How many CPU cycles are needed for each assembly instruction?

I heard there is Intel book online which describes the CPU cycles needed for a specific assembly instruction, but I can not find it out (after trying hard). Could anyone show me how to find CPU cycle please?

Here is an example, in the below code, mov/lock is 1 CPU cycle, and xchg is 3 CPU cycles.

// This part is Platform dependent!
#ifdef WIN32
inline int CPP_SpinLock::TestAndSet(int* pTargetAddress, 
                                              int nValue)
{
    __asm
    {
        mov edx, dword ptr [pTargetAddress]
        mov eax, nValue
        lock xchg eax, dword ptr [edx]
    }
    // mov = 1 CPU cycle
    // lock = 1 CPU cycle
    // xchg = 3 CPU cycles
}

#endif // WIN32

BTW: here is the URL for the code I posted: http://www.codeproject.com/KB/threads/spinlocks.aspx

Modern CPUs are complex beasts, using pipelining, superscalar execution, and out-of-order execution among other techniques which make performance analysis difficult... but not impossible!

While you can no longer simply add together the latencies of a stream of instructions to get the total runtime, you can still get a (often) highly accurate analysis of the behavior of some piece of code (especially a loop) as described below and in other linked resources.

Instruction Timings

First, you need the actual timings. These vary by CPU architecture, but the best resource currently for x86 timings is Agner Fog's instruction tables. Covering no less than thirty different microarchitecures, these tables list the instruction latency, which is the minimum/typical time that an instruction takes from inputs ready to output available. In Agner's words:

> Latency: This is the delay that the instruction generates in a > dependency chain. The numbers are minimum values. Cache misses, > misalignment, and exceptions may increase the clock counts > considerably. Where hyperthreading is enabled, the use of the same > execution units in the other thread leads to inferior performance. > Denormal numbers, NAN's and infinity do not increase the latency. The > time unit used is core clock cycles, not the reference clock cycles > given by the time stamp counter.

So, for example, the add instruction has a latency of one cycle, so a series of dependent add instructions, as shown, will have a latency of 1 cycle per add:

add eax, eax
add eax, eax
add eax, eax
add eax, eax  # total latency of 4 cycles for these 4 adds

Note that this doesn't mean that add instructions will only take 1 cycle each. For example, if the add instructions were not dependent, it is possible that on modern chips all 4 add instructions can execute independently in the same cycle:

add eax, eax
add ebx, ebx
add ecx, ecx
add edx, edx # these 4 instructions might all execute, in parallel in a single cycle

Agner provides a metric which captures some of this potential parallelism, called reciprocal throughput:

> Reciprocal throughput: The average number of core clock cycles per instruction for a series of independent instructions of the same kind > in the same thread.

For add this is listed as 0.25 meaning that up to 4 add instructions can execute every cycle (giving a reciprocal throughput of 1 / 4 = 0.25).

The reciprocal throughput number also gives a hint at the pipelining capability of an instruction. For example, on most recent x86 chips, the common forms of the imul instruction have a latency of 3 cycles, and internally only one execution unit can handle them (unlike add which usually has four add-capable units). Yet the observed throughput for a long series of independent imul instructions is 1/cycle, not 1 every 3 cycles as you might expect given the latency of 3. The reason is that the imul unit is pipelined: it can start a new imul every cycle, even while the previous multiplication hasn't completed.

This means a series of independent imul instructions can run at up to 1 per cycle, but a series of dependent imul instructions will run at only 1 every 3 cycles (since the next imul can't start until the result from the prior one is ready).

So with this information, you can start to see how to analyze instruction timings on modern CPUs.

Detailed Analysis

Still, the above is only scratching the surface. You now have multiple ways of looking at a series of instructions (latency or throughput) and it may not be clear which to use.

Furthermore, there are other limits not captured by the above numbers, such as the fact that certain instructions compete for the same resources within the CPU, and restrictions in other parts of the CPU pipeline (such as instruction decoding) which may result in a lower overall throughput than you'd calculate just by looking at latency and throughput. Beyond that, you have factors "beyond the ALUs" such as memory access and branch prediction: entire topics unto themselves - you can mostly model these well, but it takes work. For example here's a recent post where the answer covers in some detail most of the relevant factors.

Covering all the details would increase the size of this already long answer by a factor of 10 or more, so I'll just point you to the best resources. Agner Fog has an Optimizing Asembly guide that covers in detail the precise analysis of a loop with a dozen or so instructions. See "12.7 An example of analysis for bottlenecks in vector loops" which starts on page 95 in the current version of the PDF.

The basic idea is that you create a table, with one row per instruction and mark the execution resources each uses. This lets you see any throughput bottlenecks. In addition, you need to examine the loop for carried dependencies, to see if any of those limit the throughput (see "12.16 Analyzing dependencies" for a complex case).

If you don't want to do it by hand, Intel has released the Intel Architecture Code Analyzer, which is a tool that automates this analysis. It currently hasn't been updated beyond Skylake, but the results are still largely reasonable for Kaby Lake since the microarchitecture hasn't changed much and therefore the timings remain comparable. This answer goes into a lot of detail and provides example output, and the user's guide isn't half bad (although it is out of date with respect to the newest versions).

Other sources

Agner usually provides timings for new architectures shortly after they are released, but you can also check out instlatx64 for similarly organized timings in the InstLatX86 and InstLatX64 results. The results cover a lot of interesting old chips, and new chips usually show up fairly quickly. The results are mostly consistent with Agner's, with a few exceptions here and there. You can also find memory latency and other values on this page.

You can even get the timing results directly from Intel in their IA32 and Intel 64 optimization manual in Appendix C: INSTRUCTION LATENCY AND THROUGHPUT. Personally I prefer Agner's version because they are more complete, often arrive before the Intel manual is updated, and are easier to use as they provide a spreadsheet and PDF version.

Finally, the x86 tag wiki has a wealth of resources on x86 optimization, including links to other examples of how to do a cycle accurate analysis of code sequences.

If you want a deeper look into the type of "dataflow analysis" described above, I would recommend A Whirlwind Introduction to Data Flow Graphs.

Given pipelining, out of order processing, microcode, multi-core processors, etc there's no guarantee that a particular section of assembly code will take exactly x CPU cycles/clock cycle/whatever cycles.

If such a reference exists, it will only be able to provide broad generalizations given a particular architecture, and depending on how the microcode is implemented you may find that the Pentium M is different than the Core 2 Duo which is different than the AMD dual core, etc.

Note that this article was updated in 2000, and written earlier. Even the Pentium 4 is hard to pin down regarding instruction timing - PIII, PII, and the original pentium were easier, and the texts referenced were probably based on those earlier processors that had a more well-defined instruction timing.

These days people generally use statistical analysis for code timing estimation.

What the other answers say about it being impossible to accurately predict the performance of code running on a modern CPU is true, but that doesn't mean the latencies are unknown, or that knowing them is useless.

The exact latencies for Intels and AMD's processors are listed in Agner Fog's instruction tables. See also Intel® 64 and IA-32 Architectures Optimization Reference Manual, and Instruction latencies and throughput for AMD and Intel x86 processors (from Can Berk Güder's now-deleted link-only answer). AMD also has pdf manuals on their own website with their official values.

For (micro-)optimizing tight loops, knowing the latencies for each instruction can help a lot in manually trying to schedule your code. The programmer can make a lot of optimizations that the compiler can't (because the compiler can't guarantee it won't change the meaning of the program).

Of course, this still requires you to know a lot of other details about the CPU, such as how deeply pipelined it is, how many instructions it can issue per cycle, number of execution units and so on. And of course, these numbers vary for different CPU's. But you can often come up with a reasonable average that more or less works for all CPU's.

It's worth noting though, that it is a lot of work to optimize even a few lines of code at this level. And it is easy to make something that turns out to be a pessimization. Modern CPUs are hugely complicated, and they try extremely hard to get good performance out of bad code. But there are also cases they're unable to handle efficiently, or where you think you're clever and making efficient code, and it turns out to slow the CPU down.

Edit Looking in Intel's optimization manual, table C-13: The first column is instruction type, then there is a number of columns for latency for each CPUID. The CPUID indicates which processor family the numbers apply to, and are explained elsewhere in the document. The latency specifies how many cycles it takes before the result of the instruction is available, so this is the number you're looking for.

The throughput columns show how many of this type of instructions can be executed per cycle.

Looking up xchg in this table, we see that depending on the CPU family, it takes 1-3 cycles, and a mov takes 0.5-1. These are for the register-to-register forms of the instructions, not for a lock xchg with memory, which is a lot slower. And more importantly, hugely-variable latency and impact on surrounding code (much slower when there's contention with another core), so looking only at the best-case is a mistake. (I haven't looked up what each CPUID means, but I assume the .5 are for Pentium 4, which ran some components of the chip at double speed, allowing it to do things in half cycles)

I don't really see what you plan to use this information for, however, but if you know the exact CPU family the code is running on, then adding up the latency tells you the minimum number of cycles required to execute this sequence of instructions.

Measuring and counting CPU-cycles does not make sense on the x86 anymore.

First off, ask yourself for which CPU you're counting cycles? Core-2? a Athlon? Pentium-M? Atom? All these CPUs execute x86 code but all of them have different execution times. The execution even varies between different steppings of the same CPU.

The last x86 where cycle-counting made sense was the Pentium-Pro.

Also consider, that inside the CPU most instructions are transcoded into microcode and executed out of order by a internal execution unit that does not even remotely look like a x86. The performance of a single CPU instruction depends on how much resources in the internal execution unit is available.

So the time for a instruction depends not only on the instruction itself but also on the surrounding code.

Anyway: You can estimate the throughput-resource usage and latency of instructions for different processors. The relevant information can be found at the Intel and AMD sites.

Agner Fog has a very nice summary on his web-site. See the instruction tables for latency, throughput, and uop count. See the microarchictecture PDF to learn how to interpret those.

http://www.agner.org/optimize

But note that xchg-with-memory does not have predictable performance, even if you look at only one CPU model. Even in the no-contention case with the cache-line already hot in L1D cache, being a full memory barrier will mean it's impact depends a lot on loads and stores to other addresses in the surrounding code.

---

Btw - since your example-code is a lock-free datastructure basic building block: Have you considered using the compiler built-in functions? On win32 you can include intrin.h and use functions such as _InterlockedExchange.

That'll give you better execution time because the compiler can inline the instructions. Inline-assembler always forces the compiler to disable optimizations around the asm-code.

lock xchg eax, dword ptr [edx]

Note the lock will lock memory for the memory fetch for all cores, this can take 100 cycles on some multi cores and a cache line will also need to be flushed. It will also stall the pipeline. So i wouldnt worry about the rest.

So optimal performance gets back to tuning your algorithms critical regions.

Note on a single core you can optmize this by removing the lock but it is needed for multi core.