How to enable alignment exceptions for my process on x64?
Applications running on x64 have access to a flag register (sometimes referred to as EFLAGS). Bit 18 in this register allows applications to get exceptions when alignment errors occur. So in theory, all a program has to do to enable exceptions for alignment errors is modify the flags register.
However
In order for that to actually work, the operating system kernel must set cr0's bit 18 to allow it. And the Windows operating system doesn't do that. Why not? Who knows?
Applications can not set values in the control register. Only the kernel can do this. Device drivers run inside the kernel, so they can set this too.
It is possible to muck about and try to get this to work by creating a device driver, see:
and the comments that follow. Note that this post is over a decade old, so some of the links are dead.
You might also find this comment (and some of the other answers in this question) to be useful:
Larry Osterman - 07-28-2004 2:22 AM
We actually built a version of NT with alignment exceptions turned on for x86 (you can do that as Skywing mentioned).
We quickly turned it off, because of the number of apps that broke :)
As an alternative to AC for finding slowdowns due to unaligned accesses, you can use hardware performance counter events on Intel CPUs for mem_inst_retired.split_loads and mem_inst_retired.split_stores to find loads/stores that split across a cache-line boundary.
perf record -c 10 -e mem_inst_retired.split_stores,mem_inst_retired.split_loads ./a.out should be useful on Linux. -c 10 records a sample every 10 HW events. If your program does a lot of unaligned accesses and you only want to find the real hotspots, leave it at the default. But -c 10 can get useful data even on a tiny binary that calls printf once. Other perf options like -g to record parent functions on each sample work as usual, and could be useful.
On Windows, use whatever tool you prefer for looking at perf counters. VTune is popular.
Modern Intel CPUs (P6 family and newer) have no penalty for misalignment within a cache line. https://agner.org/optimize/. In fact, such loads/stores are even guaranteed to be atomic (up to 8 bytes), on Intel CPUs. So AC is stricter than necessary, but it will help find potentially-risky accesses that could be page-splits or cache-line splits with differently-aligned data.
AMD CPUs may have penalties for crossing a 16-byte boundary within a 64-byte cache line. I'm not familiar with what hardware counters are available there. Beware that profiling on Intel HW won't necessarily find slowdowns that occur on AMD CPUs, if the offending access never crosses a cache line boundary.
See How can I accurately benchmark unaligned access speed on x86_64? for some details on the penalties, including my testing on 4k-split latency and throughput on Skylake.
See also http://blog.stuffedcow.net/2014/01/x86-memory-disambiguation/ for possible penalties to store-forwarding efficiency for misaligned loads/stores on Intel/AMD.
Running normal binaries with AC set is not always practical. Compiler-generated code might choose to use an unaligned 8-byte load or store to copy multiple struct members, or to store some literal data.
gcc -O3 -mtune=generic (i.e. the default with optimization enabled) assumes that cache-line splits are cheap enough to be worth the risk of using unaligned accesses instead of multiple narrow accesses like the source does. Page-splits got much cheaper in Skylake, down from ~100 to 150 cycles in Haswell to ~10 cycles in Skylake (about the same penalty as CL splits), because apparently Intel found they were less rare than they previously thought.
Many optimized library functions (like memcpy) use unaligned integer accesses. e.g. glibc's memcpy, for a 6-byte copy, would do 2 overlapping 4-byte loads from the start/end of the buffer, then 2 overlapping stores. (It doesn't have a special case for exactly 6 bytes to do a dword + word, just increasing powers of 2). This comment in the source explains its strategies.
So even if your OS would let you enable AC, you might need a special version of libraries to not trigger AC all over the place for stuff like small memcpy.
SIMD
Alignment when looping sequentially over an array really matters for AVX512, where a vector is the same width as a cache line. If your pointers are misaligned, every access is a cache-line split, not just every other with AVX2. Aligned is always better, but for many algorithms with a decent amount of computation mixed with memory access, it only makes a significant difference with AVX512.
(So with AVX1/2, it's often good to just use unaligned loads, instead of always doing extra work to check alignment and go scalar until an alignment boundary. Especially if your data is usually aligned but you want the function to still work marginally slower in case it isn't.)
Scattered misaligned accesses cross a cache line boundary essentially have twice the cache footprint from touching both lines, if the lines aren't otherwise touched.
Checking for 16, 32 or 64 byte alignment with SIMD is simple in asm: just use [v]movdqa alignment-required loads/stores, or legacy-SSE memory source operands for instructions like paddb xmm0, [rdi]. Instead of vmovdqu or VEX-coded memory source operands like vpaddb xmm0, xmm1, [rdi] which let hardware handle the case of misalignment if/when it occurs.
But in C with intrinsics, some compilers (MSVC and ICC) compile alignment-required intrinsics like _mm_load_si128 into [v]movdqu, never using [v]movdqa, so that's annoying if you actually wanted to use alignment-required loads.
Of course, _mm256_load_si256 or 128 can fold into an AVX memory source operand for vpaddb ymm0, ymm1, [rdi] with any compiler including GCC/clang, same for 128-bit any time AVX and optimization are enabled. But store intrinsics that don't get optimized away entirely do get done with vmovdqa / vmovaps, so at least you can verify store alignment.
To verify load alignment with AVX, you can disable optimization so you'll get separate load / spill into __m256i temporary / reload.
This works in 64-bit Intel CPU. May fail in some AMD
pushfqbts qword ptr [rsp], 12h ; set AC bit of rflagspopfqIt will not work right away in 32-bit CPUs, these will require first a kernel driver to change the AM bit of CR0 and then
pushfdbts dword ptr [esp], 12hpopfd