[llvm-dev] [RFC] Allow loop vectorizer to choose vector widths that generate illegal types

[Michael Kuperstein via llvm-dev]

Hi Nadav,
Thanks a lot for the feedback!

Of course we need to explore this with numbers. Not just in terms of the
performance vs. compile-time, but in general in terms of the performance
benefit. For now, I'm just trying to get a feel for whether people think
this sounds like a reasonable idea. As I wrote in the original email, we
already have this under a flag (it was added by Cong last year). But it
will be hard to get reliable performance numbers without first having the
cost model provide better-quality answers at the higher vectorization
factors.

I didn't mean that we should be duplicating every optimization the
SelectionDAG makes. Of course the cost model is only a rough approximation.
What I do want the (generic) cost model to do, however, is provide a
more-or-less precise approximation of legalization costs. To be concrete,
http://reviews.llvm.org/D21251 is a first step in that direction. Do you
think this is something the cost model should not be doing?

Regarding loop widening - see my email to Dibyendu for what I meant. For
mixed-type loops, it really depends. Let's say you have a mixed-type loop,
with i32 and i64, and 256-bit registers. Would the extra parallelism you
get from vectorizing by 4 and interleaving be worth the throughput loss you
suffer from not vectorizing the i32 operations by 8? It seems like this
would depend heavily on the specific loop, and the proportion of i32 and
i64 instructions. This is exactly the question I'd like to get the cost
model to answer. Do you think this is not feasible? It shouldn't (I hope
:-) ) require modeling every possible shuffle.

Thanks,
  Michael

On Wed, Jun 15, 2016 at 11:24 PM, Nadav Rotem <nadav.rotem at me.com> wrote:

> Hi Michael,
>
> Thank you for working on this. The loop vectorizer tries a bunch of
> different vectorization factors and stops at the widest word size mostly
> because of compile time concerns. On every vectorization factors that we
> check we have to scan all of the instructions in the loop and make multiple
> calls into TTI. If you decide to increase the VF enumeration space then you
> will linearly increase the compile time of the loop vectorizer. I think
> that it would be a good idea to explore this compile-time vs performance
> tradeoff with numbers.
>
> The cost model is designed to be a fast approximation of SelectionDAG. We
> don't want to duplicate every optimization in SelectionDAG into the cost
> model because this would make the code model (and the optimizer) difficult
> to maintain. If the cost model does not represent an operation that you
> care about then you should add it to the cost tables.
>
> I don't understand how selecting wide vectors would eliminate the need to
> have loop widening.  Loop widening happens to break data dependencies and
> allow more parallelism. If you have two independent arithmetic operations
> then they can go into different execution units, or to pipelined execution
> units. Your mixed-typed loops would cause a shuffle across registers (which
> we can't model well in the cost model, for obvious reasons) that will pack
> multiple lanes into a smaller vector and this would introduce a data
> dependency.
>
> Maybe you should start by increasing the enumeration space (by 2X, for
> example) under a flag and see if you get any performance gains.
>
> -Nadav
>
> On Jun 15, 2016, at 03:48 PM, Michael Kuperstein <mkuper at google.com>
> wrote:
>
> Hello,
>
> Currently the loop vectorizer will, by default, not consider vectorization
> factors that would make it generate types that do not fit into the target
> platform's vector registers. That is, if the widest scalar type in the
> scalar loop is i64, and the platform's largest vector register is 256-bit
> wide, we will not consider a VF above 4.
>
> We have a command line option (-mllvm -vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth),
> that will choose VFs for consideration based on the narrowest scalar type
> instead of the widest one, but I don't believe it has been widely tested.
> If anyone has had an opportunity to play around with it, I'd love to hear
> about the results.
>
> What I'd like to do is:
> Step 1: Make -vectorizer-maximize-bandwidth the default. This should
> improve the performance of loops that contain mixed-width types.
> Step 2: Remove the artificial width limitation altogether, and base the
> vectorization factor decision purely on the cost model. This should allow
> us to get rid of the interleaving code in the loop vectorizer, and get
> interleaving for "free" from the legalizer instead.
>
> There are two potential road-blocks I see - the cost-model, and the
> legalizer. To make this work, we need to:
> a) Model the cost of operations on illegal types better. Right now, what
> we get is sometimes completely ridiculous (e.g. see
> http://reviews.llvm.org/D21251).
> b) Make sure the cost model actually stops us when the VF becomes too
> large. This is mostly a question of correctly estimating the register
> pressure. In theory, that should not be a issue - we already rely on this
> estimate to choose the interleaving factor, so using the same logic to
> upper-bound the VF directly shouldn't make things worse.
> c) Ensure the legalizer is up to the task of emitting good code for overly
> wide vectors. I've talked about this with Chandler, and his opinion
> (Chandler, please correct me if I'm wrong) is that on x86, the legalizer is
> likely to be able to handle this. This may not be true for other platforms.
> So, I'd like to try to make this the default on a platform-by-platform
> basis, starting with x86.
>
> What do you think? Does this seem like a step in the right direction?
> Anything important I'm missing?
>
> Thanks,
>   Michael
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160616/b3c9ca3a/attachment.html>