[llvm-dev] [Proposal][RFC] Epilog loop vectorization
Hal Finkel via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Feb 27 11:58:03 PST 2017
On 02/27/2017 12:41 PM, Michael Kuperstein wrote:
> There's another issue with re-running the vectorizer (which I support,
> btw - I'm just saying there are more problems to solve on the way :-) )
> Historically, we haven't even tried to evaluate the cost of the
> "constant" (not per-iteration) vectorization overhead - things like
> alias checks. Instead, we have hard bounds - we won't perform alias
> checks that are "too expensive", and, more importantly, we don't even
> try to vectorize loops with known low iteration counts. The bound
> right now is 16, IIRC. That means we don't have a good way to evaluate
> whether vectorizing a loop with a low iteration count is profitable or
We should really improve this as well.
> This also makes me wary of the "we can clean up redundant alias checks
> later" approach. When trying to decide whether to vectorize by 4 a
> loop that has no more than 8 iterations (because we just vectorized by
> 8 and it's the remainder loop), we really want to know if the alias
> checks we're introducing are going to survive a not.
It occurs to me that, if SCEV's known-predicate logic were smart enough,
it would seem practical to not introduce redundant checks in the first
place (although it would imply some gymnastics when examining the
control flow around the loop and then restructuring things when we
generate the code for the loop).
> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 10:11 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
> On 02/27/2017 11:47 AM, Adam Nemet wrote:
>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 9:39 AM, Daniel Berlin <dberlin at dberlin.org
>>> <mailto:dberlin at dberlin.org>> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Feb 27, 2017 at 9:29 AM, Adam Nemet <anemet at apple.com
>>> <mailto:anemet at apple.com>> wrote:
>>>> On Feb 27, 2017, at 7:27 AM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
>>>> <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
>>>> On 02/27/2017 06:29 AM, Nema, Ashutosh wrote:
>>>>> Thanks for looking into this.
>>>>> 1) Issues with re running vectorizer:
>>>>> Vectorizer might generate redundant alias checks while
>>>>> vectorizing epilog loop.
>>>>> Redundant alias checks are expensive, we like to reuse the
>>>>> results of already computed alias checks.
>>>>> With metadata we can limit the width of epilog loop, but
>>>>> not sure about reusing alias check result.
>>>>> Any thoughts on rerunning vectorizer with reusing the
>>>>> alias check result ?
>>>> One way of looking at this is: Reusing the alias-check
>>>> result is really just a conditional propagation problem; if
>>>> we don't already have an optimization that can combine
>>>> these after the fact, then we should.
>>> Isn’t Extended SSA supposed to help with this?
>>> Yes, it will solve this with no issue already. GVN probably
>>> does already too.
>>> even if if you have
>>> if (a == b)
>>> if (a == c)
>>> if (a == d)
>>> if (a == e)
>>> if (a == g)
>>> and we can prove a ... g equivalent, newgvn will eliminate them
>>> all and set all the branches true.
>>> If you need a simpler clean up pass, we could run it on sub-graphs.
>> Yes we probably don’t want to run a full GVN after the
>> “loop-scheduling” passes.
> FWIW, we could, just without the memory-dependence analysis
> enabled (i.e. set the NoLoads constructor parameter to true). GVN
> is pretty fast in that mode.
>> I guess the pipeline to experiment with for now is opt
>> -loop-vectorize -loop-vectorize -newgvn.
>>> The only thing you'd have to do is write some code to set "live
>>> on entry" subgraph variables in their own congruence classes.
>>> We already do this for incoming arguments.
>>> Otherwise, it's trivial to make it only walk things in the subgraph.
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the llvm-dev