<div dir="ltr">Hi Andrea, sorry I missed your email.<div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 19, 2018 at 6:23 PM, Andrea Di Biagio <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:andrea.dibiagio@gmail.com" target="_blank">andrea.dibiagio@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Hi Clement,<br><br>Sorry for the late reply. I have been off sick for a while and I've only just seen your commit now I'm back to work.<br><br>I am currently working on an LLVM based performance analysis tool which reuses the information from the scheduling model, for which I plan to send an RFC soon (next week hopefully).<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Interesting, I'm working on a similar thing and I'm going to give a talk about it at EuroLLVM next month. Please keep me in the loop :)</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">When working on my tool, I had to solve a similar problem to this, and had come up with a different fix which doesn't require generating an extra table with indices.<br><br>My implementation (for which I'm happy to share the patch) uses simple bitmasks to solve set membership problems. The idea is that each processor resource is associated with a bitmask value (a 64-bit unisigned quantity) which can be used as a unique identifier.<br>[...]<br>I tried to look to see if there is any specific reason why this approach was taken in the review, but I couldn't see it there. If there is not a specific reason to use the table approach, would you be okay if we adopted the bitmask approach?<br></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>The reason I went in that direction is the 64 resource limit; my initial approach was the same as yours. I don't have strong feelings about which is better.</div><div>I agree with the set operations being easier (my tool actually uses BitVector internally), on the other the table approach is more general and having an extra table hurts because it's super tiny.</div><div>I have no issue going in the bitmask direction if that works better for you and other people; the semantics are the same.</div><div>Feel free to send me a diff.</div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">To be clear, I am not suggesting that your approach is wrong. However, I just want to point out that there may be potentially better approaches.<br>The bitmask approach makes the implementation of my tool easier (it would make my life easier :-)).<br><br>Thanks,<br>Andrea<br></div><div class="gmail-HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 9, 2018 at 8:17 AM, Clement Courbet via llvm-commits <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Yes, thanks for pointing that out.</div><div class="gmail-m_-3858478937597783393HOEnZb"><div class="gmail-m_-3858478937597783393h5"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 7:33 PM, Craig Topper <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:craig.topper@gmail.com" target="_blank">craig.topper@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">Is this responsible for this warning I'm seeing now<div><br></div><div><div>lib/Target/X86/X86GenSubtarget<wbr>Info.inc:52484:39: warning: missing field 'SubUnitsIdxBegin' initializer [-Wmissing-field-initializers]</div><span><div> {DBGFIELD("InvalidUnit") 0, 0, 0},</div></span></div></div><div class="gmail_extra"><span class="gmail-m_-3858478937597783393m_-293534449721402970HOEnZb"><font color="#888888"><br clear="all"><div><div class="gmail-m_-3858478937597783393m_-293534449721402970m_8675278859987401302gmail_signature">~Craig</div></div></font></span><div><div class="gmail-m_-3858478937597783393m_-293534449721402970h5">
<br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Feb 8, 2018 at 12:46 AM, Clement Courbet via llvm-commits <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0px 0px 0px 0.8ex;border-left:1px solid rgb(204,204,204);padding-left:1ex">Author: courbet<br>
Date: Thu Feb 8 00:46:48 2018<br>
New Revision: 324582<br>
<br>
URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project?rev=324582&view=rev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject?rev=324582&view=rev</a><br>
Log:<br>
[TargetSchedule] Expose sub-units of a ProcResGroup in MCProcResourceDesc.<br>
<br>
Summary:<br>
Right now using a ProcResource automatically counts as usage of all<br>
super ProcResGroups. All this is done during codegen, so there is no<br>
way for schedulers to get this information at runtime.<br>
<br>
This adds the information of which individual ProcRes units are<br>
contained in a ProcResGroup in MCProcResourceDesc.<br>
<br>
Reviewers: gchatelet<br>
<br>
Subscribers: llvm-commits<br>
<br>
Differential Revision: <a href="https://reviews.llvm.org/D43023" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">https://reviews.llvm.org/D4302<wbr>3</a><br>
<br>
Modified:<br>
llvm/trunk/include/llvm/MC/MCS<wbr>chedule.h<br>
llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target<wbr>/TargetSchedule.td<br>
llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/Subt<wbr>argetEmitter.cpp<br>
<br>
Modified: llvm/trunk/include/llvm/MC/MCS<wbr>chedule.h<br>
URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/MC/MCSchedule.h?rev=324582&r1=324581&r2=324582&view=diff" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/<wbr>MC/MCSchedule.h?rev=324582&r1=<wbr>324581&r2=324582&view=diff</a><br>
==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>==================<br>
--- llvm/trunk/include/llvm/MC/MCS<wbr>chedule.h (original)<br>
+++ llvm/trunk/include/llvm/MC/MCS<wbr>chedule.h Thu Feb 8 00:46:48 2018<br>
@@ -44,6 +44,11 @@ struct MCProcResourceDesc {<br>
// an out-of-order cpus.<br>
int BufferSize;<br>
<br>
+ // If the resource has sub-units, a pointer to the first element of an array<br>
+ // of `NumUnits` elements containing the ProcResourceIdx of the sub units.<br>
+ // nullptr if the resource does not have sub-units.<br>
+ const unsigned *SubUnitsIdxBegin;<br>
+<br>
bool operator==(const MCProcResourceDesc &Other) const {<br>
return NumUnits == Other.NumUnits && SuperIdx == Other.SuperIdx<br>
&& BufferSize == Other.BufferSize;<br>
<br>
Modified: llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target<wbr>/TargetSchedule.td<br>
URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target/TargetSchedule.td?rev=324582&r1=324581&r2=324582&view=diff" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject/llvm/trunk/include/llvm/<wbr>Target/TargetSchedule.td?rev=3<wbr>24582&r1=324581&r2=324582&view<wbr>=diff</a><br>
==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>==================<br>
--- llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target<wbr>/TargetSchedule.td (original)<br>
+++ llvm/trunk/include/llvm/Target<wbr>/TargetSchedule.td Thu Feb 8 00:46:48 2018<br>
@@ -175,8 +175,7 @@ class ProcResourceKind;<br>
// BufferSize=1.<br>
//<br>
// SchedModel ties these units to a processor for any stand-alone defs<br>
-// of this class. Instances of subclass ProcResource will be automatically<br>
-// attached to a processor, so SchedModel is not needed.<br>
+// of this class.<br>
class ProcResourceUnits<ProcResource<wbr>Kind kind, int num> {<br>
ProcResourceKind Kind = kind;<br>
int NumUnits = num;<br>
<br>
Modified: llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/Subt<wbr>argetEmitter.cpp<br>
URL: <a href="http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-project/llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/SubtargetEmitter.cpp?rev=324582&r1=324581&r2=324582&view=diff" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://llvm.org/viewvc/llvm-pr<wbr>oject/llvm/trunk/utils/TableGe<wbr>n/SubtargetEmitter.cpp?rev=324<wbr>582&r1=324581&r2=324582&view=d<wbr>iff</a><br>
==============================<wbr>==============================<wbr>==================<br>
--- llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/Subt<wbr>argetEmitter.cpp (original)<br>
+++ llvm/trunk/utils/TableGen/Subt<wbr>argetEmitter.cpp Thu Feb 8 00:46:48 2018<br>
@@ -92,6 +92,8 @@ class SubtargetEmitter {<br>
&ProcItinLists);<br>
void EmitProcessorProp(raw_ostream &OS, const Record *R, StringRef Name,<br>
char Separator);<br>
+ void EmitProcessorResourceSubUnits(<wbr>const CodeGenProcModel &ProcModel,<br>
+ raw_ostream &OS);<br>
void EmitProcessorResources(const CodeGenProcModel &ProcModel,<br>
raw_ostream &OS);<br>
Record *FindWriteResources(const CodeGenSchedRW &SchedWrite,<br>
@@ -578,24 +580,52 @@ void SubtargetEmitter::EmitProcesso<wbr>rProp<br>
OS << '\n';<br>
}<br>
<br>
+void SubtargetEmitter::EmitProcesso<wbr>rResourceSubUnits(<br>
+ const CodeGenProcModel &ProcModel, raw_ostream &OS) {<br>
+ OS << "\nstatic const unsigned " << ProcModel.ModelName<br>
+ << "ProcResourceSubUnits[] = {\n"<br>
+ << " 0, // Invalid\n";<br>
+<br>
+ for (unsigned i = 0, e = ProcModel.ProcResourceDefs.siz<wbr>e(); i < e; ++i) {<br>
+ Record *PRDef = ProcModel.ProcResourceDefs[i];<br>
+ if (!PRDef->isSubClassOf("ProcRes<wbr>Group"))<br>
+ continue;<br>
+ RecVec ResUnits = PRDef->getValueAsListOfDefs("R<wbr>esources");<br>
+ for (Record *RUDef : ResUnits) {<br>
+ Record *const RU =<br>
+ SchedModels.findProcResUnits(R<wbr>UDef, ProcModel, PRDef->getLoc());<br>
+ for (unsigned J = 0; J < RU->getValueAsInt("NumUnits"); ++J) {<br>
+ OS << " " << ProcModel.getProcResourceIdx(R<wbr>U) << ", ";<br>
+ }<br>
+ }<br>
+ OS << " // " << PRDef->getName() << "\n";<br>
+ }<br>
+ OS << "};\n";<br>
+}<br>
+<br>
void SubtargetEmitter::EmitProcesso<wbr>rResources(const CodeGenProcModel &ProcModel,<br>
raw_ostream &OS) {<br>
- OS << "\n// {Name, NumUnits, SuperIdx, IsBuffered}\n";<br>
+ EmitProcessorResourceSubUnits(<wbr>ProcModel, OS);<br>
+<br>
+ OS << "\n// {Name, NumUnits, SuperIdx, IsBuffered, SubUnitsIdxBegin}\n";<br>
OS << "static const llvm::MCProcResourceDesc "<br>
<< ProcModel.ModelName << "ProcResources" << "[] = {\n"<br>
<< " {DBGFIELD(\"InvalidUnit\") 0, 0, 0},\n";<br>
<br>
+ unsigned SubUnitsOffset = 1;<br>
for (unsigned i = 0, e = ProcModel.ProcResourceDefs.siz<wbr>e(); i < e; ++i) {<br>
Record *PRDef = ProcModel.ProcResourceDefs[i];<br>
<br>
Record *SuperDef = nullptr;<br>
unsigned SuperIdx = 0;<br>
unsigned NumUnits = 0;<br>
+ const unsigned SubUnitsBeginOffset = SubUnitsOffset;<br>
int BufferSize = PRDef->getValueAsInt("BufferSi<wbr>ze");<br>
if (PRDef->isSubClassOf("ProcResG<wbr>roup")) {<br>
RecVec ResUnits = PRDef->getValueAsListOfDefs("R<wbr>esources");<br>
for (Record *RU : ResUnits) {<br>
NumUnits += RU->getValueAsInt("NumUnits");<br>
+ SubUnitsOffset += NumUnits;<br>
}<br>
}<br>
else {<br>
@@ -612,8 +642,14 @@ void SubtargetEmitter::EmitProcesso<wbr>rReso<br>
OS << " {DBGFIELD(\"" << PRDef->getName() << "\") ";<br>
if (PRDef->getName().size() < 15)<br>
OS.indent(15 - PRDef->getName().size());<br>
- OS << NumUnits << ", " << SuperIdx << ", "<br>
- << BufferSize << "}, // #" << i+1;<br>
+ OS << NumUnits << ", " << SuperIdx << ", " << BufferSize << ", ";<br>
+ if (SubUnitsBeginOffset != SubUnitsOffset) {<br>
+ OS << ProcModel.ModelName << "ProcResourceSubUnits + "<br>
+ << SubUnitsBeginOffset;<br>
+ } else {<br>
+ OS << "nullptr";<br>
+ }<br>
+ OS << "}, // #" << i+1;<br>
if (SuperDef)<br>
OS << ", Super=" << SuperDef->getName();<br>
OS << "\n";<br>
<br>
<br>
______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
llvm-commits mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br></div></div></div>
</blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div><br>______________________________<wbr>_________________<br>
llvm-commits mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org" target="_blank">llvm-commits@lists.llvm.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/<wbr>mailman/listinfo/llvm-commits</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br></div>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div></div>