[LLVMdev] [cfe-dev] [RFC] Parallelization metadata and intrinsics in LLVM (for OpenMP, etc.)

James Courtier-Dutton james.dutton at gmail.com
Wed Oct 3 09:30:54 PDT 2012

On 3 October 2012 06:17, Chris Lattner <clattner at apple.com> wrote:
> On Oct 2, 2012, at 11:42 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>> As I've stated, whether the metadata is preserved is not really the
>> relevant metric. It is fine for a pass that does not understand
>> parallelization metadata to drop it. The important part is that dropping
>> the metadata, and moving instructions to which that metadata is
>> attached, must not cause miscompiles. For example:
>> - Instructions with unknown side effects or dependencies must not be
>>   moved from outside a parallel region to inside a parallel region.
>> - Serialized subregions inside of parallel regions cannot be deleted
>>   without deleting the enclosing parallel region.
>> The outstanding proposals have ways of dealing with these things. In
>> the case of my proposal, it is though cross-referencing the metadata
>> sufficiently and using function boundaries to prevent unwanted code
>> motion.
> I haven't looked at your proposal, but I completely agree in principle that using procedure boundaries is a good way to handle this.
>> In Intel's case, it is by using the barriers implied by the
>> intrinsics calls.
> That's just it - intrinsics using metadata don't imply barriers that would restrict code motion.

Would another approach be to work from the bottom up.
Determine the details of what optimizations you wish to be able to do
on a parallel program and then implement functionallity in the LLVM IR
to achieve it.
I.e. A new type of barrier to restrict code motion.
New barrier types, or special zones where only a subset of machine
instructions can be used when lowering.
There are already items in the LLVM IR for atomics, adding a new type
of barrier might be all that is needed to achieve the optimizations
wished for.

Kind Regards


More information about the llvm-dev mailing list