[llvm-dev] [LLVMdev] RFC: Convergent attribute

[Jingyue Wu via llvm-dev]

Hi Owen,

According to your design, is LLVM supposed to (partially) disallow inlining
a function that has convergent instructions? It's hard to define control
equivalent inter-procedurally. For example, if a function containing a
convergent instruction is called at two call sites, inlining the function
produces two convergent instructions. Neither of the two is control
equivalent to the original, but they combined are in some sense.

I came across this when I am thinking whether __syncthreads in CUDA should
be tagged "convergent'. Right now, it's tagged as noduplicate so inlining
and loop unrolling are disallowed. But I think noduplicate is too strong
for the semantics of convergent.

Jingyue

On Wed, May 13, 2015 at 1:17 PM, Owen Anderson <resistor at mac.com> wrote:

> Below is a proposal for a new "convergent" intrinsic attribute and
> MachineInstr property, needed for correctly modeling many SPMD/SIMT
> programming models in LLVM.  Comments and feedback welcome.
>
> —Owen
>
>
>
>
>
> In order to make LLVM more suitable for programming models variously
> called SPMD
> and SIMT, we would like to propose a new intrinsic and MachineInstr
> annotation
> called "convergent", which will be used to impose certain control flow
> and/or
> code motion constraints that are necessary for the correct compilation of
> some
> common constructs in these programming models.
>
> Our proposal strives to define the semantics of these annotations *without*
> introducing a definition of SPMD/SIMT programming models into LLVM IR.
> Rather,
> the properties that must be preserved are specified purely in terms of
> single
> thread semantics.  This allows pass authors to reason about the constraints
> without having to consider alternative programming models.  The downside to
> this approach is that the motivation and necessity of these constraints in
> not
> easily understood without understanding the programming model from which
> they
> derive.
>
> *** WHAT ***
>
> (Thanks to Phil Reames for input on this definition.)
>
> An operation marked convergent may be transformed or moved within the
> program
> if and only the post-transform placement of the convergent operation is
> control equivalent (A dominated B, B post-dominates A, or vice-versa) to
> its original position.
>
> This definition is overly strict with respect to some SPMD/SIMT models,
> but cannot be relaxed without introducing a specific model into LLVM IR. We
> believe it is important for LLVM itself to remain agnostic to any specific
> model.  This allows core passes to preserve correctness for stricter
> models,
> while more relaxed models can implement additional transforms that use
> weaker constraints on top of core LLVM.
>
> *** HOW ***
>
> Once the attribute has been added, we anticipate the following changes to
> optimization passes will be required:
>   - Restrict Sink and MachineSink for convergent operations
>   - Disabling PRE for convergent operations
>   - Disabling jump threading of convergent operations
>   - Auditing SimplifyCFG for additional transforms that break convergent
> guarantees
>
> *** WHY ***
>
> SPMD/SIMT programming models are a family of related programming models in
> which multiple threads execute in a per-instruction lockstep fashion.
> Predication is typically used to implement acyclic control flow that would
> otherwise diverge the PC address of the lockstep threads.
>
> In these models, each thread's register set is typically indepedent, but
> there
> exist a small number of important circumstances in which a thread may
> access
> register storage from one of its lockstep neighbors.  Examples include
> gradient
> computation for texture lookups, as well a cross-thread broadcast and
> shuffle
> operations.
>
> These operations that provide access to another thread's register storage
> pose
> a particular challenge to the compiler, particularly when combined with the
> use of predication for control flow.  Consider the following example:
>
> // texture lookup that computes gradient of r0, last use of r0
> r1 = texture2D(..., r0, ...)
> if (...) {
>   // r0 used as temporary here
>   r0 = ...
>   r2 = r0 + ...
> } else {
>   // only use of r1
>   r2 = r1 + ...
> }
>
> In this example, various optimizations might try to sink the texture2D
> operation
> into the else block, like so:
>
> if (...) {
>   r0 = ...
>   r2 = r0 + ...
> } else {
>   r1 = texture2D(..., r0, ...)
>   r2 = r1 + ...
> }
>
> At this point, it starts to become clear that a problem can occur when two
> neighbor threads want to take different paths through the if-else
> construct.
> Logically, the thread that wishes to execute the texture2D races with its
> neighbor to reads the neighbor's value of r0 before it gets overridden.
>
> In most SPMD/SIMT implementations, the fallout of this races is exposed via
> the predicated expression of acyclic control flow:
>
> pred0 <- cmp ...
> if (pred0)  r0 = ...
> if (pred0)  r2 = r0 + ...
> if (!pred0) r1 = texture2D(..., r0, ...)
> if (!pred0) r2 = r1 + ...
>
> If thread 0 takes the else path and perform the texture2D operation, but
> its neighbor thread 1 takes the then branch, then the texture2D will fail
> because thread 1 has already overwritten its value of r0 before thread 0
> has
> a chance to read it.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20150813/d37c2e02/attachment.html>