<div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Jul 7, 2015 at 3:35 PM, Xinliang David Li <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davidxl@google.com" target="_blank">davidxl@google.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">The already rotated inner loop needs to be treated as a single node<br>
when participating in parent loop's rotation, otherwise it may end up<br>
with wasting compile time and a suboptimal solution.<br>
<br>
Consider the loop nest:<br>
<br>
Entry<br>
do { // outer loop<br>
<br>
B0<br>
if (...) {<br>
do { // inner loop<br>
<span class=""> B1<br>
if (..) {<br>
B2<br>
} else {<br>
B3<br>
}<br>
B4<br>
</span> } while (..); // inner loop<br>
}<br>
else {<br>
B6<br>
}<br>
B5;<br>
} while (...); // outer loop<br>
<br>
B7<br>
<br>
<br>
The optimal inner loop layout is B3 B4 B1 B2;<br>
The original outloop layout is : B0 B6 (B3 B4 B1 B2) B5<br>
<br>
The optimal rotation of the outer loop should produce: (B3 B4 B1<br>
B2) B5 B0 B6, with the final layout be:<br>
<br>
Entry ((B3 B4 B1 B2) B5 B0 B6) B7<br>
<br>
However the current algorithm may produce Entry (B5 B0 B6 (B3 B4 B1<br>
B2)) B7 because it will have the same cost as the the optimal one.<br>
The problem is that cost analysis needs to consider the edge from<br>
inside of the inner loop to the top of the outer loop chain -- in the<br>
bad solution, there is an edge from B4 to B5 whose cost should be<br>
considered as part-3 cost.<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Why the layout Entry (B5 B0 B6 (B3 B4 B1B2)) B7 is worse than Entry ((B3 B4 B1 B2) B5 B0 B6) B7? In both cases, the inner loop chain is not split and is treated as a single node. </div><div><br></div><div>The edge from B4 to B5 is relatively cold comparing to edges in the inner loop. It won't be a fall-through as B4 is not the tail of the inner loop chain.</div><div><br></div><div><br></div><div>Cong</div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left-width:1px;border-left-color:rgb(204,204,204);border-left-style:solid;padding-left:1ex">
<span class=""><font color="#888888"><br>
David<br>
</font></span><div class=""><div class="h5"><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 10:22 AM, Cong Hou <<a href="mailto:congh@google.com">congh@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
> When the outer loop is rotated, the inner loop is already linked to other<br>
> CFG nodes in the outer loop. So I think we won't have to adjust the current<br>
> algorithm as we have already considered all costs the rotation may bring or<br>
> reduce.<br>
><br>
><br>
> thanks,<br>
> Cong<br>
><br>
> On Mon, Jul 6, 2015 at 9:57 AM, Xinliang David Li <<a href="mailto:xinliangli@gmail.com">xinliangli@gmail.com</a>><br>
> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> Does the cost analysis work well for loop nest? After the inner loop chain<br>
>> is formed and rotated, it will be later be merged into the parent loop<br>
>> chain. The cost analysis for the parent loop may need to be adjusted to<br>
>> consider the inner loops that are already rotated.<br>
>><br>
>> David<br>
>><br>
>> On Tue, Jun 30, 2015 at 2:29 PM, Cong Hou <<a href="mailto:congh@google.com">congh@google.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>>><br>
>>> Update the patch by adding two opt parameters that define the cost of<br>
>>> misfetch and jump instruction, and use them when rotating loops.<br>
>>><br>
>>><br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_D10717&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=mQ4LZ2PUj9hpadE3cDHZnIdEwhEBrbAstXeMaFoB9tg&m=3MA0qul775dwG7DtsijEIVEdfxMpJli5y66JZS-WnQI&s=Oy5aDdL1nqVa1iezxTGZihVzdXWoI-YqiMqOylYQNTo&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://reviews.llvm.org/D10717</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> Files:<br>
>>> lib/CodeGen/MachineBlockPlacement.cpp<br>
>>> test/CodeGen/X86/code_placement_loop_rotation.ll<br>
>>><br>
>>> EMAIL PREFERENCES<br>
>>> <a href="https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__reviews.llvm.org_settings_panel_emailpreferences_&d=AwMFaQ&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=mQ4LZ2PUj9hpadE3cDHZnIdEwhEBrbAstXeMaFoB9tg&m=3MA0qul775dwG7DtsijEIVEdfxMpJli5y66JZS-WnQI&s=AZtsZsljTkMsPiUg4bjHuDjFgjQmSnSwChSBLH28UI0&e=" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://reviews.llvm.org/settings/panel/emailpreferences/</a><br>
>>><br>
>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>> llvm-commits mailing list<br>
>>> <a href="mailto:llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu">llvm-commits@cs.uiuc.edu</a><br>
>>> <a href="http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits</a><br>
>>><br>
>><br>
><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>