[PATCH] D135282: [SLP]Improve costs of vectorized loads/stores by analyzing GEPs.

[Alexey Bataev via Phabricator via llvm-commits]

ABataev added inline comments.


================
Comment at: llvm/lib/Transforms/Vectorize/SLPVectorizer.cpp:6656
+            continue;
+          ScalarLdCost += TTI->getArithmeticInstrCost(Instruction::Add,
+                                                      Ptr->getType(), CostKind);
----------------
vdmitrie wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > vdmitrie wrote:
> > > We see quite a significant performance regression related to this patch.
> > > It does not look the right adjustment. For x86 specifically these GEPS cost nothing as they end up merely as different displacement values in memory operands. So the bias towards vectorization isn't justified for plain loads and stores.
> > > It can be seen even for test case test/Transforms/SLPVectorizer/X86/remark_not_all_parts.ll
> > > Vectorization makes code less profitable here. It already existed before the patch but this patch but cost modeling although tipped over to vectorization it was close enough to say "not profitable".
> > >  But now we have even more bias.
> > > 
> > > Vecorized code:
> > > Instruction Info:
> > > [1]: #uOps
> > > [2]: Latency
> > > [3]: RThroughput
> > > [4]: MayLoad
> > > [5]: MayStore
> > > [6]: HasSideEffects (U)
> > > 
> > > [1]    [2]    [3]    [4]    [5]    [6]    Instructions:
> > >  1      1     0.25                        subq  $136, %rsp
> > >  1      0     0.17                        xorl  %ecx, %ecx
> > >  1      0     0.17                        xorl  %eax, %eax
> > >  1      5     0.50    *                   movq  (%rdi,%rcx), %xmm0
> > >  1      5     0.50    *                   movq  16(%rdi,%rcx), %xmm1
> > >  1      1     0.33                        paddd %xmm0, %xmm1
> > >  1      2     1.00                        movd  %xmm1, %edx
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addl  %eax, %edx
> > >  2      1     1.00           *            movq  %xmm1, -128(%rsp,%rcx)
> > >  1      1     1.00                        pshufd        $85, %xmm1, %xmm0
> > >  1      2     1.00                        movd  %xmm0, %eax
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addl  %edx, %eax
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addq  $32, %rcx
> > >  1      1     0.25                        cmpq  $256, %rcx
> > >  1      1     0.50                        jne   .LBB0_1
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addq  $136, %rsp
> > >  3      7     1.00                  U     retq
> > > 
> > > Original:
> > > 
> > > [1]    [2]    [3]    [4]    [5]    [6]    Instructions:
> > >  1      1     0.25                        subq  $136, %rsp
> > >  1      0     0.17                        xorl  %eax, %eax
> > >  1      1     0.25                        movq  $-256, %rcx
> > >  1      5     0.50    *                   movl  272(%rdi,%rcx), %edx
> > >  2      6     0.50    *                   addl  256(%rdi,%rcx), %edx
> > >  1      1     1.00           *            movl  %edx, 128(%rsp,%rcx)
> > >  1      5     0.50    *                   movl  276(%rdi,%rcx), %esi
> > >  2      6     0.50    *                   addl  260(%rdi,%rcx), %esi
> > >  1      1     1.00           *            movl  %esi, 132(%rsp,%rcx)
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addl  %esi, %eax
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addl  %edx, %eax
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addq  $32, %rcx
> > >  1      1     0.50                        jne   .LBB0_1
> > >  1      1     0.25                        addq  $136, %rsp
> > >  3      7     1.00                  U     retq
> > > 
> > > 
> > I can say, it was expected. That's why there was a discussion about using getGEPCost instead of this. This changes just syncs cost estimation for masked gathers and vector loads. As you noted, we already had the issue with the geps costs. We need to fix this. It would help if Intel will try to implement their part of getGEPCost and we can start using it here for better cost estimation.
> You got me wrong. I did not say we already had issues with geps. What I did I did say is: we already had issues with vectorizing sequences when we should not. Most issues with these wrongful vectorizations come from shuffles and permutations generated. And the example, which is the test case in this patch (remark_not_all_parts.ll) merely does show that vectorized code is worse that the original.
>  And I don't think that you anticipated 60% performance regression from this patch. But that is what we have now. I suggest you to revert this change for these reasons:
> - huge regression it introduced. It makes bad things even worse. Cost of inserts and permutations on integer vectors seems underestimated. That is where most regressions come from. But adding unjustified bias to the cost towards vectorization makes the problem even worse.
> - the CM heuristics added does not reflect real thigs - it goes into displacement part of a memory operand which costs nothing.
> - test cases which changed within this patch do not show where the patch would help. Moreover they create impression that nothing has changed. But that isn't the case. Can you show any real test case which shows how this patch improves vectorization?
> 
> Aligning gather loads does not justify enough IMO. May be gathers have this same issue?
> Can you point at a test case for gather loads?
> 
> 
It is not to improve the vectorization but to fix the cost difference between vector loads and masked gather. If we're going to revert it, we need to remove the geps cost estimation for masked gathers. Otherwise there are cases, where consecutive loads are less profitable than the masked gather, and it leads to the perf regressions.


Repository:
  rG LLVM Github Monorepo

CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
  https://reviews.llvm.org/D135282/new/

https://reviews.llvm.org/D135282