[llvm-dev] RFC: New intrinsics masked.expandload and masked.compressstore
Michael Kuperstein via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Sep 26 13:11:16 PDT 2016
On Mon, Sep 26, 2016 at 10:55 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov> wrote:
>
> ------------------------------
>
> *From: *"Michael Kuperstein" <mkuper at google.com>
> *To: *"Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>
> *Cc: *"Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Ayal Zaks" <ayal.zaks at intel.com>,
> "Adam Nemet (anemet at apple.com)" <anemet at apple.com>, "Sanjay Patel (
> spatel at rotateright.com)" <spatel at rotateright.com>, "Nadav Rotem" <
> nadav.rotem at me.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> *Sent: *Monday, September 26, 2016 2:31:41 AM
> *Subject: *Re: RFC: New intrinsics masked.expandload and
> masked.compressstore
>
> In theory, we could offload several things to such a target plug-in, I'm
> just not entirely sure we want to.
>
> Two examples I can think of:
>
> 1) This could be a better interface for masked load/stores and gathers.
>
> 2) Horizontal reductions. I tried writing yet-another-horizontals-as-first-class-citizens
> proposal a couple of months ago, and the main problem from the previous
> discussions about this was that there's no good common representation. E.g.
> should a horizontal add return a vector or a scalar, should it return the
> base type of the vector (assumes saturation) or a wider integer type, etc.
> With a plugin, we could have the vectorizer emit the right target
> intrinsic, instead of the crazy backend pattern-matching we have now.
>
> I don't think we want to offload either of these things to the targets to
> produce target-specific intrinsics - both are fairly generic. There's value
> in using IR and then pattern-matching the result later because it also
> means that we pick up cases where the same pattern comes from people using
> C-level vector intrinsics, other portable frontends, etc. We don't want
> every frontend wishing to emit a horizontal reduction to need to use
> target-specific intrinsics for different targets. Our vectorizer should not
> be special in this regard.
>
>
Generally speaking, I agree, but there's a line after which DAG-level
pattern matching gets really awful. What we do now for partial reductions
on X86 is kinda crazy, IMO.
Assuming GlobalISel (especially for non-AArch64 targets) is a ways off, I
see two ways to simplify this stuff:
1) Have the vectorizer emit target intrinsics directly.
2) Do IR-level pattern matching and lowering, a la CGP, for complicated
constructs.
Each of those comes with its own set of drawbacks.
> However, this does bring up another issue with our current cost model: it
> current estimates costs one instruction at a time, and so can't take
> advantage of lower costs associated with target instructions that have
> complicated behaviors (FMAs, saturating arithmetic, byte-swapping loads,
> etc.). This is a separate problem, in a sense, but perhaps there's a common
> solution.
>
>
It's not really a separate problem - as long as the vectorizer and the
lowering don't query a shared source of truth for idiom recognition, I'm
not sure there's a way to assign costs to these idioms with decent
precision. And even if we can get them to make the same query (sounds
practically impossible if lowering happens in DAG, doable but untrivial if
it happens in IR, since for the vectorizer we need to match the
pre-vectorization IR and for lowering the post-vectorization version), I'm
not sure how much of a win it'll be. The more complex the construct, the
higher the chances of it being "blown away" by an intervening
transformation between vectorization and the final pattern matching.
To be clear - I'm not advocating actually moving to a
vectorizer-emits-target-intrinsics model. It doesn't strike me as a very
good solution. I just don't have any better ideas at the moment.
-Hal
>
>
> On Sun, Sep 25, 2016 at 9:28 PM, Demikhovsky, Elena <
> elena.demikhovsky at intel.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> |
>> |Hi Elena,
>> |
>> |Technically speaking, this seems straightforward.
>> |
>> |I wonder, however, how target-independent this is in a practical
>> |sense; will there be an efficient lowering when targeting any other
>> |ISA? I don't want to get into the territory where, because the
>> |vectorizer is supposed to be architecture independent, we need to
>> |add target-independent intrinsics for all potentially-side-effect-
>> |carrying idioms (or just complicated idioms) we want the vectorizer to
>> |support on any target. Is there a way we can design the vectorizer so
>> |that the targets can plug in their own idiom recognition for these
>> |kinds of things, and then, via that interface, let the vectorizer
>> produce
>> |the relevant target-dependent intrinsics?
>>
>> Entering target specific plug-in in vectorizer may be a good idea. We
>> need target specific pattern recognition and target specific implementation
>> of “vectorizeMemoryInstruction”. (It may be more functionality in the
>> future)
>> TTI->checkAdditionalVectorizationOppotunities() - detects target
>> specific patterns; X86 will find compress/expand and may be others
>> TTI->vectorizeMemoryInstruction() - handle only exotic target-specific
>> cases
>>
>> Pros:
>> It will allow us to implement all X86 specific solutions.
>> The expandload and compresssrore intrinsics may be x86 specific,
>> polymorphic:
>> llvm.x86.masked.expandload()
>> llvm.x86.masked.compressstore()
>>
>> Cons:
>>
>> TTI will need to deal with Loop Info, SCEVs and other loop analysis info
>> that it does not have today. (I do not like this way)
>> Or we'll need to introduce TLV - Target Loop Vectorizer - a new class
>> that handles all target specific cases. This solution seems more
>> reasonable, but too heavy just for compress/expand.
>> Do you see any other target plug-in solution?
>>
>> -Elena
>>
>> |
>> |Thanks again,
>> |Hal
>> |
>> |
>> ------------------------------
>>
>> |> From: "Elena Demikhovsky" <elena.demikhovsky at intel.com>
>> |> To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> |> Cc: "Ayal Zaks" <ayal.zaks at intel.com>, "Michael Kuperstein"
>> |<mkuper at google.com>, "Adam Nemet (anemet at apple.com)"
>> |> <anemet at apple.com>, "Hal Finkel (hfinkel at anl.gov)"
>> |<hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Sanjay Patel (spatel at rotateright.com)"
>> |> <spatel at rotateright.com>, "Nadav Rotem"
>> |<nadav.rotem at me.com>
>> |> Sent: Monday, September 19, 2016 1:37:02 AM
>> |> Subject: RFC: New intrinsics masked.expandload and
>> |> masked.compressstore
>> |>
>> |>
>> |> Hi all,
>> |>
>> |> AVX-512 ISA introduces new vector instructions VCOMPRESS and
>> |VEXPAND
>> |> in order to allow vectorization of the following loops with two
>> |> specific types of cross-iteration dependencies:
>> |>
>> |> Compress:
>> |> for (int i=0; i<N; ++i)
>> |> If (t[i])
>> |> *A++ = expr;
>> |>
>> |> Expand:
>> |> for (i=0; i<N; ++i)
>> |> If (t[i])
>> |> X[i] = *A++;
>> |> else
>> |> X[i] = PassThruV[i];
>> |>
>> |> On this poster (
>> |> http://llvm.org/devmtg/2013-11/slides/Demikhovsky-Poster.pdf )
>> |you’ll
>> |> find depicted “compress” and “expand” patterns.
>> |>
>> |> The RFC proposes to support this functionality by introducing two
>> |> intrinsics to LLVM IR:
>> |> llvm.masked.expandload.*
>> |> llvm.masked.compressstore.*
>> |>
>> |> The syntax of these two intrinsics is similar to the syntax of
>> |> llvm.masked.load.* and masked.store.*, respectively, but the
>> |semantics
>> |> are different, matching the above patterns.
>> |>
>> |> %res = call <16 x float> @llvm.masked.expandload.v16f32.p0f32
>> |(float*
>> |> %ptr, <16 x i1>%mask, <16 x float> %passthru) void
>> |> @llvm.masked.compressstore.v16f32.p0f32 (<16 x float> <value>,
>> |> float* <ptr>, <16 x i1> <mask>)
>> |>
>> |> The arguments - %mask, %value and %passthru all have the same
>> |vector
>> |> length.
>> |> The underlying type of %ptr corresponds to the scalar type of the
>> |> vector value.
>> |> (In brief; the full syntax description will be provided in subsequent
>> |> full documentation.)
>> |>
>> |> The intrinsics are planned to be target independent, similar to
>> |> masked.load/store/gather/scatter. They will be lowered effectively
>> |on
>> |> AVX-512 and scalarized on other targets, also akin to masked.*
>> |> intrinsics.
>> |> Loop vectorizer will query TTI about existence of effective support
>> |> for these intrinsics, and if provided will be able to handle loops
>> |> with such cross-iteration dependences.
>> |>
>> |> The first step will include the full documentation and
>> |implementation
>> |> of CodeGen part.
>> |>
>> |> An additional information about expand load (
>> |>
>> |https://software.intel.com/sites/landingpage/IntrinsicsGuide/#text=
>> |exp
>> |> andload&techs=AVX_512
>> |> ) and compress store (
>> |>
>> |https://software.intel.com/sites/landingpage/IntrinsicsGuide/#text=
>> |com
>> |> pressstore&techs=AVX_512
>> |> ) you also can find in the Intel Intrinsic Guide.
>> |>
>> |>
>> |> * Elena
>> |>
>> |> ------------------------------------------------------------
>> ---------
>> |> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>> |>
>> |> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material
>> |for
>> |> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>> |> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> |> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>> |
>> |--
>> |Hal Finkel
>> |Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages Leadership
>> |Computing Facility Argonne National Laboratory
>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
>> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>>
>> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
>> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
>> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
>> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>>
>
>
>
>
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160926/9103fe82/attachment.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list