caching - Does software prefetching allocate a Line Fill Buffer (LFB)?

Question

I've realized that Little's Law limits how fast data can be transferred at a given latency and with a given level of concurrency. If you want to transfer something faster, you either need larger transfers, more transfers "in flight", or lower latency. For the case of reading from RAM, the concurrency is limited by the number of Line Fill Buffers.

A Line Fill Buffer is allocated when a load misses the L1 cache. Modern Intel chips (Nehalem, Sandy Bridge, Ivy Bridge, Haswell) have 10 LFB's per core, and thus are limited to 10 outstanding cache misses per core. If RAM latency is 70 ns (plausible), and each transfer is 128 Bytes (64B cache line plus its hardware prefetched twin), this limits bandwidth per core to: 10 * 128B / 75 ns = ~16 GB/s. Benchmarks such as single-threaded Stream confirm that this is reasonably accurate.

The obvious way to reduce the latency would be prefetching the desired data with x64 instructions such as PREFETCHT0, PREFETCHT1, PREFETCHT2, or PREFETCHNTA so that it doesn't have to be read from RAM. But I haven't been able to speed anything up by using them. The problem seems to be that the __mm_prefetch() instructions themselves consume LFB's, so they too are subject to the same limits. Hardware prefetches don't touch the LFB's, but also will not cross page boundaries.

But I can't find any of this documented anywhere. The closest I've found is 15 year old article that says mentions that prefetch on the Pentium III uses the Line Fill Buffers. I worry things may have changed since then. And since I think the LFB's are associated with the L1 cache, I'm not sure why a prefetch to L2 or L3 would consume them. And yet, the speeds I measure are consistent with this being the case.

So: Is there any way to initiate a fetch from a new location in memory without using up one of those 10 Line Fill Buffers, thus achieving higher bandwidth by skirting around Little's Law?

Answer 1

Based on my testing, all types of prefetch instructions consume line fill buffers on recent Intel mainstream CPUs.

In particular, I added some load & prefetch tests to uarch-bench, which use large-stride loads over buffers of various sizes. Here are typical results on my Skylake i7-6700HQ:

                     Benchmark   Cycles    Nanos
  16-KiB parallel        loads     0.50     0.19
  16-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     0.50     0.19
  16-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     1.15     0.44
  16-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     1.24     0.48
  16-KiB parallel prefetchtnta     0.50     0.19

  32-KiB parallel        loads     0.50     0.19
  32-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     0.50     0.19
  32-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     1.28     0.49
  32-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     1.28     0.49
  32-KiB parallel prefetchtnta     0.50     0.19

 128-KiB parallel        loads     1.00     0.39
 128-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     2.00     0.77
 128-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     1.31     0.50
 128-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     1.31     0.50
 128-KiB parallel prefetchtnta     4.10     1.58

 256-KiB parallel        loads     1.00     0.39
 256-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     2.00     0.77
 256-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     1.31     0.50
 256-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     1.31     0.50
 256-KiB parallel prefetchtnta     4.10     1.58

 512-KiB parallel        loads     4.09     1.58
 512-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     4.12     1.59
 512-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     3.80     1.46
 512-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     3.80     1.46
 512-KiB parallel prefetchtnta     4.10     1.58

2048-KiB parallel        loads     4.09     1.58
2048-KiB parallel   prefetcht0     4.12     1.59
2048-KiB parallel   prefetcht1     3.80     1.46
2048-KiB parallel   prefetcht2     3.80     1.46
2048-KiB parallel prefetchtnta    16.54     6.38

The key thing to note is that none of the prefetching techniques are much faster than loads at any buffer size. If any prefetch instruction didn't use the LFB, we would expect it to be very fast for a benchmark that fit into the level of cache it prefetches to. For example prefetcht1 brings lines into the L2, so for the 128-KiB test we might expect it to be faster than the load variant if it doesn't use LFBs.

More conclusively, we can examine the l1d_pend_miss.fb_full counter, whose description is:

Number of times a request needed a FB (Fill Buffer) entry but there was no entry available for it. A request includes cacheable/uncacheable demands that are load, store or SW prefetch instructions.

The description already indicates that SW prefetches need LFB entries and testing confirmed it: for all types of prefetch, this figure was very high for any test where concurrency was a limiting factor. For example, for the 512-KiB prefetcht1 test:

 Performance counter stats for './uarch-bench --test-name 512-KiB parallel   prefetcht1':

        38,345,242      branches                                                    
     1,074,657,384      cycles                                                      
       284,646,019      mem_inst_retired.all_loads                                   
     1,677,347,358      l1d_pend_miss.fb_full                  

The fb_full value is more than the number of cycles, meaning that the LFB was full almost all the time (it can be more than the number of cycles since up to two loads might want an LFB per cycle). This workload is pure prefetches, so there is nothing to fill up the LFBs except prefetch.

The results of this test also contract the claimed behavior in the section of the manual quoted by Leeor:

There are cases where a PREFETCH will not perform the data prefetch. These include:

• ...
• If the memory subsystem runs out of request buffers between the first-level cache and the second-level cache.

Clearly this is not the case here: the prefetch requests are not dropped when the LFBs fill up, but are stalled like a normal load until resources are available (this is not an unreasonable behavior: if you asked for a software prefetch, you probably want to get it, perhaps even if it means stalling).

We also note the following interesting behaviors:

• It seems like there is some small difference between prefetcht1 and prefetcht2 as they report different performance for the 16-KiB test (the difference varies, but is consistently different), but if you repeat the test you'll see that this is more likely just run-to-run variation as those particular values are somewhat unstable (most other values are very stable).
• For the L2 contained tests, we can sustain 1 load per cycle, but only one prefetcht0 prefetch. This is kind of weird because prefetcht0 should be very similar to a load (and it can issue 2 per cycle in the L1 cases).
• Even though the L2 has ~12 cycle latency, we are able to fully hide the latency LFB with only 10 LFBs: we get 1.0 cycles per load (limited by L2 throughput), not 12 / 10 == 1.2 cycles per load that we'd expect (best case) if LFB were the limiting fact (and very low values for fb_full confirms it). That's probably because the 12 cycle latency is the full load-to-use latency all the way to the execution core, which includes also several cycles of additional latency (e.g., L1 latency is 4-5 cycles), so the actual time spent in the LFB is less than 10 cycles.
• For the L3 tests, we see values of 3.8-4.1 cycles, very close to the expected 42/10 = 4.2 cycles based on the L3 load-to-use latency. So we are definitely limited by the 10 LFBs when we hit the L3. Here prefetcht1 and prefetcht2 are consistently 0.3 cycles faster than loads or prefetcht0. Given the 10 LFBs, that equals 3 cycles less occupancy, more or less explained by the prefetch stopping at L2 rather than going all the way to L1.
• prefetchtnta generally has much lower throughput than the others outside of L1. This probably means that prefetchtnta is actually doing what it is supposed to, and appears to bring lines into L1, not into L2, and only "weakly" into L3. So for the L2-contained tests it has concurrency-limited throughput as if it was hitting the L3 cache, and for the 2048-KiB case (1/3 of the L3 cache size) it has the performance of hitting main memory. prefetchnta limits L3 cache pollution (to something like only one way per set), so we seem to be getting evictions.

Could it be different?

Here's an older answer I wrote before testing, speculating on how it could work:

In general, I would expect any prefetch that results in data ending up in L1 to consume a line fill buffer, since I believe that the only path between L1 and the rest of the memory hierarchy is the LFB¹. So SW and HW prefetches that target the L1 probably both use LFBs.

However, this leaves open the probability that prefetches that target L2 or higher levels don't consume LFBs. For the case of hardware prefetch, I'm quite sure this is the case: you can find many reference that explain that HW prefetch is a mechanism to effectively get more memory parallelism beyond the maximum of 10 offered by the LFB. Furthermore, it doesn't seem like the L2 prefetchers could use the LFBs if they wanted: they live in/near the L2 and issue requests to higher levels, presumably using the superqueue and wouldn't need the LFBs.

That leaves software prefetch that target the L2 (or higher), such as prefetcht1 and prefetcht2². Unlike requests generated by the L2, these start in the core, so they need some way to get from the core out, and this could be via the LFB. From the Intel Optimization guide have the following interesting quote (emphasis mine):

Generally, software prefetching into the L2 will show more benefit than L1 prefetches. A software prefetch into L1 will consume critical hardware resources (fill buffer) until the cacheline fill completes. A software prefetch into L2 does not hold those resources, and it is less likely to have a negative perfor- mance impact. If you do use L1 software prefetches, it is best if the software prefetch is serviced by hits in the L2 cache, so the length of time that the hardware resources are held is minimized.

This would seem to indicate that software prefetches don't consume LFBs - but this quote only applies to the Knights Landing architecture, and I can't find similar language for any of the more mainstream architectures. It appears that the cache design of Knights Landing is significantly different (or the quote is wrong).

---

¹ In fact, I think that even non-temporal stores use the LFBs to get get out of the execution core - but their occupancy time is short because as soon as they get to the L2 they can enter the superqueue (without actually going into L2) and then free up their associated LFB.

² I think both of these target the L2 on recent Intel, but this is also unclear - perhaps the t2 hint actually targets LLC on some uarchs?