[llvm-dev] Loop Vectorize: Testing cost model driven transformations
Matthew Simpson via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Nov 28 10:03:35 PST 2016
Note: This is a continuation of a discussion over at
In a discussion over on llvm-commits, we are debating how best to test loop
vectorization transformations that are guided by the cost model. The cost
model is currently used primarily for determining the vectorization and
interleave factors. Both of these parameters are easily overridden with
command line flags, which enables us to create target-independent tests.
Tests that rely on specific TTI hooks and instruction costs are placed
under the target-specific directories. Target-independent tests are great
because we don't have to replicate them for all targets.
But we can write new transformations (e.g., https://reviews.llvm.org/D26083)
that use the cost model to guide code generation in ways other than
selecting the vectorization and interleave factors. That is, the code we
generate can be different, depending on the target, even if we manually
specify vectorization and interleave factors.
So the question is, if we perform some new transformation based on cost
model results, how do we preserve the behavior of the existing
target-independent tests (that only specify vectorization and interleave
factors)? And also, how should we test the code that consumes the cost
model results but doesn't care about what those results are? Should the
tests be target-specific or target-independent?
There is some precedent for using TTI hooks to enable some optimizations,
with testing done in the target-specific directories. But if we expect an
optimization to be enabled for all targets does this make sense?
We currently have a "-force-target-instruction-cost" flag we can use to get
consistency in the instruction costs. But as it's currently implemented, it
prevents us from testing with target-independent tests the code for
computing derived costs. For example, are we adding a scalarization
overhead to the cost of an instruction that can't be vectorized, are we
correctly scaling the cost of a predicated instruction by block
probability, etc. None of that logic is target-specific. Our current flag
just overrides the "final" cost of each instruction. But this is somewhat
of an aside since our existing target-independent tests don't even use this
flag to guarantee instruction costs.
Some alternatives that we've discussed so far include:
- Adding a new command line option to use the default TTI. This would
allow us to use default values for TTI queries to ensure consistency across
targets for transformations driven by the cost model. The existing and
future target-independent tests would have to be updated to use the new
flag. They also may still choose to manually specify vectorization and
interleave factors to force vectorization and interleaving regardless of
what the cost model would compute using the default TTI.
- Adding a command line option to enable/disable each cost model driven
transformation we add. The existing and future target-independent tests
would have to be updated to explicitly disable each optimization (or in
some way force predictable behavior across targets like we do now when
setting the vectorization and interleave factors). All tests that test a
cost model driven optimization would be placed under a target-specific
Does anyone have any thoughts or suggestions?
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev