I was encouraged to find out recently that many operations on byte[] can now be vectorised by C2 starting in JDK13. These improvements come from a long line of contributions from Intel to improve C2’s use of AVX+ instructions, which have the potential of speeding up a lot of Java programs running on x86. Naturally, I am keen to find out how big an impact this can have in an ideal situation, but also compare the simple routines with older, harder to get right, alternatives using Unsafe .

This post focuses on right logical or unsigned shift ( >>> ), and right arithmetic shift ( >> ), the latter preserving sign. These operations aren’t necessarily very common in typical Java programs, but you might find the first operation in compression algorithms, and the second one in low precision signed arithmetic. It doesn’t take much imagination to see these operations being useful in string processing, and the unsigned shift is used for extracting nibbles from bytes in a vector bit count algorithm.

I ran these benchmarks on my laptop, which has a mobile Skylake chip with AVX2, and runs Ubuntu 18. This isn’t necessarily the best environment to run benchmarks, but is good enough to get a rough idea of the differences between releases, and gives access to diagnostic profilers.

I am comparing JDK11 with a JDK13 early access build downloaded here.

I looked at right logical shift first, which shifts all bits towards zero, and fills the most significant bits with zero.

@Benchmark public void shiftLogical ( ByteShiftState state , Blackhole bh ) { byte [] data = state . data ; byte [] target = state . target ; int shift = state . shift ; shiftLogical ( data , target , shift ); bh . consume ( target ); } void shiftLogical ( byte [] data , byte [] target , int shift ) { for ( int i = 0 ; i < data . length ; ++ i ) { target [ i ] = ( byte )(( data [ i ] & 0xFF ) >>> shift ); } }

If you’re wondering why each individual value produced within the iteration isn’t consumed by the blackhole (a benchmark smell) it’s because the point of the benchmark is to look at which loop optimisations occur. What’s that mask doing there? Without masking, this operation makes no sense whatsoever because, by specification, the byte is cast to an int (with sign extension!) prior to the shift, casting back to byte after the shift, which means that the result can become negative. It has always worked this way in Java, but this poses a question about backwards compatibility - is it always worth it? If any existing code contains unmasked shifts, is it really what the author intended? In any case, I really hope Intel didn’t waste time vectorising this hare-brained operation so will only look at the masked shift, for which benchmarked throughput increased significantly in JDK13.

Below is a bar chart comparing throughputs for shiftLogical with JDK11 and JDK13, along with the raw data. The choice of sizes aims to capture the effects of post-loops by choosing a multiple of the vector width, as well as offsets to either side. Higher is better.

JDK Benchmark Mode Threads Samples Score Score Error (99.9%) Unit Param: shift Param: size 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.191279 0.281667 ops/us 0 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 20.274241 0.482750 ops/us 0 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.666673 2.447062 ops/us 0 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.315800 0.289419 ops/us 0 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.706462 0.275737 ops/us 0 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.367262 0.183024 ops/us 0 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.301114 1.095593 ops/us 1 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.823625 0.463037 ops/us 1 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.456042 0.533061 ops/us 1 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.311597 0.117147 ops/us 1 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 11.106354 1.126994 ops/us 1 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.250077 0.242414 ops/us 1 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.609886 1.933992 ops/us 7 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.242200 0.667229 ops/us 7 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.111450 0.521140 ops/us 7 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.270754 0.563155 ops/us 7 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.891347 0.052645 ops/us 7 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.390528 0.225605 ops/us 7 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.491362 0.388118 ops/us 8 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.319509 0.176510 ops/us 8 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 22.932418 0.470137 ops/us 8 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.363212 0.024503 ops/us 8 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.879806 0.108640 ops/us 8 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.552629 0.497255 ops/us 8 1030 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.519700 0.107267 ops/us 0 250 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.464531 0.308817 ops/us 0 256 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.473977 0.122781 ops/us 0 262 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.963351 0.061825 ops/us 0 1018 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.965883 0.139291 ops/us 0 1024 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 2.008736 0.188627 ops/us 0 1030 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.525109 0.047179 ops/us 1 250 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.341725 0.183424 ops/us 1 256 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.506334 0.127763 ops/us 1 262 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.987959 0.009052 ops/us 1 1018 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.966036 0.095510 ops/us 1 1024 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.949898 0.074998 ops/us 1 1030 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.571452 0.133089 ops/us 7 250 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.422129 0.542094 ops/us 7 256 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.429609 0.154287 ops/us 7 262 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.965460 0.076335 ops/us 7 1018 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.969899 0.096004 ops/us 7 1024 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.983031 0.016293 ops/us 7 1030 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.531941 0.139384 ops/us 8 250 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.367593 0.215386 ops/us 8 256 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 7.456574 0.160798 ops/us 8 262 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 2.027801 0.066184 ops/us 8 1018 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 2.096556 0.005543 ops/us 8 1024 11 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 1.948405 0.007283 ops/us 8 1030

This is a huge improvement in a minor JDK release - perhaps releasing two versions of Java per year is a good thing after all? Here is the JDK13 vectorised loop body from perfasm (see vpsrlw ):

0.29% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365bf3: vmovdqu 0x10(%rdi,%r9,1),%ymm2 0.86% 0.58% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365bfa: vextracti128 $0x1,%ymm2,%xmm4 0.57% 0.29% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c00: vpmovsxbw %xmm4,%ymm4 0.19% 1.16% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c05: vpmovsxbw %xmm2,%ymm5 0.19% 0.19% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c0a: vpsrlw %xmm3,%ymm4,%ymm4 2.30% 2.42% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c0e: vpsrlw %xmm3,%ymm5,%ymm5 1.25% 1.16% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c12: vpand -0x7ab00da(%rip),%ymm4,%ymm4 # Stub::vector_short_to_byte_mask ││││ │ ; {external_word} 1.15% 1.55% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c1a: vpand -0x7ab00e2(%rip),%ymm5,%ymm5 # Stub::vector_short_to_byte_mask ││││ │ ; {external_word} 0.96% 0.87% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c22: vpackuswb %ymm4,%ymm5,%ymm5 1.34% 0.58% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c26: vpermq $0xd8,%ymm5,%ymm5 3.35% 4.95% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c2c: vmovdqu %ymm5,0x10(%r11,%r9,1) 2.20% 1.75% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c33: vmovdqu 0x30(%rdi,%r9,1),%ymm2 0.10% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c3a: vextracti128 $0x1,%ymm2,%xmm4 0.96% 0.58% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c40: vpmovsxbw %xmm4,%ymm4 ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c45: vpmovsxbw %xmm2,%ymm5 1.53% 1.55% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c4a: vpsrlw %xmm3,%ymm4,%ymm4 1.05% 1.16% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c4e: vpsrlw %xmm3,%ymm5,%ymm5 1.72% 1.45% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c52: vpand -0x7ab011a(%rip),%ymm4,%ymm4 # Stub::vector_short_to_byte_mask ││││ │ ; {external_word} 0.10% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c5a: vpand -0x7ab0122(%rip),%ymm5,%ymm5 # Stub::vector_short_to_byte_mask ││││ │ ; {external_word} 1.05% 0.78% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c62: vpackuswb %ymm4,%ymm5,%ymm5 0.10% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c66: vpermq $0xd8,%ymm5,%ymm5 4.02% 3.69% ││││ │ 0x00007f0090365c6c: vmovdqu %ymm5,0x30(%r11,%r9,1)

And an extract from the much slower JDK11 scalar loop (see shr ):

1.66% ││ 0x00007f30c4758943: movzbl 0x10(%r8,%rbp,1),%r11d 0.09% 0.09% ││ 0x00007f30c4758949: shr %cl,%r11d 1.29% 2.34% ││ 0x00007f30c475894c: mov %r11b,0x10(%rdi,%rbp,1) 0.18% ││ 0x00007f30c4758951: movzbl 0x11(%r8,%rbp,1),%r11d 0.09% ││ 0x00007f30c4758957: shr %cl,%r11d 2.68% ││ 0x00007f30c475895a: mov %r11b,0x11(%rdi,%rbp,1)

If you have ever needed to do something like this before and needed reasonable efficiency, you may have gone for a SIMD Within A Register (SWAR) approach using Unsafe . In lower level languages like C, it’s possible to be ambivalent between integral types of different widths by casting, without any performance overhead. In Java, it’s very costly to assemble a long from eight byte s, but it’s possible to take a similar approach to C programmers with Unsafe . The code below does the same thing as the shiftLogical , but works on eight bytes at a time. First the shift is applied, then a mask is applied to remove the flow of bits into the high end of each byte . Since only nine shifts are possible (including zero and eight) the masks can be stored in a lookup table, written in binary rather than hex because it looks nice.

public static final long [] MASKS = new long []{ 0b1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 L , 0b0111111101111111011111110111111101111111011111110111111101111111 L , 0b0011111100111111001111110011111100111111001111110011111100111111 L , 0b0001111100011111000111110001111100011111000111110001111100011111 L , 0b0000111100001111000011110000111100001111000011110000111100001111 L , 0b0000011100000111000001110000011100000111000001110000011100000111 L , 0b0000001100000011000000110000001100000011000000110000001100000011 L , 0b0000000100000001000000010000000100000001000000010000000100000001 L , 0b0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 L };

Here is the SWAR implementation using Unsafe :

@Benchmark public void shiftLogicalUnsafe ( ByteShiftState state , Blackhole bh ) { byte [] data = state . data ; byte [] target = state . target ; int shift = state . shift ; shiftLogicalUnsafe ( data , target , shift ); bh . consume ( target ); } void shiftLogicalUnsafe ( byte [] data , byte [] target , int shift ) { long mask = MASKS [ shift ]; int i = 0 ; for (; i + 7 < data . length ; i += 8 ) { long word = UNSAFE . getLong ( data , BYTE_ARRAY_OFFSET + i ); word >>>= shift ; word &= mask ; UNSAFE . putLong ( target , BYTE_ARRAY_OFFSET + i , word ); } for (; i < data . length ; ++ i ) { target [ i ] = ( byte )(( data [ i ] & 0xFF ) >>> shift ); } }

This implementation does very little work, and is far superior to the straightforward approach in JDK11. With JDK13, the straightforward code is so highly optimised that the gap is reduced to virtually nothing, and is faster for longer arrays, but the Unsafe version still wins for shorter arrays in this benchmark.

The chart below shows the benchmark results, where the red series is the measured throughput for each JDK version and array size (the higher the better), and the blue series is the advantage you would get from using Unsafe in each case. The raw data is below.

JDK Benchmark Mode Threads Samples Score Score Error (99.9%) Unit Param: shift Param: size 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.191279 0.281667 ops/us 0 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 20.274241 0.482750 ops/us 0 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.666673 2.447062 ops/us 0 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.315800 0.289419 ops/us 0 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.706462 0.275737 ops/us 0 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.367262 0.183024 ops/us 0 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.301114 1.095593 ops/us 1 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.823625 0.463037 ops/us 1 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.456042 0.533061 ops/us 1 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.311597 0.117147 ops/us 1 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 11.106354 1.126994 ops/us 1 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.250077 0.242414 ops/us 1 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.609886 1.933992 ops/us 7 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.242200 0.667229 ops/us 7 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 23.111450 0.521140 ops/us 7 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.270754 0.563155 ops/us 7 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.891347 0.052645 ops/us 7 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.390528 0.225605 ops/us 7 1030 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 18.491362 0.388118 ops/us 8 250 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 25.319509 0.176510 ops/us 8 256 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 22.932418 0.470137 ops/us 8 262 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 9.363212 0.024503 ops/us 8 1018 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.879806 0.108640 ops/us 8 1024 13 shiftLogical thrpt 1 5 10.552629 0.497255 ops/us 8 1030 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 22.077246 1.081037 ops/us 0 250 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 23.892896 0.443875 ops/us 0 256 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 20.037400 0.197346 ops/us 0 262 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.773376 0.094510 ops/us 0 1018 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 6.165100 0.164495 ops/us 0 1024 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.635749 0.096095 ops/us 0 1030 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 22.803000 2.328542 ops/us 1 250 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 24.306697 0.415944 ops/us 1 256 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 19.932682 0.397168 ops/us 1 262 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.783751 0.070052 ops/us 1 1018 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 6.176860 0.087320 ops/us 1 1024 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.672405 0.309824 ops/us 1 1030 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 22.398695 6.500715 ops/us 7 250 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 24.016902 1.427922 ops/us 7 256 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 19.839427 0.253299 ops/us 7 262 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.651263 0.285734 ops/us 7 1018 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 6.021468 0.372450 ops/us 7 1024 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.660459 0.332135 ops/us 7 1030 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 21.743651 0.919695 ops/us 8 250 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 24.134360 0.649705 ops/us 8 256 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 19.844468 0.083193 ops/us 8 262 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.760863 0.832170 ops/us 8 1018 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 6.147889 0.058199 ops/us 8 1024 13 shiftLogicalUnsafe thrpt 1 5 5.615899 0.098102 ops/us 8 1030

This might turn out differently if run on a better machine for benchmarking, won’t be true for AVX-512 chips, and is betting against any benefits from autovectorisation.

What about arithmetic shifts? These preserve the sign, filling with one whenever the most signifcant bit is set, and zero otherwise, and make more sense applied to byte s without masking than unsigned shifts do. This straightforward code, now targeted for autovectorisation in JDK13, is almost identical:

@Benchmark public void shiftArithmetic ( ByteShiftState state , Blackhole bh ) { byte [] data = state . data ; byte [] target = state . target ; int shift = state . shift ; shiftArithmetic ( data , target , shift ); bh . consume ( target ); } void shiftArithmetic ( byte [] data , byte [] target , int shift ) { for ( int i = 0 ; i < data . length ; ++ i ) { target [ i ] = ( byte )( data [ i ] >> shift ); } }

It’s very difficult to emulate this 2’s complement operation with SWAR, but it’s possible to do something similar, especially if one considers 0x80 and 0x00 equivalent (for instance, for arithmetic). First, it is necessary to capture the sign bits (every eighth bit) so they can be preserved. Then the sign bits must be switched off to stop them from shifting right. Next, the shift, followed by masking out of any bits shifted into the high bits of each byte. Finally, the sign bits are reinstated. This doesn’t actually give the correct bitwise result if a byte has been shifted to zero, but is OK for signed arithmetic.

@Benchmark public void shiftArithmeticUnsafe ( ByteShiftState state , Blackhole bh ) { byte [] data = state . data ; byte [] target = state . target ; int shift = state . shift ; shiftArithmeticUnsafe ( data , target , shift ); bh . consume ( target ); } void shiftArithmeticUnsafe ( byte [] data , byte [] target , int shift ) { long mask = MASKS [ shift ]; int i = 0 ; for (; i + 7 < data . length ; i += 8 ) { long word = UNSAFE . getLong ( data , BYTE_ARRAY_OFFSET + i ); long signs = word & SIGN_BITS ; word &= ~ SIGN_BITS ; word >>>= shift ; word &= mask ; word |= signs ; UNSAFE . putLong ( target , BYTE_ARRAY_OFFSET + i , word ); } for (; i < data . length ; ++ i ) { target [ i ] = ( byte )( data [ i ] >> shift ); } }

This is a lot more work, which takes its toll on throughput, but is definitely worthwhile in JDK11. Fortunately, there’s no reason to even try (not that I would have, prior to writing this post) because the simple code is faster in JDK13!

Again, the red series below is the measured throughput for each JDK version and array size (the higher the better), and the blue series is the advantage you would get from using Unsafe in each case, with raw data beneath the chart.

Here is a bar chart comparing shiftArithmetic for JDK11 vs JDK13 for the same range of sizes as before.

JDK Benchmark Mode Threads Samples Score Score Error (99.9%) Unit Param: shift Param: size 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.557823 0.065235 ops/us 0 250 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.256637 0.981208 ops/us 0 256 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.476520 0.035784 ops/us 0 262 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.976303 0.026156 ops/us 0 1018 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.958443 0.023188 ops/us 0 1024 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.966061 0.026168 ops/us 0 1030 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.543830 0.109140 ops/us 1 250 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.366226 0.046778 ops/us 1 256 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.691954 0.380654 ops/us 1 262 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.970481 0.042620 ops/us 1 1018 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 2.039890 0.120633 ops/us 1 1024 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.965348 0.010959 ops/us 1 1030 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.525700 0.216891 ops/us 7 250 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.347915 0.071271 ops/us 7 256 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.488201 0.037903 ops/us 7 262 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 2.009900 0.032639 ops/us 7 1018 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.958373 0.044689 ops/us 7 1024 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 2.044459 0.216456 ops/us 7 1030 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.536948 0.124611 ops/us 8 250 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.336482 0.059378 ops/us 8 256 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 7.470758 0.151656 ops/us 8 262 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.972328 0.026727 ops/us 8 1018 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 2.027925 0.170155 ops/us 8 1024 11 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 1.967295 0.025890 ops/us 8 1030 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 18.247787 0.177523 ops/us 0 250 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 25.189287 0.083362 ops/us 0 256 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 23.878128 1.486587 ops/us 0 262 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 9.286776 0.169307 ops/us 0 1018 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.914047 0.060050 ops/us 0 1024 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.564764 0.303730 ops/us 0 1030 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 18.126012 0.497112 ops/us 1 250 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 25.092744 0.685261 ops/us 1 256 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 22.999389 0.303475 ops/us 1 262 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 9.308794 0.242943 ops/us 1 1018 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.889987 0.201891 ops/us 1 1024 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.354830 0.204797 ops/us 1 1030 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 18.104929 0.833391 ops/us 7 250 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 25.525225 1.058005 ops/us 7 256 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 22.890170 0.457192 ops/us 7 262 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 9.324288 0.196076 ops/us 7 1018 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.891533 0.082364 ops/us 7 1024 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.571187 0.222624 ops/us 7 1030 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 18.175808 0.452371 ops/us 8 250 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 25.245452 0.396196 ops/us 8 256 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 23.109097 0.061468 ops/us 8 262 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 9.284711 0.256823 ops/us 8 1018 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.877813 0.105014 ops/us 8 1024 13 shiftArithmetic thrpt 1 5 10.358305 0.292978 ops/us 8 1030 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 15.628798 0.415542 ops/us 0 250 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 17.272456 0.631146 ops/us 0 256 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 14.438353 0.315382 ops/us 0 262 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.415769 0.079505 ops/us 0 1018 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.461373 0.080921 ops/us 0 1024 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.132034 0.250692 ops/us 0 1030 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 16.992797 0.253043 ops/us 1 250 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 17.342952 0.238273 ops/us 1 256 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 14.627287 0.552194 ops/us 1 262 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.517435 0.151964 ops/us 1 1018 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.476616 0.054379 ops/us 1 1024 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.153728 0.068590 ops/us 1 1030 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 16.935670 0.515578 ops/us 7 250 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 17.668635 0.343247 ops/us 7 256 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 14.408205 0.368361 ops/us 7 262 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.436654 0.020834 ops/us 7 1018 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.476475 0.039526 ops/us 7 1024 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.172609 0.061469 ops/us 7 1030 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 16.987466 0.202447 ops/us 8 250 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 17.403420 0.208813 ops/us 8 256 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 14.464275 0.160839 ops/us 8 262 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.443708 0.070989 ops/us 8 1018 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.720626 0.171716 ops/us 8 1024 13 shiftArithmeticUnsafe thrpt 1 5 4.253040 0.088258 ops/us 8 1030

Still, SWAR is an under-utilised technique in Java, and I wish it was possible without using Unsafe , and without forsaking various compiler optimisations. When I have experimented with the Vector API in Project Panama, the feature I have enjoyed the most is the ability to easily convert between different width integral types. This is particularly relevant to logical 8-bit right shifts, because they don’t exist in AVX2, and need to be composed from several operations as can be seen in the perfasm output earlier in the post. AVX2 will become less and less relevant over time, and having access to it on the computer where I play around with this stuff doesn’t make it any more important, but AVX-512 isn’t that widespread yet, and has no support from AMD. When I last played with the Vector API, I found that having the facility to do SWAR was beneficial for performance when doing a right logical shift in a vector bit count algorithm devised by Wojciech Mula.

Reinterpretation is expressed as a first class concept in the latest version of the API, where the SWAR trick can be seen in shiftRightInt , but not in the more straightforward shiftRightByte . Incidentally, shiftRightByte compiles to similar code to the autovectorised unsigned shift in JDK13.

Of course, it comes at the cost of a loss of generality, but there was a 10x performance difference back in January 2019 between operating on 32 byte s and the faster operation on eight int s.

@Benchmark public int shiftRightByte () { return LongVector . fromArray ( L256 , data , 0 ) . reinterpretAsBytes () . lanewise ( LSHR , 4 ) . and (( byte ) 0x0F ) . lane ( 0 ); } @Benchmark public int shiftRightInt () { return LongVector . fromArray ( L256 , data , 0 ) . reinterpretAsInts () . lanewise ( LSHR , 4 ) . and ( 0x0F0F0F0F ) . reinterpretAsBytes () . lane ( 0 ); }

It would be great if there were a general purpose way to do it prior to the potential availability of the Vector API.