<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8">
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<pre class="moz-signature" cols="72">-------------
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">22.01.2019 13:17, Doerfert, Johannes
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">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 , 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".
- 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.</pre>
<p>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
<p>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.<br>
<pre class="moz-quote-pre" wrap="">
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.
- 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
None of this was implemented yet but we plan to start in the immediate
future. Any comments, ideas, criticism is welcome!
P.S. [2-4] Provide further information on implementation and features.
 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297">https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297</a>
 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161">https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161</a>
 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870">https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870</a>
 <a class="moz-txt-link-freetext" href="https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189">https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189</a>