[Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake patch

Wed Aug 20 05:53:48 PDT 2014

>  1. In the runtime source code (and its documentation), clearly document that the arbitrary-parameter-list 
> aspect of microtasks is deprecated, and what the maximum number of arguments is that we expect from "new" frontends.

I had a feeling that I'd already written something like that, but maybe it's not sufficiently explicit 
(since I can't find it myself now:-)). There is some discussion in the manual early on, but nothing
that is completely clear on the subject that I can find. (Though I'm sure I wrote something somewhere).

> 2. As I recall, we now have a libffi dependency to support arbitrary-length parameter lists on ARM. 
> Is this really needed? Maybe they can use a switch statement just as I did on PPC? 
I think you're right, it’s probably not needed.

-- Jim

James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
Tel: +44 117 9071438

-----Original Message-----
From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov] 
Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:42 PM
To: Cownie, James H
Cc: Michael Wong; openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; C. Bergström; Alexey Bataev; Carlo Bertolli
Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake patch

----- Original Message -----
> From: "James H Cownie" <james.h.cownie at intel.com>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Carlo Bertolli" 
> <cbertol at us.ibm.com>
> Cc: "Michael Wong" <michaelw at ca.ibm.com>, openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu, "C. Bergström"
> <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>, "Alexey Bataev" <a.bataev at gmx.com>
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 5:48:38 AM
> Subject: RE: [Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake patch
> 
> > As you've discovered, clang-omp currently does not use the 
> > arbitrary-length-parameter-list aspect of the microtasks.
> 
> Indeed, and I don't expect it too. IMO the way the Intel compiler does 
> it by passing a pointer argument for each reference into the parent 
> stack is unpleasant.

Okay, this is all fine. I recommend that we do the following:

 1. In the runtime source code (and its documentation), clearly document that the arbitrary-parameter-list aspect of microtasks is deprecated, and what the maximum number of arguments is that we expect from "new" frontends.

 2. As I recall, we now have a libffi dependency to support arbitrary-length parameter lists on ARM. Is this really needed? Maybe they can use a switch statement just as I did on PPC?

Thanks again,
Hal

> 
> I have canvased internally to change it, but without success. ("We've 
> done it like that for 15 years, why would we change?")
> 
> If you stick with a single argument to the outlined routine you should 
> be able to eliminate a bunch of code in the rutime for creating and 
> copying the argument vector and (as a result) have no need to write 
> some of that code in assembler.
> 
> As (I think) you're pointing out, you do need different code to handle 
> disambiguating references so that you can vectorize. If you have code 
> something like this
> 
> float a[SIZE];
> float b[SIZE];
> 
> // initialize b
> #pragma omp parallel for
>    for (int i=1; i<SIZE; i++)
>       a[i] = b[i-1];
>  
> Once you outline you either have something like void outlinedFunc 
> (float * restrict a, float * restrict b)
>     // compute local slice into low, high
>     for (i=low; i<high; i++)
>         a[i]=b[i-1];
> 
> or like this
> 
> struct localState {
>     float a[SIZE];
>     float b[SIZE];
> };
> 
> void outlinedFunc( localState * args )
>     // compute local slice into low, high
>     for (i=low; i<high; i++)
>         args->a[i]=args->b[i-1];
> 
> To vectorize you need to be able to prove to yourself that a and b 
> don’t overlap here.
> That doesn't seem too hard (fields in a struct can't overlap), but is 
> certainly different from the other case.
> 
> -- Jim
> 
> James Cownie <james.h.cownie at intel.com> SSG/DPD/TCAR (Technical 
> Computing, Analyzers and Runtimes)
> Tel: +44 117 9071438
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Hal Finkel [mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 20, 2014 1:30 AM
> To: Carlo Bertolli
> Cc: Cownie, James H; Michael Wong;
> openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu; C. Bergström; Alexey 
> Bataev
> Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake patch
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> > From: "Carlo Bertolli" <cbertol at us.ibm.com>
> > To: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> > Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "James H Cownie"
> > <james.h.cownie at intel.com>, "Michael Wong"
> > <michaelw at ca.ibm.com>, openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 6, 2014 12:59:42 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake 
> > patch
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > Hi,
> > 
> > No apologies needed - I am glad that you highlighted these issues 
> > and that you helped making the patch stronger.
> > Let me see what I can do about the imlementation of 
> > kmp__invoke_microtask.
> 
> Thanks for looking into this. As you've discovered, clang-omp 
> currently does not use the arbitrary-length-parameter-list aspect of 
> the microtasks. I've cc'd Alexey here, and perhaps he can describe 
> why. I suspect that using function parameters directly, instead of 
> putting everything into structures, will be easier on the IPA (and 
> more efficient -- although it is not clear how important that is 
> relative to the dispatching overhead).
> 
>  -Hal
> 
> > 
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > -- Carlo
> > 
> > Inactive hide details for "C. Bergström" ---08/06/2014 01:37:30 
> > PM---On 08/ 6/14 11:27 PM, Carlo Bertolli wrote: >"C. Bergström"
> > ---08/06/2014 01:37:30 PM---On 08/ 6/14 11:27 PM, Carlo Bertolli
> > wrote: >
> > 
> > From: "C. Bergström" <cbergstrom at pathscale.com>
> > To: Carlo Bertolli/Watson/IBM at IBMUS
> > Cc: Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Cownie, James H"
> > <james.h.cownie at intel.com>, Michael Wong <michaelw at ca.ibm.com>, 
> > "openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu"
> > <openmp-dev at dcs-maillist2.engr.illinois.edu>
> > Date: 08/06/2014 01:37 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Openmp-dev] PPC64 patch from Intel's fourth cmake 
> > patch
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > 
> > On 08/ 6/14 11:27 PM, Carlo Bertolli wrote:
> > > 
> > > Hi C. Bergström,
> > > 
> > > My answers below interspersed with your comments.
> > > 
> > Apologies - My comments were meant to be general and your patch just 
> > made some fugly areas more visible. Hopefully this clears up the 
> > confusion. For our BGQ (IBM Power7 A2) work I certainly appreciate 
> > this.
> > 
> > Thanks
> > 
> > 
> > 
> 
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
> Registered No. 1134945 (England)
> Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ VAT No: 860 2173 47
> 
> 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
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Corporation (UK) Limited
Registered No. 1134945 (England)
Registered Office: Pipers Way, Swindon SN3 1RJ
VAT No: 860 2173 47

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.