[cfe-dev] [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"

Alexey Bataev via cfe-dev cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Tue Jan 22 11:10:56 PST 2019

But we need to know the execution mode, SPMD or "guarded"

Best regards,
Alexey Bataev

22.01.2019 13:54, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
> We could still do that in clang, couldn't we?
> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> *From:* Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com>
> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:52:42 PM
> *To:* Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
> *Cc:* openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey
> Bataev; Arpith Chacko Jacob
> *Subject:* Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
> The globalization for the local variables, for example. It must be
> implemented in the compiler to get the good performance, not in the
> runtime.
> -------------
> Best regards,
> Alexey Bataev
> 22.01.2019 13:43, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
>> Could you elaborate on what you refer to wrt data sharing. What do we
>> currently do in the clang code generation that we could not
>> effectively implement in the runtime, potentially with support of an
>> llvm pass.
>> Thanks,
>>   James
>> Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36>
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>> *From:* Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com>
>> *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:34:01 PM
>> *To:* Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> *Cc:* openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey
>> Bataev; Arpith Chacko Jacob
>> *Subject:* Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
>> -------------
>> Best regards,
>> Alexey Bataev
>> 22.01.2019 13:17, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
>>> Where we are
>>> ------------
>>> Currently, when we generate OpenMP target offloading code for GPUs, we
>>> use sufficient syntactic criteria to decide between two execution modes:
>>>   1)      SPMD -- All target threads (in an OpenMP team) run all the code.
>>>   2) "Guarded" -- The master thread (of an OpenMP team) runs the user
>>>                   code. If an OpenMP distribute region is encountered, thus
>>>                   if all threads (in the OpenMP team) are supposed to
>>>                   execute the region, the master wakes up the idling
>>>                   worker threads and points them to the correct piece of
>>>                   code for distributed execution.
>>> For a variety of reasons we (generally) prefer the first execution mode.
>>> However, depending on the code, that might not be valid, or we might
>>> just not know if it is in the Clang code generation phase.
>>> The implementation of the "guarded" execution mode follows roughly the
>>> state machine description in [1], though the implementation is different
>>> (more general) nowadays.
>>> What we want
>>> ------------
>>> Increase the amount of code executed in SPMD mode and the use of
>>> lightweight "guarding" schemes where appropriate.
>>> How we get (could) there
>>> ------------------------
>>> We propose the following two modifications in order:
>>>   1) Move the state machine logic into the OpenMP runtime library. That
>>>      means in SPMD mode all device threads will start the execution of
>>>      the user code, thus emerge from the runtime, while in guarded mode
>>>      only the master will escape the runtime and the other threads will
>>>      idle in their state machine code that is now just "hidden".
>>>      Why:
>>>      - The state machine code cannot be (reasonably) optimized anyway,
>>>        moving it into the library shouldn't hurt runtime but might even
>>>        improve compile time a little bit.
>>>      - The change should also simplify the Clang code generation as we
>>>        would generate structurally the same code for both execution modes
>>>        but only the runtime library calls, or their arguments, would
>>>        differ between them.
>>>      - The reason we should not "just start in SPMD mode" and "repair"
>>>        it later is simple, this way we always have semantically correct
>>>        and executable code.
>>>      - Finally, and most importantly, there is now only little
>>>        difference (see above) between the two modes in the code
>>>        generated by clang. If we later analyze the code trying to decide
>>>        if we can use SPMD mode instead of guarded mode the analysis and
>>>        transformation becomes much simpler.
>> The last item is wrong, unfortunately. A lot of things in the codegen
>> depend on the execution mode, e.g. correct support of the
>> data-sharing. Of course, we can try to generalize the codegen and
>> rely completely on the runtime, but the performance is going to be
>> very poor.
>> We still need static analysis in the compiler. I agree, that it is
>> better to move this analysis to the backend, at least after the
>> inlining, but at the moment it is not possible. We need the support
>> for the late outlining, which will allow to implement better
>> detection of the SPMD constructs + improve performance.
>>>  2) Implement a middle-end LLVM-IR pass that detects the guarded mode,
>>>     e.g., through the runtime library calls used, and that tries to
>>>     convert it into the SPMD mode potentially by introducing lightweight
>>>     guards in the process.
>>>     Why:
>>>     - After the inliner, and the canonicalizations, we have a clearer
>>>       picture of the code that is actually executed in the target
>>>       region and all the side effects it contains. Thus, we can make an
>>>       educated decision on the required amount of guards that prevent
>>>       unwanted side effects from happening after a move to SPMD mode.
>>>     - At this point we can more easily introduce different schemes to
>>>       avoid side effects by threads that were not supposed to run. We
>>>       can decide if a state machine is needed, conditionals should be
>>>       employed, masked instructions are appropriate, or "dummy" local
>>>       storage can be used to hide the side effect from the outside
>>>       world.
>>> None of this was implemented yet but we plan to start in the immediate
>>> future. Any comments, ideas, criticism is welcome!
>>> Cheers,
>>>   Johannes
>>> P.S. [2-4] Provide further information on implementation and features.
>>> [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297
>>> [2] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161
>>> [3] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870
>>> [4] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190122/b727ad6a/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/cfe-dev/attachments/20190122/b727ad6a/attachment.sig>

More information about the cfe-dev mailing list