[llvm-dev] masked-load endpoints optimization

Mon Apr 4 10:11:17 PDT 2016

On Sun, Apr 3, 2016 at 3:51 PM, Zaks, Ayal <ayal.zaks at intel.com> wrote:
>
> < The real question I have is whether it is legal to read the extra
memory, regardless of whether this is a masked load or something else.
>
>
>
> If one is allowed to read from a given address, a reasonable(?)
assumption is that the aligned cache-line containing this address can be
read. This should help answer the question.

I started another thread with this question to also include cfe-dev:
http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/2016-March/096828.html

For reference, the necessary conditions to do the transform are at least
this:

1. both ends of vector are used
2. vector is smaller than granularity of cacheline and memory protection on
targeted architecture
3. not FP, or arch doesn’t raise flags on FP loads (most)
4. not volatile or atomic

I have tried to meet all those requirement for x86, so the transform is
still available in trunk. If I've missed a predicate, it should be
considered a bug.

> Wonder in what situations one may know (at compile time) that both the
first and the last bit of a mask are on?

The main motivation was to make sure that all masked move operations were
optimally supported by the x86 backend such that we could replace any
regular AVX vector load/store with a masked op (including 'all' and 'none'
masks) in source. This helps hand-coded, but possibly very templated,
vector source code to perform as well as specialized vector code. In
theory, it should also allow the auto-vectorizers to produce more efficient
prologue/epilog loop code, but that has not been implemented yet AFAIK.

The "load doughnut" optimization was just something I noticed while
handling the expected patterns, so I thought I better throw it in too. :)

>
>
>
> Thanks for rL263446,
>
> Ayal.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 18:57
> To: Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>
> Cc: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] masked-load endpoints optimization
>
>
>
> Thanks, Ashutosh.
>
> Yes, either TTI or TLI could be used to limit the transform if we do it
in CGP rather than the DAG.
>
> The real question I have is whether it is legal to read the extra memory,
regardless of whether this is a masked load or something else.
>
> Note that the x86 backend already does this, so either my proposal is ok
for x86, or we're already doing an illegal optimization:
>
>
> define <4 x i32> @load_bonus_bytes(i32* %addr1, <4 x i32> %v) {
>   %ld1 = load i32, i32* %addr1
>   %addr2 = getelementptr i32, i32* %addr1, i64 3
>   %ld2 = load i32, i32* %addr2
>   %vec1 = insertelement <4 x i32> undef, i32 %ld1, i32 0
>   %vec2 = insertelement <4 x i32> %vec1, i32 %ld2, i32 3
>   ret <4 x i32> %vec2
> }
>
> $ ./llc -o - loadcombine.ll
> ...
>     movups    (%rdi), %xmm0
>     retq
>
>
>
>
> On Thu, Mar 10, 2016 at 10:22 PM, Nema, Ashutosh <Ashutosh.Nema at amd.com>
wrote:
>
> This looks interesting, the main motivation appears to be replacing
masked vector load with a general vector load followed by a select.
>
>
>
> Observed masked vector loads are in general expensive in comparison with
a vector load.
>
>
>
> But if first & last element of a masked vector load are guaranteed to be
accessed then it can be transformed to a vector load.
>
>
>
> In opt this can be driven by TTI, where the benefit of this
transformation should be checked.
>
>
>
> Regards,
>
> Ashutosh
>
>
>
> From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of
Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev
> Sent: Friday, March 11, 2016 3:37 AM
> To: llvm-dev
> Subject: [llvm-dev] masked-load endpoints optimization
>
>
>
> If we're loading the first and last elements of a vector using a masked
load [1], can we replace the masked load with a full vector load?
>
> "The result of this operation is equivalent to a regular vector load
instruction followed by a ‘select’ between the loaded and the passthru
values, predicated on the same mask. However, using this intrinsic prevents
exceptions on memory access to masked-off lanes."
>
> I think the fact that we're loading the endpoints of the vector
guarantees that a full vector load can't have any different
faulting/exception behavior on x86 and most (?) other targets. We would,
however, be reading memory that the program has not explicitly requested.
>
> IR example:
>
> define <4 x i32> @maskedload_endpoints(<4 x i32>* %addr, <4 x i32> %v) {
>
>   ; load the first and last elements pointed to by %addr and shuffle
those into %v
>
>   %res = call <4 x i32> @llvm.masked.load.v4i32(<4 x i32>* %addr, i32 4,
<4 x i1> <i1 1, i1 0, i1 0, i1 1>, <4 x i32> %v)
>   ret <4 x i32> %res
> }
>
> would become something like:
>
>
> define <4 x i32> @maskedload_endpoints(<4 x i32>* %addr, <4 x i32> %v) {
>
>   %vecload = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %addr, align 4
>
>   %sel = select <4 x i1> <i1 1, i1 0, i1 0, i1 1>, <4 x i32> %vecload, <4
x i32> %v
>
>   ret <4 x i32> %sel
> }
>
> If this isn't valid as an IR optimization, would it be acceptable as a
DAG combine with target hook to opt in?
>
>
> [1] http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#llvm-masked-load-intrinsics
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> 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.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160404/ef8b46f9/attachment.html>