[PATCH] D63459: Loop Cache Analysis

[Ettore Tiotto via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

etiotto added a comment.

> Right, are you planning on submitting a patch for loop interchange upstream?
> 
> I used the printer on some of the loop interchange tests, but the delinearization does not support some cases there yet. I hope I find some time to look into that next week and maybe also integrating it into loop interchange unless you plan to do so.

If you have time to integrate the analysis in loop interchange next week go ahead. I will need to work through other work in progress I am doing, and upstream those pieces before I can get to loop interchange. I think we can discuss details during the biweekly loop meetings.

In D63459#1607411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1607411>, @fhahn wrote:

> In D63459#1607143 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1607143>, @etiotto wrote:
>
> > In D63459#1605923 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1605923>, @fhahn wrote:
> >
> > > Can you re-run clang-format on the latest version of the patch? I think it would be good to get an in-tree user of this soon, to make sure the modeling works as expected on real hardware/benchmarks. Do you have a timeline to get this used? I think you mentioned LoopFusion as one of the first planned users?
> >
> >
> > I reformatted the patch and addressed inline comments. The paper reports that the analysis was used to guide both loop fusion and loop interchange. I used it myself profitably on loop interchange (not yet in tree), and the lit tests provided are based in part on that experiment.
>
>
> Right, are you planning on submitting a patch for loop interchange upstream?
>
> I used the printer on some of the loop interchange tests, but the delinearization does not support some cases there yet. I hope I find some time to look into that next week and maybe also integrating it into loop interchange unless you plan to do so.
>
> > If there are not further comments and/or concerns I'll commit the patch on Thursday.




In D63459#1607411 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1607411>, @fhahn wrote:

> In D63459#1607143 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1607143>, @etiotto wrote:
>
> > In D63459#1605923 <https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459#1605923>, @fhahn wrote:
> >
> > > Can you re-run clang-format on the latest version of the patch? I think it would be good to get an in-tree user of this soon, to make sure the modeling works as expected on real hardware/benchmarks. Do you have a timeline to get this used? I think you mentioned LoopFusion as one of the first planned users?
> >
> >
> > I reformatted the patch and addressed inline comments. The paper reports that the analysis was used to guide both loop fusion and loop interchange. I used it myself profitably on loop interchange (not yet in tree), and the lit tests provided are based in part on that experiment.
>
>
> Right, are you planning on submitting a patch for loop interchange upstream?
>
> I used the printer on some of the loop interchange tests, but the delinearization does not support some cases there yet. I hope I find some time to look into that next week and maybe also integrating it into loop interchange unless you plan to do so.
>
> > If there are not further comments and/or concerns I'll commit the patch on Thursday.





Repository:
  rL LLVM

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D63459