[llvm-dev] [RFC] llvm-mca: a static performance analysis tool
UE US via llvm-dev
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
Mon Mar 5 01:59:13 PST 2018
Hello,
I just wanted to say I like this a lot. I can think of at least three
projects I worked on in the past that could have used such a tool as a sort
of rough indicator even by itself but especially in combination with
performance testing on hardware as you mentioned.
Having worked on a project that went round trip from executable to MCInst &
analysis to executable again I don't see any problems with using that as
the layer for analyzing in this way.
I agree with your reasons for not modelling certain things like branch
prediction fully. Once you get into things like that you have to start
thinking about loop alignment, speculative execution (how do we count the
penalty for executing code that won't run on a mispredict, or the benefit
of doing it on a correct one?), the list goes on. Same with the SSE + AVX
thing, and similar situations like AVX-512 downclocking and such. A simple
model for branches and loads / stores also seems to fit in with what AMD
has said about optimizing for Ryzen because of the prediction being based
on a hardware neural network; just going on their documentation on that
one.
The important thing is that it seems like it would make testing for new
processor scheduling models nicer; it seems like a good tool to include in
a full LLVM build. It could even enhance the test suite with cases
basically like what you mentioned with the btver2 work that would allow for
a sort of spot check. The biggest problem there is that microcode updates
are capable of changing things that might show up there, but that's getting
into more detail than might be necessary.
Thanks for the work on this guys,
-Gordon
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:22 AM, Andrea Di Biagio via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> At Sony we developed an LLVM based performance analysis tool named
> llvm-mca. We
> currently use it internally to statically measure the performance of code,
> and
> to help triage potential problems with target scheduling models. We
> decided to
> post this RFC because we are interested in the feedback from the
> community, and
> we also believe that other people might be interested in a tool like this.
>
> llvm-mca uses information which is already available in LLVM (e.g.
> scheduling
> models) to statically measure the performance of machine code in a
> specific cpu.
> Performance is measured in terms of throughput as well as processor
> resource
> consumption. The tool currently works for processors with an out-of-order
> backend, for which there is a scheduling model available in LLVM.
>
> The main goal of this tool is not just to predict the performance of the
> code
> when run on the target, but also help with diagnosing potential performance
> issues.
>
> Given an assembly code sequence, llvm-mca estimates the IPC (instructions
> per
> cycle), as well as hardware resources pressure. The analysis and reporting
> style
> were inspired by the IACA tool from Intel.
>
> The presence of long data dependency chains, as well as poor usage of
> hardware
> resources may lead to bottlenecks in the back-end. The tool is able to
> generate
> a detailed report which should help with identifying and analyzing sources
> of
> bottlenecks.
>
> Scheduling models are mostly used to compute instruction latencies, to
> obtain
> read-advance information, and understand how processor resources are used
> by
> instructions. By design, the quality of the performance analysis
> conducted by
> the tool is inevitably affected by the quality of the target scheduling
> models.
>
> However, scheduling models intentionally do not describe all processors
> details,
> since the goal is just to enable the scheduling of machine instructions
> during
> compilation. That means, there are processor details which are not
> important for
> the purpose of scheduling instructions (and therefore not described by the
> scheduling model), but are very important for this tool.
>
> A few examples of details that are missing in scheduling models are:
> - Maximum number of instructions retired per cycle.
> - Actual dispatch width (it often differs from the issue width).
> - Number of temporary registers available for renaming.
> - Number of read/write ports in the register file(s).
> - Length of the load/store queue in the LSUnit.
>
> It is also very difficult to find a "good" abstract model to describe the
> behavior of out-of-order processors. So, we have to keep in mind that all
> of
> these aspects are going to affect the quality of the static analysis
> performed
> by the tool.
>
> An extensive list of known limitations is reported in one of the last
> sections
> of this document. There is also a section related to design problems which
> must
> be addressed (hopefully with the help of the community). At the moment,
> the
> tool has been mostly tested for x86 targets, but there are still several
> limitations, some of which could be overcome by integrating extra
> information
> into the scheduling models.
>
> As was mentioned before, this tool has been (and is still being) used
> internally
> in Sony to debug/triage issues in the btver2 scheduling model. We have also
> tested it on other targets to check how generic the tool is. In our
> experience,
> the tool makes it easy to identify simple mistakes like "wrong number of
> micro
> opcodes specified for an instruction", or "wrong set of hardware
> resources".
> Some of these mistakes are quite common (sometimes on mature models too),
> and
> often difficult to catch. Reports generated by this tool are simple to
> analyze,
> and contain enough details to help triage most performance problems.
>
> 1. How the tool works
> ---------------------
>
> The tool takes assembly code as input. Assembly code is parsed into a
> sequence
> of MCInst with the help of the existing LLVM target assembly parsers. The
> parsed
> sequence of MCInst is then analyzed by a 'Backend' module to generate a
> performance report.
>
> The Backend module internally emulates the execution of the machine code
> sequence in a loop of iterations (which by default is 70). At the end of
> this
> process, the backend collects a number of statistics which are then
> printed out
> in the form of a report.
>
> Here is an example of performance report generated by the tool for a
> dot-product
> of two packed float vectors of four elements. The analysis is conducted for
> target x86, cpu btver2:
>
> ///////////////////
>
> Iterations: 300
> Instructions: 900
> Total Cycles: 610
> Dispatch Width: 2
> IPC: 1.48
>
>
> Resources:
> [0] - JALU0
> [1] - JALU1
> [2] - JDiv
> [3] - JFPM
> [4] - JFPU0
> [5] - JFPU1
> [6] - JLAGU
> [7] - JSAGU
> [8] - JSTC
> [9] - JVIMUL
>
>
> Resource pressure per iteration:
> [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
> - - - - 2.00 1.00 - - - -
>
> Resource pressure by instruction:
> [0] [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9]
> Instructions:
> - - - - - 1.00 - - - -
> vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> - - - - 1.00 - - - - -
> vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> - - - - 1.00 - - - - -
> vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
>
>
> Instruction Info:
> [1]: #uOps
> [2]: Latency
> [3]: RThroughput
> [4]: MayLoad
> [5]: MayStore
> [6]: HasSideEffects
>
> [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] Instructions:
> 1 2 1.00 vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> 1 3 1.00 vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> 1 3 1.00 vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
>
> ///////////////////
>
> According to this report, the dot-product kernel has been executed 300
> times,
> for a total of 900 instructions dynamically executed.
>
> The report is structured in three main sections. A first section collects
> a few
> performance numbers; the goal of this section is to give a very quick
> overview
> of the performance throughput. In this example, the two important
> perforamce
> indicators are a) the predicted total number of cycles, and b) the IPC.
> IPC is probably the most important throughput indicator. A big delta
> between the
> Dispatch Width and the computed IPC is an indicator of potential
> performance
> issues.
>
> The second section is the so-called "resource pressure view". This view
> reports
> the average number of resource cycles consumed every iteration by
> instructions
> for every processor resource unit available on the target. Information is
> structured in two tables. The first table reports the number of resource
> cycles
> spent on average every iteration. The second table correlates the resource
> cycles to the machine instruction in the sequence. For example, every
> iteration
> of the dot-product, instruction 'vmulps' always executes on resource unit
> [5]
> (JFPU1 - floating point pipeline #1), consuming an average of 1 resource
> cycle
> per iteration. Note that on Jaguar, vector FP multiply can only be issued
> to
> pipeline JFPU1, while horizontal FP adds can only be issued to pipeline
> JFPU0.
>
> The third (and last) section of the report shows the latency and reciprocal
> throughput of every instruction in the sequence. That section also reports
> extra
> information related to the number of micro opcodes, and opcode properties
> (i.e.
> 'MayLoad', 'MayStore' and 'UnmodeledSideEffects').
>
> The resource pressure view helps with identifying bottlenecks caused by
> high
> usage of specific hardware resources. Situations with resource pressure
> mainly
> concentrated on a few resources should, in general, be avoided. Ideally,
> pressure should be uniformly distributed between multiple resources.
>
> Timeline View
> -------------
>
> A detailed report of each instruction's state transitions over time can be
> enabled using the command line flag '-timeline'. This prints an extra
> section
> in the report which contains the so-called "timeline view". Below is the
> timeline view for the dot-product example from the previous section.
>
> ///////////////
> Timeline view:
> 012345
> Index 0123456789
>
> [0,0] DeeER. . . vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> [0,1] D==eeeER . . vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> [0,2] .D====eeeER . vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
>
> [1,0] .DeeE-----R . vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> [1,1] . D=eeeE---R . vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> [1,2] . D====eeeER . vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
>
> [2,0] . DeeE-----R . vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> [2,1] . D====eeeER . vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> [2,2] . D======eeeER vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
>
>
> Average Wait times (based on the timeline view):
> [0]: Executions
> [1]: Average time spent waiting in a scheduler's queue
> [2]: Average time spent waiting in a scheduler's queue while ready
> [3]: Average time elapsed from WB until retire stage
>
> [0] [1] [2] [3]
> 0. 3 1.0 1.0 3.3 vmulps %xmm0, %xmm1, %xmm2
> 1. 3 3.3 0.7 1.0 vhaddps %xmm2, %xmm2, %xmm3
> 2. 3 5.7 0.0 0.0 vhaddps %xmm3, %xmm3, %xmm4
> ///////////////
>
> The timeline view is very interesting because it shows how instructions
> changed
> in state during execution. It also gives an idea of how the tool "sees"
> instructions executed on the target.
>
> The timeline view is structured in two tables. The first table shows how
> instructions change in state over time (measured in cycles); the second
> table
> (named "Average Wait times") reports useful timing statistics which should
> help
> diagnose performance bottlenecks caused by long data dependencies and
> sub-optimal
> usage of hardware resources.
>
> An instruction in the timeline view is identified by a pair of indices,
> where
> the 'first' index identifies an iteration, and the 'second' index is the
> actual
> instruction index (i.e. where it appears in the code sequence).
>
> Excluding the first and last column, the remaining columns are in cycles.
> Cycles
> are numbered sequentially starting from 0. The following characters are
> used to
> describe the state of an instruction:
>
> D : Instruction dispatched.
> e : Instruction executing.
> E : Instruction executed.
> R : Instruction retired.
> = : Instruction already dispatched, waiting to be executed.
> - : Instruction executed, waiting to be retired.
>
> Based on the timeline view from the example, we know that:
> - Instruction [1, 0] was dispatched at cycle 1.
> - Instruction [1, 0] started executing at cycle 2.
> - Instruction [1, 0] reached the write back stage at cycle 4.
> - Instruction [1, 0] was retired at cycle 10.
>
> Instruction [1, 0] (i.e. the vmulps from iteration #1) doesn't have to
> wait in
> the scheduler's queue for the operands to become available. By the time the
> vmulps is dispatched, operands are already available, and pipeline JFPU1 is
> ready to serve another instruction. So the instruction can be immediately
> issued on the JFPU1 pipeline. That is demonstrated by the fact that the
> instruction only spent 1cy in the scheduler's queue.
>
> There is a gap of 5 cycles between the write-back stage and the retire
> event.
> That is because instructions must retire in program order, so [1,0] has to
> wait
> for [0, 2] to be retired first (i.e it has to wait unti cycle 10).
>
> In the dot-product example, all instructions are in a RAW (Read After
> Write)
> dependency chain. Register %xmm2 written by the vmulps is immediately
> used by
> the first vhaddps, and register %xmm3 written by the first vhaddps is used
> by
> the second vhaddps. Long data dependencies negatively affect the ILP
> (Instruction Level Parallelism).
>
> In the dot-product example, there are anti-dependencies introduced by
> instructions from different iterations. However, those dependencies can be
> removed at register renaming stage (at the cost of allocating register
> aliases,
> and therefore consuming temporary registers).
>
> Table "Average Wait times" helps diagnose performance issues that are
> caused by
> the presence of long latency instructions and potentially long data
> dependencies
> which may limit the ILP. Note that the tool by default assumes at least
> 1cy
> between the dispatch event and the issue event.
>
> When the performance is limited by data dependencies and/or long latency
> instructions, the number of cycles spent while in the "ready" state is
> expected
> to be very small when compared with the total number of cycles spent in the
> scheduler's queue. So the difference between the two counters is a good
> indicator of how big of an impact data dependencies had on the execution of
> instructions. When performance is mostly limited by the lack of hardware
> resources, the delta between the two counters is small. However, the
> number of
> cycles spent in the queue tends to be bigger (i.e. more than 1-3cy)
> especially
> when compared with other low latency instructions.
>
> Extra statistics to further diagnose performance issues.
> --------------------------------------------------------
>
> Flag '-verbose' enables extra statistics and performance counters for the
> dispatch logic, the reorder buffer, the retire control unit and the
> register
> file.
>
> Below is an example of verbose output generated by the tool for the
> dot-product
> example discussed in the previous sections.
>
> ///////////////////
> Iterations: 300
> Instructions: 900
> Total Cycles: 610
> Dispatch Width: 2
> IPC: 1.48
>
>
> Dynamic Dispatch Stall Cycles:
> RAT - Register unavailable: 0
> RCU - Retire tokens unavailable: 0
> SCHEDQ - Scheduler full: 272
> LQ - Load queue full: 0
> SQ - Store queue full: 0
> GROUP - Static restrictions on the dispatch group: 0
>
>
> Register Alias Table:
> Total number of mappings created: 900
> Max number of mappings used: 35
>
>
> Dispatch Logic - number of cycles where we saw N instructions dispatched:
> [# dispatched], [# cycles]
> 0, 24 (3.9%)
> 1, 272 (44.6%)
> 2, 314 (51.5%)
>
>
> Schedulers - number of cycles where we saw N instructions issued:
> [# issued], [# cycles]
> 0, 7 (1.1%)
> 1, 306 (50.2%)
> 2, 297 (48.7%)
>
>
> Retire Control Unit - number of cycles where we saw N instructions retired:
> [# retired], [# cycles]
> 0, 109 (17.9%)
> 1, 102 (16.7%)
> 2, 399 (65.4%)
>
>
> Scheduler's queue usage:
> JALU01, 0/20
> JFPU01, 18/18
> JLSAGU, 0/12
> ///////////////////
>
> Based on the verbose report, the backend was only able to dispatch two
> instructions 51.5% of the time. The dispatch group was limited to one
> instruction 44.6% of the cycles, which corresponds to 272 cycles.
>
> If we look at section "Dynamic Dispatch Stall Cycles", we can see how
> counter
> SCHEDQ reports 272 cycles. Counter SCHEDQ is incremented every time the
> dispatch
> logic is unable to dispatch a full group of two instructions because the
> scheduler's queue is full.
>
> Section "Scheduler's queue usage" shows how the maximum number of buffer
> entries
> (i.e. scheduler's queue entries) used at runtime for resource JFPU01
> reached its
> maximum. Note that AMD Jaguar implements three schedulers:
> * JALU01 - A scheduler for ALU instructions
> * JLSAGU - A scheduler for address generation
> * JFPU01 - A scheduler floating point operations.
>
> The dot-product is a kernel of three floating point instructions (a vector
> multiply followed by two horizontal adds). That explains why only the
> floating
> point scheduler appears to be used according to section "Scheduler's queue
> usage".
>
> A full scheduler's queue is either caused by data dependency chains, or by
> a
> sub-optimal usage of hardware resources. Sometimes, resource pressure can
> be
> mitigated by rewriting the kernel using different instructions that consume
> different scheduler resources. Schedulers with a small queue are less
> resilient
> to bottlenecks caused by the presence of long data dependencies.
>
> In this example, we can conclude that the IPC is mostly limited by data
> dependencies, and not by resource pressure.
>
> LLVM-MCA instruction flow
> -------------------------
>
> This section describes the instruction flow through the out-of-order
> backend, as
> well as the functional units involved in the process.
>
> An instruction goes through a default sequence of stages:
> - Dispatch (Instruction is dispatched to the schedulers).
> - Issue (Instruction is issued to the processor pipelines).
> - Write Back (Instruction is executed, and results are written back).
> - Retire (Instruction is retired; writes are architecturally
> committed).
>
> The tool only models the out-of-order portion of a processor. Therefore,
> the
> instruction fetch and decode stages are not modeled. Performance
> bottlenecks in
> the frontend are not diagnosed by this tool. The tool assumes that
> instructions
> have all been decoded and placed in a queue. Also, the tool doesn't know
> anything about branch prediction.
>
> Instruction Dispatch
> --------------------
>
> During the Dispatch stage, instructions are picked in program order from a
> queue
> of already decoded instructions, and dispatched in groups to the hardware
> schedulers. The dispatch logic is implemented by class DispatchUnit in
> file
> Dispatch.h.
>
> The size of a dispatch group depends on the availability of hardware
> resources,
> and it cannot exceed the value of field 'DispatchWidth' in class
> DispatchUnit.
> Note that field DispatchWidth defaults to the value of field 'IssueWidth'
> from
> the scheduling model.
>
> Users can override the DispatchWidth value with flag "-dispatch=<N>"
> (where 'N'
> is an unsigned quantity).
>
> An instruction can be dispatched if:
> - The size of the dispatch group is smaller than DispatchWidth
> - There are enough entries in the reorder buffer
> - There are enough temporary registers to do register renaming
> - Schedulers are not full.
>
> Scheduling models don't describe register files, and therefore the tool
> doesn't
> know if there is more than one register file, and how many temporaries are
> available for register renaming.
>
> By default, the tool (optimistically) assumes a single register file with
> an
> unbounded number of temporary registers. Users can limit the number of
> temporary registers available for register renaming using flag
> `-register-file-size=<N>`, where N is the number of temporaries. A value
> of
> zero for N means 'unbounded'. Knowing how many temporaries are available
> for
> register renaming, the tool can predict dispatch stalls caused by the lack
> of
> temporaries.
>
> The number of reorder buffer entries consumed by an instruction depends on
> the
> number of micro-opcodes it specifies in the target scheduling model (see
> field
> 'NumMicroOpcodes' of tablegen class ProcWriteResources and its derived
> classes;
> TargetSchedule.td).
>
> The reorder buffer is implemented by class RetireControlUnit (see
> Dispatch.h).
> Its goal is to track the progress of instructions that are "in-flight", and
> retire instructions in program order. The number of entries in the reorder
> buffer defaults to the value of field 'MicroOpBufferSize' from the target
> scheduling model.
>
> Instructions that are dispatched to the schedulers consume scheduler buffer
> entries. The tool queries the scheduling model to figure out the set of
> buffered resources consumed by an instruction. Buffered resources are
> treated
> like "scheduler" resources, and the field 'BufferSize' (from the processor
> resource tablegen definition) defines the size of the scheduler's queue.
>
> Zero latency instructions (for example NOP instructions) don't consume
> scheduler
> resources. However, those instructions still reserve a number of slots in
> the
> reorder buffer.
>
> Instruction Issue
> -----------------
>
> As mentioned in the previous section, each scheduler resource implements a
> queue
> of instructions. An instruction has to wait in the scheduler's queue until
> input register operands become available. Only at that point, does the
> instruction becomes eligible for execution and may be issued (potentially
> out-of-order) to a pipeline for execution.
>
> Instruction latencies can be computed by the tool with the help of the
> scheduling model; latency values are defined by the scheduling model
> through
> ProcWriteResources objects.
>
> Class Scheduler (see file Scheduler.h) knows how to emulate multiple
> processor
> schedulers. A Scheduler is responsible for tracking data dependencies, and
> dynamically select which processor resources are consumed/used by
> instructions.
>
> Internally, the Scheduler class delegates the management of processor
> resource
> units and resource groups to the ResourceManager class. ResourceManager
> is also
> responsible for selecting resource units that are effectively consumed by
> instructions. For example, if an instruction consumes 1cy of a resource
> group,
> the ResourceManager object selects one of the available units from the
> group; by
> default, it uses a round-robin selector to guarantee that resource usage is
> uniformly distributed between all units of a group.
>
> Internally, class Scheduler implements three instruction queues:
> - WaitQueue: a queue of instructions whose operands are not ready yet.
> - ReadyQueue: a queue of instructions ready to execute.
> - IssuedQueue: a queue of instructions executing.
>
> Depending on the operands availability, instructions that are dispatched
> to the
> Scheduler are either placed into the WaitQueue or into the ReadyQueue.
>
> Every cycle, class Scheduler checks if instructions can be moved from the
> WaitQueue to the ReadyQueue, and if instructions from the ReadyQueue can be
> issued to the underlying pipelines. The algorithm prioritizes older
> instructions over younger instructions.
>
> Objects of class ResourceState (see Scheduler.h) describe processor
> resources.
> There is an instance of class ResourceState for each single processor
> resource
> specified by the scheduling model. A ResourceState object for a processor
> resource with multiple units dynamically tracks the availability of every
> single
> unit. For example, the ResourceState of a resource group tracks the
> availability of every resource in that group. Internally, ResourceState
> implements a round-robin selector to dynamically pick the next unit to use
> from
> the group.
>
> Write-Back and Retire Stage
> ---------------------------
>
> Issued instructions are moved from the ReadyQueue to the IssuedQueue.
> There,
> instructions wait until they reach the write-back stage. At that point,
> they
> get removed from the queue and the retire control unit is notified.
>
> On the event of "instruction executed", the retire control unit flags the
> instruction as "ready to retire".
>
> Instruction are retired in program order; an "instruction retired" event
> is sent
> to the register file which frees the temporary registers allocated for the
> instruction at register renaming stage.
>
> Load/Store Unit and Memory Consistency Model
> --------------------------------------------
>
> The tool attempts to emulate out-of-order execution of memory operations.
> Class
> LSUnit (see file LSUnit.h) emulates a load/store unit implementing queues
> for
> speculative execution of loads and stores.
>
> Each load (or store) consumes an entry in the load (or store) queue. The
> number
> of slots in the load/store queues is unknown by the tool, since there is no
> mention of it in the scheduling model. In practice, users can specify flag
> `-lqueue=N` (vic. `-squeue=N`) to limit the number of entries in the queue
> to be
> equal to exactly N (an unsigned value). If N is zero, then the tool
> assumes an
> unbounded queue (this is the default).
>
> LSUnit implements a relaxed consistency model for memory loads and stores.
> The
> rules are:
> 1) A younger load is allowed to pass an older load only if there is no
> intervening store in between the two loads.
> 2) An younger store is not allowed to pass an older store.
> 3) A younger store is not allowed to pass an older load.
> 4) A younger load is allowed to pass an older store provided that the load
> does
> not alias with the store.
>
> By default, this class conservatively (i.e. pessimistically) assumes that
> loads
> always may-alias store operations. Essentially, this LSUnit doesn't
> perform any
> sort of alias analysis to rule out cases where loads and stores don't
> overlap
> with each other. The downside of this approach however is that younger
> loads are
> never allowed to pass older stores. To make it possible for a younger
> load to
> pass an older store, users can use the command line flag -noalias. Under
> 'noalias', a younger load is always allowed to pass an older store.
>
> Note that, in the case of write-combining memory, rule 2. could be relaxed
> a bit
> to allow reordering of non-aliasing store operations. That being said, at
> the
> moment, there is no way to further relax the memory model (flag -noalias
> is the
> only option). Essentially, there is no option to specify a different
> memory
> type (for example: write-back, write-combining, write-through; etc.) and
> consequently to weaken or strengthen the memory model.
>
> Other limitations are:
> * LSUnit doesn't know when store-to-load forwarding may occur.
> * LSUnit doesn't know anything about the cache hierarchy and memory types.
> * LSUnit doesn't know how to identify serializing operations and memory
> fences.
>
> No assumption is made on the store buffer size. As mentioned before,
> LSUnit
> conservatively assumes a may-alias relation between loads and stores, and
> it
> doesn't attempt to identify cases where store-to-load forwarding would
> occur in
> practice.
>
> LSUnit doesn't attempt to predict whether a load or store hits or misses
> the L1
> cache. It only knows if an instruction "MayLoad" and/or "MayStore". For
> loads,
> the scheduling model provides an "optimistic" load-to-use latency (which
> usually
> matches the load-to-use latency for when there is a hit in the L1D).
>
> Class MCInstrDesc in LLVM doesn't know about serializing operations, nor
> memory-barrier like instructions. LSUnit conservatively assumes that an
> instruction which has both 'MayLoad' and 'UnmodeledSideEffects' behaves
> like a
> "soft" load-barrier. That means, it serializes loads without forcing a
> flush of
> the load queue. Similarly, instructions flagged with both 'MayStore' and
> 'UnmodeledSideEffects' are treated like store barriers. A full memory
> barrier
> is a 'MayLoad' and 'MayStore' instruction with 'UnmodeledSideEffects'.
> This is
> inaccurate, but it is the best that we can do at the moment with the
> current
> information available in LLVM.
>
> A load/store barrier consumes one entry of the load/store queue. A
> load/store
> barrier enforces ordering of loads/stores. A younger load cannot pass a
> load
> barrier. Also, a younger store cannot pass a store barrier. A younger
> load has
> to wait for the memory/load barrier to execute. A load/store barrier is
> "executed" when it becomes the oldest entry in the load/store queue(s).
> That
> also means, by construction, all the older loads/stores have been executed.
>
> In conclusion the full set of rules is:
> 1. A store may not pass a previous store.
> 2. A load may not pass a previous store unless flag 'NoAlias' is set.
> 3. A load may pass a previous load.
> 4. A store may not pass a previous load (regardless of flag 'NoAlias').
> 5. A load has to wait until an older load barrier is fully executed.
> 6. A store has to wait until an older store barrier is fully executed.
>
> Known limitations
> -----------------
> Previous sections described cases where the tool is missing information to
> give
> an accurate report. For example, the first sections of this document
> explained
> how the lack of knowledge about the processor negatively affects the
> performance
> analysis. The lack of knowledge is often a consequence of how scheduling
> models
> are defined; as mentioned before, scheduling models intentionally don't
> describe
> processors in fine details.
>
> The accuracy of the performance analysis is also affected by assumptions
> made by
> the processor model used by the tool.
>
> Most recent Intel and AMD processors implement dedicated
> LoopBuffer/OpCache in
> the hardware frontend to speedup the throughput in the presence of tight
> loops.
> The presence of these buffers complicates the decoding logic, and requires
> knowledge on the branch predictor too. Class 'SchedMachineModel' in
> tablegen
> provides a field named 'LoopMicroOpBufferSize' which is used to describe
> loop
> buffers. However, the purpose of that field is to enable loop unrolling of
> tight loops; essentially, it affects the cost model used by pass
> loop-unroll.
>
> By design, the tool only cares about the out-of-order portion of a
> processor,
> and consequently doesn't try to predict the frontend throughput.
> Processors may
> implement complex decoding schemes; statically predicting the frontend
> throughput is in general beyond the scope of this tool. For the same
> reasons,
> this tool intentionally doesn't model branch prediction. That being said,
> this
> tool could be definitely extended in future to also account for the
> hardware
> frontend when doing performance analysis. This would inevitably require
> extra
> (extensive) processor knowledge related to all the available decoding
> paths in
> the hardware frontend.
>
> When computing the IPC, the tool assumes a zero-latency "perfect"
> fetch&decode
> stage; the full sequence of decoded instructions is immediately visible to
> the
> dispatch logic from the start.
>
> The tool doesn't know about simultaneous mutithreading. According to the
> tool,
> processor resources are not statically/dynamically partitioned. Processor
> resources are fully available to the hardware thread executing the
> microbenchmark.
>
> The execution model implemented by this tool assumes that instructions are
> firstly dispatched in groups to hardware schedulers, and then issued to
> pipelines for execution. The model assumes dynamic scheduling of
> instructions.
> Instructions are placed in a queue and potentially executed out-of-order
> (based
> on the operand availability). The dispatch stage is definitely distinct
> from the
> issue stage.
>
> This model doesn't correctly describe processors where the dispatch/issue
> is a
> single stage. This is what happens for example in VLIW processors, where
> instructions are packaged and statically scheduled at compile time; it is
> up to
> the compiler to predict the latency of instructions and package issue
> groups
> accordingly. For such targets, there is no dynamic scheduling done by the
> hardware.
>
> Existing classes (DispatchUnit, Scheduler, etc.) could be extended/adapted
> to
> support processors with a single dispatch/issue stage. The execution flow
> would
> require some changes in the way how existing components (i.e.
> DispatchUnit,
> Scheduler, etc.) interact. This can be a future development.
>
> The following sections describes other known limitations. The goal is not
> to
> provide an extensive list of limitations; we want to report what we
> believe are
> the most important limitations, and suggest possible methods to overcome
> them.
>
> Load/Store barrier instructions and serializing operations
> ----------------------------------------------------------
> Section "Load/Store Unit and Memory Consistency Model" already mentioned
> how
> LLVM doesn't know about serializing operations and memory barriers. Most
> of it
> boils down to the fact that class MCInstrDesc (intentionally) doesn't
> expose
> those properties. Instead, both serializing operations and memory barriers
> "have side-effects" according to MCInstrDesc. That is because, at least
> for
> scheduling purposes, knowing that an instruction has unmodeled side
> effects is
> often enough to treat the instruction like a compiler scheduling barrier.
>
> A performance analysis tool could use the extra knowledge on barriers and
> serializing operations to generate a more accurate performance report.
> One way
> to improve this is by reserving a couple of bits in field 'Flags' from
> class
> MCInstrDesc: one bit for barrier operations, and another bit to mark
> instructions as serializing operations.
>
> Lack of support for instruction itineraries
> -------------------------------------------
> The current version of the tool doesn't know how to process instruction
> itineraries. This is probably one of the most important limitations,
> since it
> affects a few out-of-order processors in LLVM.
>
> As mentioned in section 'Instruction Issue', class Scheduler delegates to
> an
> instance of class ResourceManager the handling of processor resources.
> ResourceManager is where most of the scheduling logic is implemented.
>
> Adding support for instruction itineraries requires that we teach
> ResourceManager how to handle functional units and instruction stages.
> This
> development can be a future extension, and it would probably require a few
> changes to the ResourceManager interface.
>
> Instructions that affect control flow are not correctly modeled
> ---------------------------------------------------------------
> Examples of instructions that affect the control flow are: return, indirect
> branches, calls, etc. The tool doesn't try to predict/evaluate branch
> targets.
> In particular, the tool doesn't model any sort of branch prediction, nor
> does it
> attempt to track changes to the program counter. The tool always assumes
> that
> the input assembly sequence is the body of a microbenchmark (a simple loop
> executed for a number of iterations). The "next" instruction in sequence is
> always the next instruction to dispatch.
>
> Call instructions default to an arbitrary high latency of 100cy. A warning
> is
> generated if the tool encounters a call instruction in the sequence.
> Return
> instructions are not evaluated, and therefore control flow is not affected.
> However, the tool still queries the processor scheduling model to obtain
> latency
> information for instructions that affect the control flow.
>
> Possible extensions to the scheduling model
> -------------------------------------------
> Section "Instruction Dispatch" explained how the tool doesn't know about
> the
> register files, and temporaries available in each register file for
> register
> renaming purposes.
>
> The LLVM scheduling model could be extended to better describe register
> files.
> Ideally, scheduling model should be able to define:
> - The size of each register file
> - How many temporary registers are available for register renaming
> - How register classes map to register files
>
> The scheduling model doesn't specify the retire throughput (i.e. how many
> instructions can be retired every cycle). Users can specify flag
> `-max-retire-per-cycle=<uint>` to limit how many instructions the retire
> control
> unit can retire every cycle. Ideally, every processor should be able to
> specify
> the retire throughput (for example, by adding an extra field to the
> scheduling
> model tablegen class).
>
> Known limitations on X86 processors
> -----------------------------------
>
> 1) Partial register updates versus full register updates.
>
> On x86-64, a 32-bit GPR write fully updates the super-register. Example:
> add %edi %eax ## eax += edi
>
> Here, register %eax aliases the lower half of 64-bit register %rax. On
> x86-64,
> register %rax is fully updated by the 'add' (the upper half of %rax is
> zeroed).
> Essentially, it "kills" any previous definition of (the upper half of)
> register
> %rax.
>
> On the other hand, 8/16 bit register writes only perform a so-called
> "partial
> register update". Example:
> add %di, %ax ## ax += di
>
> Here, register %eax is only partially updated. To be more specific, the
> lower
> half of %eax is set, and the upper half is left unchanged. There is also no
> change in the upper 48 bits of register %rax.
>
> To get accurate performance analysis, the tool has to know which
> instructions
> perform a partial register update, and which instructions fully update the
> destination's super-register.
>
> One way to expose this information is (again) via tablegen. For example,
> we
> could add a flag in the tablegen instruction class to tag instructions that
> perform partial register updates. Something like this: 'bit
> hasPartialRegisterUpdate = 1'. However, this would force a `let
> hasPartialRegisterUpdate = 0` on several instruction definitions.
>
> Another approach is to have a MCSubtargetInfo hook similar to this:
> virtual bool updatesSuperRegisters(unsigned short opcode) { return
> false; }
>
> Targets will be able to override this method if needed. Again, this is
> just an
> idea. But the plan is to have this fixed as a future development.
>
> 2) Macro Op fusion.
>
> The tool doesn't know about macro-op fusion. On modern x86 processors, a
> 'cmp/test' followed by a 'jmp' is fused into a single macro operation. The
> advantage is that the fused pair only consumes a single slot in the
> dispatch
> group.
>
> As a future development, the tool should be extended to address
> macro-fusion.
> Ideally, we could have LLVM generate a table enumerating all the opcode
> pairs
> that can be fused together. That table could be exposed to the tool via the
> MCSubtargetInfo interface. This is just an idea; there may be better ways
> to
> implement this.
>
> 3) Intel processors: mixing legacy SSE with AVX instructions.
>
> On modern Intel processors with AVX, mixing legacy SSE code with AVX code
> negatively impacts the performance. The tool is not aware of this issue,
> and
> the performance penalty is not accounted when doing the analysis. This is
> something that we would like to improve in future.
>
> 4) Zero-latency register moves and Zero-idioms.
>
> Most modern AMD/Intel processors know how to optimize out register-register
> moves and zero idioms at register renaming stage. The tool doesn't know
> about these patterns, and this may negatively impact the performance
> analysis.
>
> Known design problems
> ---------------------
> This section describes two design issues that are currently affecting the
> tool.
> The long term plan is to "fix" these issues.
>
> 1) Variant instructions not correctly modeled.
>
> The tool doesn't know how to analyze instructions with a "variant"
> scheduling
> class descriptor. A variant scheduling class needs to be resolved
> dynamically.
> The "actual" scheduling class often depends on the subtarget, as well as
> properties of the specific MachineInstr object.
>
> Unfortunately, the tool manipulates MCInst, and it doesn't know anything
> about
> MachineInstr. As a consequence, the tool cannot use the existing machine
> subtarget hooks that are normally used to resolve the variant scheduling
> class.
> This is a major design issue which mostly affects ARM/AArch64 targets. It
> mostly boils down to the fact that the existing scheduling framework was
> meant
> to work for MachineInstr.
>
> When the tool encounters a "variant" instruction, it assumes a generic 1cy
> latency. However, the tool would not be able to tell which processor
> resources
> are effectively consumed by the variant instruction.
>
> 2) MCInst and MCInstrDesc.
>
> Performance analysis tools require data dependency information to correctly
> predict the runtime performance of the code. This tool must always be able
> to
> obtain the set of implicit/explicit register defs/uses for every
> instruction of
> the input assembly sequence.
>
> In the first section of this document, it was mentioned how the tool takes
> as
> input an assembly sequence. That sequence is parsed into a MCInst sequence
> with
> the help of assembly parsers available from the targets.
>
> A MCInst is a very low-level instruction representation. The tool can
> inspect
> the MCOperand sequence of an MCInst to identify register operands. However,
> there is no way to tell register operands that are definitions from
> register
> operands that are uses.
>
> In LLVM, class MCInstrDesc is used to fully describe target instructions
> and
> their operands. The opcode of a machine instruction (a MachineInstr
> object) can
> be used to query the instruction set through method `MCInstrInfo::get' to
> obtain
> the associated MCInstrDesc object.
>
> However class MCInstrDesc describes properties and operands of MachineInstr
> objects. Essentially, MCInstrDesc is not meant to be used to describe
> MCInst
> objects. To be more specific, MCInstrDesc objects are automatically
> generated
> via tablegen from the instruction set description in the target .td
> files. For
> example, field `MCInstrDesc::NumDefs' is always equal to the cardinality
> of the
> `(outs)` set from the tablegen instruction definition.
>
> By construction, register definitions always appear at the beginning of the
> MachineOperands list in MachineInstr. Basically, the (outs) are the first
> operands of a MachineInstr, and the (ins) will come after in the machine
> operand
> list. Knowing the number of register definitions is enough to identify
> all the register operands that are definitions.
>
> In a normal compilation process, MCInst objects are generated from
> MachineInstr
> objects through a lowering step. By default the lowering logic simply
> iterates
> over the machine operands of a MachineInstr, and converts/expands them into
> equivalent MCOperand objects.
>
> The default lowering strategy has the advantage of preserving all of the
> above mentioned assumptions on the machine operand sequence. That means,
> register
> definitions would still be at the beginning of the MCOperand sequence, and
> register uses would come after.
>
> Targets may still define custom lowering routines for specific opcodes.
> Some of
> these routines may lower operands in a way that potentially breaks (some
> of) the
> assumptions on the machine operand sequence which were valid for
> MachineInstr.
> Luckily, this is not the most common form of lowering done by the targets,
> and
> the vast majority of the MachineInstr are lowered based on the default
> strategy
> which preserves the original machine operand sequence. This is especially
> true
> for x86, where the custom lowering logic always preserves the original
> (i.e.
> from the MachineInstr) operand sequence.
>
> This tool currently works under the strong (and potentially incorrect)
> assumption that register def/uses in a MCInst can always be identified by
> querying the machine instruction descriptor for the opcode. This
> assumption made
> it possible to develop this tool and get good numbers at least for the
> processors available in the x86 backend.
>
> That being said, the analysis is still potentially incorrect for other
> targets.
> So we plan (with the help of the community) to find a proper mechanism to
> map
> when possible MCOperand indices back to MachineOperand indices of the
> equivalent
> MachineInstr. This would be equivalent to describing changes made by the
> lowering step which affected the operand sequence. For example, we could
> have an
> index for every register MCOperand (or -1, if the operand didn't exist in
> the
> original MachineInstr). The mapping could look like this <0,1,3,2>. Here,
> MCOperand #2 was obtained from the lowering of MachineOperand #3. etc.
>
> This information could be automatically generated via tablegen for all the
> instructions whose custom lowering step breaks assumptions made by the
> tool on
> the register operand sequence (In general, these instructions should be the
> minority of a target's instruction set). Unfortunately, we don't have that
> information now. As a consequence, we assume that the number of explicit
> register definitions is the same number specified in MCInstrDesc. We also
> assume that register definitions always come first in the operand sequence.
>
> In conclusion: these are for now the strong assumptions made by the tool:
> * The number of explicit and implicit register definitions in a MCInst
> matches the number of explicit and implicit definitions specified by
> the
> MCInstrDesc object.
> * Register uses always come after register definitions.
> * If an opcode specifies an optional definition, then the optional
> definition is always the last register operand in the sequence.
>
> Note that some of the information accessible from the MCInstrDesc is always
> valid for MCInst. For example: implicit register defs, implicit register
> uses
> and 'MayLoad/MayStore/HasUnmodeledSideEffects' opcode properties still
> apply to
> MCInst. The tool knows about this, and uses that information during its
> analysis.
>
> What to do next
> ---------------
> The source code has been uploaded for review on phabricator at this link:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D43951.
>
> The review covers two patches:
> A first (very small) patch that always enables the generation of processor
> resource names in the SubtargetEmitter. Currently, the processor resource
> names
> are only generated for debugging purposes, but are needed by the tool to
> generate user friendly reports, so we would like to always generate them.
> A second patch with the actual static analysis tool (in llvm/tools).
>
> Once these first two patches are committed, the plan is to keep working on
> the
> tool with the help of the community to address all of the limitations
> described
> by the previous sections, and find good solutions/fixes for the design
> issues
> described by section "Known design problems".
>
> We hope the community will find this tool useful like we have.
>
> Special thanks to Simon Pilgrim, Filipe Cabecinhas and Greg Bedwell who
> really
> helped me a lot by suggesting improvements and testing the tool.
>
> Thanks for your time.
> -Andrea
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180305/f99a65a3/attachment-0001.html>
More information about the llvm-dev
mailing list