[LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space arithmetic

[Patrik Hägglund H]

> > Under what circumstances would the default address space for a target
> > not be 0?
>
> [Villmow, Micah] In OpenCL, the default address space is the
> private address space. This is closer to TLS in the X86 world,
> whereas the llvm default address space of 0, is closer to the
> global address space in OpenCL.  For our GPU's when supporting
> 64bit pointers, there is a huge drop(think ~60%) in LDS bandwidth
> performance because of the extra computation 64bit pointers
> requires. What would be ideal is that our default would be
> treated as global(AS 1) and be 64bit pointers, the private(AS 0)
> would be 32bit pointers and constant(AS 2) and local(AS 3)
> address spaces can be considered as 16bit pointers. This would
> allow us to highly optimize our memory access and only pay for
> the 64bit pointer addressing costs where it is required by
> hardware. So we want the default address space to be the global
> address space for all computations the use the pointer type, but
> on non-OpenCL systems, this behavior might not be warranted.

Sorry, I don't understand. Are you saying that you want to switch
the default address space to different numbers in different
contexts? (Otherwise I don't understand why you can't use zero.)

FYI: We also need pointers of different sizes for our target, and
we plan to look into this before the end of this year.

/Patrik Hägglund 

-----Original Message-----
From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu] On Behalf Of Villmow, Micah
Sent: den 18 augusti 2012 00:35
To: Eli Friedman
Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space arithmetic



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Eli Friedman [mailto:eli.friedman at gmail.com]
> Sent: Friday, August 17, 2012 3:16 PM
> To: Villmow, Micah
> Cc: LLVM Developers Mailing List
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] RFC: Supporting different sized address space
> arithmetic
> 
> On Fri, Aug 17, 2012 at 2:53 PM, Villmow, Micah <Micah.Villmow at amd.com>
> wrote:
> > Currently LLVM only supports address calculations for a single address
> > space(the default). This is problematic when the device pointer type
> > is 32/64bits, but there are small distinct memories that only have 16
> > bits of addressing(think GPU's with small software controlled memory
> segments).
> >
> >
> >
> > I am proposing a modification to a few API's in SelectionDAG that I
> > believe will fix this problem.
> >
> >
> >
> > In TargetLowering
> >
> > *         Add getPointerTy to take an argument, the address space,
> this
> > defaults to 0.
> >
> > *         Add a virtual API call that returns the default address
> space for
> > the target, this defaults to returning 0.
> 
> Under what circumstances would the default address space for a target
> not be 0?
[Villmow, Micah] In OpenCL, the default address space is the private address space. This is closer to TLS in the X86 world, whereas the
llvm default address space of 0, is closer to the global address space in OpenCL.  For our GPU's when supporting 64bit pointers, there
is a huge drop(think ~60%) in LDS bandwidth performance because of the extra computation 64bit pointers requires. What would be ideal is
that our default would be treated as global(AS 1) and be 64bit pointers, the private(AS 0) would be 32bit pointers and constant(AS 2) and local(AS 3)
address spaces can be considered as 16bit pointers. This would allow us to highly optimize our memory access and only pay for the 64bit
pointer addressing costs where it is required by hardware. So we want the default address space to be the global address space for all
computations the use the pointer type, but on non-OpenCL systems, this behavior might not be warranted.

> 
> > *         Have the original getPointerTy implementation with no
> arguments
> > query for the default address space.
> >
> > In SelectionDAG
> >
> > *         Add a new API to getIntPtrConstant that takes an address
> space as
> > the second argument
> 
> Do we actually need this API?  Normally, if you need a pointer-sized
> constant, it means you have a value of pointer type somewhere nearby;
> it's probably easier to just use the existing API which takes a constant
> and a type than to try to dig the address space out of a memory
> operation.
[Villmow, Micah] This is only there so that the current implementation does not
change and break anything. Instead of changing all of the code to the new API,
I leave the code alone and only change the locations that need the new functionality.
> 
> > *         Modify the implementation of the original getIntPtrConstant
> > function to call the new function with getDefaultAddressSpace().
> >
> > As far as I can tell, this should not affect any backends behavior,
> > but will allow the targets with disjoint address spaces to directly
> > address them in the most efficient manner.
> >
> >
> >
> > So, what do you think? Is this the correct approach? Or does it
> > actually require more fundamental changes.
> 
> This is the right direction; I don't think you need anything else, at
> least not in the SelectionDAG.
> 
> Are you planning on introducing an in-tree target that actually uses
> this functionality?  I'm afraid it'll bitrot without good testing.
[Villmow, Micah] We have the AMDIL branch that this will be added to.
> 
> -Eli



_______________________________________________
LLVM Developers mailing list
LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev