Rules for using the restrict keyword in C?

user_71074 0
Viewed 23032

I'm trying to understand when and when not to use the restrict keyword in C and in what situations it provides a tangible benefit.

After reading, "Demystifying The Restrict Keyword", ( which provides some rules of thumb on usage ), I get the impression that when a function is passed pointers, it has to account for the possibility that the data pointed to might overlap (alias) with any other arguments being passed into the function. Given a function:

foo(int *a, int *b, int *c, int n) {
    for (int i = 0; i<n; ++i) {
        b[i] = b[i] + c[i];
        a[i] = a[i] + b[i] * c[i];
    } 
}

the compiler has to reload c in the second expression, because maybe b and c point to the same location. It also has to wait for b to be stored before it can load a for the same reason. It then has to wait for a to be stored and must reload b and c at the beginning of the next loop. If you call the function like this:

int a[N];
foo(a, a, a, N);

then you can see why the compiler has to do this. Using restrict effectively tells the compiler that you will never do this, so that it can drop the redundant load of c and load a before b is stored.

In a different SO post, Nils Pipenbrinck, provides a working example of this scenario demonstrating the performance benefit.

So far I've gathered that it's a good idea to use restrict on pointers you pass into functions which won't be inlined. Apparently if the code is inlined the compiler can figure out that the pointers don't overlap.

Now here's where things start getting fuzzy for me.

In Ulrich Drepper's paper, "What every programmer should know about memory" he makes the statement that, "unless restrict is used, all pointer accesses are potential sources of aliasing," and he gives a specific code example of a submatrix matrix multiply where he uses restrict.

However, when I compile his example code either with or without restrict I get identical binaries in both cases. I'm using gcc version 4.2.4 (Ubuntu 4.2.4-1ubuntu4)

The thing I can't figure out in the following code is whether it needs to be rewritten to make more extensive use of restrict, or if the alias analysis in GCC is just so good that it's able to figure out that none of the arguments alias each other. For purely educational purposes, how can I make using or not using restrict matter in this code - and why?

For restrict compiled with:

gcc -DCLS=$(getconf LEVEL1_DCACHE_LINESIZE) -DUSE_RESTRICT -Wextra -std=c99 -O3 matrixMul.c -o matrixMul

Just remove -DUSE_RESTRICT to not use restrict.

#include <stdlib.h>
#include <stdio.h>
#include <emmintrin.h>

#ifdef USE_RESTRICT
#else
#define restrict
#endif

#define N 1000
double _res[N][N] __attribute__ ((aligned (64)));
double _mul1[N][N] __attribute__ ((aligned (64)))
    = { [0 ... (N-1)] 
    = { [0 ... (N-1)] = 1.1f }};
double _mul2[N][N] __attribute__ ((aligned (64)))
    = { [0 ... (N-1)] 
    = { [0 ... (N-1)] = 2.2f }};

#define SM (CLS / sizeof (double))

void mm(double (* restrict res)[N], double (* restrict mul1)[N], 
        double (* restrict mul2)[N]) __attribute__ ((noinline));

void mm(double (* restrict res)[N], double (* restrict mul1)[N], 
        double (* restrict mul2)[N])
{
 int i, i2, j, j2, k, k2; 
    double *restrict rres; 
    double *restrict rmul1; 
    double *restrict rmul2; 

    for (i = 0; i < N; i += SM)
        for (j = 0; j < N; j += SM)
            for (k = 0; k < N; k += SM)
                for (i2 = 0, rres = &res[i][j],
                    rmul1 = &mul1[i][k]; i2 < SM;
                    ++i2, rres += N, rmul1 += N)
                    for (k2 = 0, rmul2 = &mul2[k][j];
                        k2 < SM; ++k2, rmul2 += N)
                        for (j2 = 0; j2 < SM; ++j2)
                          rres[j2] += rmul1[k2] * rmul2[j2];
}

int main (void)
{

    mm(_res, _mul1, _mul2);

 return 0;
}
memory optimization c
9 Answers

It is a hint to the code optimizer. Using restrict ensures it that it can store a pointer variable in a CPU register and not have to flush an update of the pointer value to memory so that an alias is updated as well.

Whether or not it takes advantage of it depends heavily on implementation details of the optimizer and the CPU. Code optimizers already are heavily invested in detecting non-aliasing since it is such an important optimization. It should have no trouble detecting that in your code.

nobugz_170340

(I don't know if using this keyword gives you a significant advantage, actually. It's very easy for programmer to err with this qualifier as there is no enforcement, so an optimizer cannot be certain that the programmer doesn't "lie".)

When you know that a pointer A is the only pointer to some region of memory, that is, it doesn't have aliases (that is, any other pointer B will necessarily be unequal to A, B != A), you can tell this fact to the optimizer by qualifying the type of A with the "restrict" keyword.

I have written about this here: http://mathdev.org/node/23 and tried to show that some restricted pointers are in fact "linear" (as mentioned in that post).

user_1348140

May be the optimisation done here don't rely on pointers not being aliased ? Unless you preload multiple mul2 element before writing result in res2, I don't see any aliasing problem.

In the first piece of code you show, it is quite clear what kind of aliases problem can occur. Here it is not so clear.

Rereading Dreppers article, he does not specifically says restrict might solve anything. There is even this phrase :

{In theory the restrict keyword introduced into the C language in the 1999 revision should solve the problem. Compilers have not caught up yet, though. The reason is mainly that too much incorrect code exists which would mislead the compiler and cause it to generate incorrect object code.}

In this code, optimisations of memory access has already been done within the algorithm. The residual optimisation seems to be done in the vectorized code presented in appendice. So for the code presented here, I guess there is no difference, because no optimisation relying on restrict is done. Every pointer access is a source of aliasing, but not every optimisation relies on aliassing.

Premature optimization being the root of all evil, the use of the restrict keyword should be limited to the case your are actively studying and optimizing, not used wherever it could be used.

user_115890

Are you running on 32 or 64-bit Ubuntu? If 32-bit, then you need to add -march=core2 -mfpmath=sse (or whatever your processor architecture is), otherwise it doesn't use SSE. Secondly, in order to enable vectorization with GCC 4.2, you need to add the -ftree-vectorize option (as of 4.3 or 4.4 this is included as default in -O3). It might also be necessary to add -ffast-math (or another option providing relaxed floating point semantics) in order to allow the compiler to reorder floating point operations.

Also, add the -ftree-vectorizer-verbose=1 option to see whether it manages to vectorize the loop or not; that's an easy way to check the effect of adding the restrict keyword.

user_756520

The following C99 code can show you that the output of the program depends on restrict :

__attribute__((noinline))
int process(const int * restrict const a, int * const b) {
    *b /= (*a + 1) ;
    return *a + *b ;
}

int main(void) {
    int data[2] = {1, 2};
    return process(&data[0], &data[0]);
}

The software terminates with code 1 using restrict and 0 without restrict qualifier.
The compilation is done with gcc -std=c99 -Wall -pedantic -O3 main.c.
The flag -O1 do the job too.

It is useful to use restrict when, for example, you can tell the compiler that the loop condition remains unchanged, even if another pointer has been updated (necessarily, the loop condition couldn't change due to restrict).

And certainly so on.

user_187656270
Related