mountain-sort VS highway

It depends on the size of the structs. For struct pointers you're likely better off sorting keys and pointers simultaneously. It doesn't matter much until you get to large sizes (millions), but sorting indices and then selecting with them is random access. If the original ordering is messy, selecting can be slower than the sorting step. For structs a few words long, the unit you're moving is a larger portion of a cache line, and I'd expect the data movement to drown out any SIMD advantage. A radix sort might be all right because it moves less, but I'd probably go with sorting indices as the first thing to try unless I knew the arrays were huge. For very large structs there's an interesting effort called mountain sort[0], "probably the best sorting algorithm if you need to sort actual mountains by height". Given that it minimizes number of moves it's ignoring cache entirely. I haven't benchmarked so I can't say much about how practical it is.

[0] https://github.com/Morwenn/mountain-sort

The bf16 dot instruction replaces 6 instructions: https://github.com/google/highway/blob/master/hwy/ops/x86_12...

[0] for those interested in Highway.

It's also mentioned in [1], which starts off

> Today we're sharing open source code that can sort arrays of numbers about ten times as fast as the C++ std::sort, and outperforms state of the art architecture-specific algorithms, while being portable across all modern CPU architectures. Below we discuss how we achieved this.

[0] https://github.com/google/highway

[1] https://opensource.googleblog.com/2022/06/Vectorized%20and%2..., which has an associated paper at https://arxiv.org/pdf/2205.05982.pdf.

Thanks so much!

Everyone working on this self-selected into contributing, so I think of it less as my team than ... a team?

Specifically want to call out: Jan Wassenberg (author of https://github.com/google/highway) and I started gemma.cpp as a small project just a few months ago + Phil Culliton, Dan Zheng, and Paul Chang + of course the GDM Gemma team.

C++ users can enjoy Highway [1].

[1] https://github.com/google/highway/

At that point it is better to have some kind of DSL that should not be in the main language, because it would target a much lower level than a typical program. The best effort I've seen in this scene was Google's Highway [1] (not to be confused with HighwayHash) and I even once attempted to recreate it in Rust, but it is still distanced from my ideal.

[1] https://github.com/google/highway

Interesting, thanks for sharing :)

At the time we open-sourced Highway, the standardization process had already started and there were some discussions.

I'm curious why stdlib is the only path you see to default? Compare the activity level of https://github.com/VcDevel/std-simd vs https://github.com/google/highway. As to open-source usage, after years of std::experimental, I see <200 search hits [1], vs >400 for Highway [2], even after excluding several library users.

But that aside, I'm not convinced standardization is the best path for a SIMD library. We and external users extend Highway on a weekly basis as new use cases arise. What if we deferred those changes to 3-monthly meetings, or had to wait for one meeting per WD, CD, (FCD), DIS, (FDIS) stage before it's standardized? Standardization seems more useful for rarely-changing things.

1: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+std::experim...

2: https://sourcegraph.com/search?q=context:global+HWY_NAMESPAC...

Thanks for the link. We were previously using GFNI for bit reversal and 8-bit shifts, and I just extended that to our 8-bit BroadcastSignBit (https://github.com/google/highway/pull/1784).

You could study Google's Highway library [1].

[1] https://github.com/google/highway

Runtime feature detection need not be rare nor hard, it's a few dozen lines of boilerplate. You can even write your code just once: see https://github.com/google/highway#examples.