specifies the number of threads to use, NUM_ITERATIONS specifies the number of times to increment each counter, and CACHE_LINE_SIZE specifies the size of a cache line. The checkRuntime() function measures the runtime of the program by taking the difference between the start and end times and printing the result in milliseconds.

The main function first prints the cache line size. It then runs the increment functions for NUM_ITERATIONS using a single thread, measures the runtime, and prints the values of the counters. It then runs the increment functions using multiple threads, measures the runtime, and prints the values of the counters.

The cache line size, which in this example is set to 64 bytes, is the first thing that the programme prints. The programme is then run twice, once with a single thread and once with two threads. In each instance, it uses a loop that iterates NUM_ITERATIONS times to increase two counter variables (counter1 and counter2). The runtime and final values of the counter variables are then printed by the program.

The output demonstrates that using more than one thread (479 ms) results in a longer programme execution time. (355 ms). This is due to the fact that the two threads are incrementing two different counter variables, each of which is situated on a different cache line. Because of this, there is competition among the threads for access to the cache lines, which results in cache misses and slower performance. If the two counter variables were on the same cache line, the programme would probably execute more quickly when using multiple threads.

Summary

False sharing is a performance problem that can happen in multi-threaded applications when different variables on the same cache line are accessed by different threads at the same time. Performance may suffer as a result of needless cache invalidations and cache line transfers. Finding the cache lines that are shared by several threads and then identifying the variables that cause the false sharing are the first steps in false sharing analysis. Profiling tools that track cache line accesses and spot conflicts in cache lines can be used for this.

In conclusion, watch out for false sharing because it kills scalability. The general situation to be on the lookout for is when there are two objects or fields that are frequently accessed by different threads for reading or writing, at least one of the threads is performing writes, and the objects are close enough in memory that they fall on the same cache line. Utilize performance analysis tools and CPU monitors as detecting false sharing isn't always simple. Last but not least, you can prevent false sharing by lowering the frequency of updates to the variables that are shared but aren't actually. For instance, update local data rather than the shared variable. Additionally, by padding or aligning data on a cache line in such a way that it guarantees that no other data comes before or after a key object in the same cache line, you can ensure that a variable is completely unshared.