[PATCH] D57779: [SLP] Add support for throttling.

[Dinar Temirbulatov via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

dtemirbulatov marked an inline comment as done.
dtemirbulatov added inline comments.


================
Comment at: lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp:645
+  /// Save seed instructions to try partially vectorize later.
+  void recordSeeds(ArrayRef<Value *> Ops);
+
----------------
dtemirbulatov wrote:
> vporpo wrote:
> > dtemirbulatov wrote:
> > > vporpo wrote:
> > > > Why are we collecting the seeds specifically for partial vectorization? Is this really needed? Why don't you just call tryPartialVectorization(Seeds) within vectorizeStorChain() etc. ?
> > > Ok, Imagine that we could do partial vectorization with vector size 4 for 30% of the tree, but for the same tree, we could have full vectorization with vector size 2. I think that it would be serious regression if we could do it with just 30%. Or for example, for the same tree, we could do reduction later for the whole tree.
> > Yes, but this problem is not specific to throttling. As it is now, SLP will greedily accept 4-wide vectorization if profitable, without comparing it against 2x 2-wide. I think this problem should be addressed separately.
> Let's change that behavior separately or this change grows even further. BTW, I measured the SLP run-time change on SPEC2k6 compilation and it is about ~10% on average.
and It is not clear to me how to compare the benefit of one vectorization against another, the same example we achieved 50% of tree 4 wide vectorization with still profitable cost, let's say,  -1. But, for the same tree, we have 90% of vectorization with vector size 2 with for example the same cost. We could not say let's pick one with the highest score, we are interesting to vectorize while it is profitable.


CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D57779/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D57779