[LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3

[Hal Finkel]

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Andrew Trick" <atrick at apple.com>
> To: "Haishan" <hndxvon at 163.com>
> Cc: "llvmdev" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu>
> Sent: Friday, December 20, 2013 8:41:40 PM
> Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
> 
> 
> The flag -enable-aa-sched-mi should do what you want you want in the
> MachineScheduler pass.
> 
> 
> If you want to do it in the selection DAG, there is a subtarget hook
> that might do it:
> 
> 
> 
> TargetSubtargetInfo::useAA()

To be clear, returning true from useAA enables the use of AA both in the selection DAG and also in the MachineScheduler pass.

 -Hal

> 
> 
> LLVM won’t generate the schedule you want anyway for Intel core
> processors, but the alias analysis can be useful in general.
> 
> 
> -Andy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> On Dec 16, 2013, at 6:03 AM, Haishan < hndxvon at 163.com > wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> At 2013-12-15 22:43:34,"Caldarale, Charles R" <
> Chuck.Caldarale at unisys.com > wrote:
> >> From: llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu [
> >> mailto:llvmdev-bounces at cs.uiuc.edu ]
> >> On Behalf Of Haishan
> >> Subject: [LLVMdev] Question about Pre-RA-schedule in LLVM3.3
> >
> >> My clang version is 3.3 and debug build.
> >
> >> //test.c
> >> int a[6] = {1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6}
> >> int main() {
> >>  a[0] = a[5];
> >>  a[1] = a[4];
> >>  a[2] = a[5];
> >> }
> >> //end test.c
> >> Then test.dump is generated by using the objdump tool.
> >> //test.dump
> >> ldr  r1, [r0, #20]
> >> str  r1, [r0]
> >> ldr  r1, [r0, #16]
> >> str  r1, [r0, #4]
> >> ldr  r1, [r0, #12]
> >> str  r1, [r0, #8]
> >> bx  lr
> >> //end test.dump
> >
> >It appears you have a typo in the above, since the generated array
> > reference offsets do not correspond to the code in test.c.
> >  Presumably, the last array reference in test.c was really from
> > a[3], not a[5]. I'm sorry for making a mistake in the above test.c.
> And your presumption is right. >
> >> However, for 3th and 4th instructions, they should be allocated
> >>  different
> >> register from the second instruction.
> >
> >Why?
> >
> > - Chuck
> > Thank you for your answer. If 3th and 4th instructions are
> > allocated different register from the second instruction.
> Then the same machine register dependence will disappear,
> this sequence instructions would be executed with less stalls and
> cycles.
> However, in the latest version of LLVM, the Pre-RA-sched builds a
> scheduling graph(original graph) which is shown following.
> //original graph
> ----> data flow
> ====> control flow
> load1 ----> store1 ====> load2 ----> store2 ====> load3 ----> store3
> //end original graph
> So, Pre-RA-sched is unable to schedule apart load/store instruction
> pair.
> Due to LiveRange in the Register Allocation stage, all load/store
> instruction pair are allocated the same register.
> 
> If we change the control flow in the above original graph, the
> modified graph is shown following.
> //modified graph
> ----> data flow
> ====> control flow
> load1 ----> store1 ====> store2 ====> store3
> load2 ----> store2
> load3 ----> store3
> //end modified graph
> 
> I think the Pre-RA-sched is able to schedule apart load/store
> instruction pairs.
> Then each instruction pair uses different register.
> The order of scheduled instruction of test.c may be load1, load2,
> load3, store1, store2, store3. Best Wishes - Haishan
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
> 

-- 
Hal Finkel
Assistant Computational Scientist
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory