[llvm-dev] [LLVM] (RFC) Addition/Support of new Vectorization Pragmas in LLVM

Fri Aug 9 08:57:11 PDT 2019

> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by
Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your
Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried
dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are
present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually
replicate, and is not equivalent to "vectorize(assume_safety)" (which
asserts that no loop-carried dependencies are present). The good news is
that, in conversations I've had with Intel, an openness to making these
semantics more concrete has been expressed. I think it would be very useful
to have ivdep in Clang, but only after we nail down the semantics with
Intel is some useful way.

Agreed. I don't see a lot of value in having the compiler override a pragma
that is supposed to override the compiler :) Cray's IVDEP really means what
the documentation says: Ignore Vector DEPendencies. It doesn't remove all
dependencies, just dependencies that inhibit vectorization. It also does
not force vectorization. If it's not possible or not profitable to
vectorize, then it won't vectorize.

I will add that ivdep is well used by Cray and its users, so I'd like to
see it well defined in Clang/llvm.

On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 8:51 PM Cameron McInally via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 8, 2019 at 7:52 PM Finkel, Hal J. via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>>
>> On 8/8/19 2:03 PM, Hal Finkel wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>>
>>
>> First, as a high-level note, you posted a link to a Google doc, and at
>> the end of the Google doc, you have a list of questions that you'd like
>> answered. In the future, please put the questions directly in the email.
>> For one thing, more people will read your email than will open your Google
>> doc. Second, having the questions in the email should allow a better
>> threading structure to the replies.
>>
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    Ivdep: Is clang loop vectorize(assume_safety) equivalent to ivdep? To
>>    what extent do the semantics of ivdep need to be modified for Clang to
>>    create an equally “useful pragma”? To what extent would it be helpful
>>    to have this pragma in Clang?
>>
>>
>>
>> There is a fundamental problem with the way that ivdep is defined by
>> Intel's current documentation, at least for C/C++. As you note in your
>> Google doc, it essentially says that the optimizer may ignore loop-carried
>> dependencies except for those dependencies it can definitely prove are
>> present. These are not semantics that any other compiler can actually
>> replicate, and is not equivalent to "vectorize(assume_safety)" (which
>> asserts that no loop-carried dependencies are present). The good news is
>> that, in conversations I've had with Intel, an openness to making these
>> semantics more concrete has been expressed. I think it would be very useful
>> to have ivdep in Clang, but only after we nail down the semantics with
>> Intel is some useful way.
>>
>
> To be fair, IVDEP most likely originated at Cray. [Or maybe Control Data.
> The history is fuzzy that far back. I do know it predates ANSI C.]
>
> There's a publicly available copy of the Cray C/C++ manual here:
>
>
> https://pubs.cray.com/content/S-2179/9.0/cray-classic-c-and-c++-reference-manual/vectorization-directives
>
> Scott Manley from Cray would be good resource to tap for clarification on
> the semantics.
>
>
>>    -
>>    -
>>
>>    Nontemporal:What kind of analysis can we do in LLVM to find where to
>>    use nontemporal accesses? Any help would be greatly appreciated.
>>
>>
>>
>> If you're asking about the pragma, then what analysis is necessary? In
>> general, you're looking for accesses that won't benefit from caching (e.g.,
>> streaming data which is not accessed again).
>>
>>
>>
>>    -
>>    -
>>
>>    vecremainder/novecremainder: Should the pragma simply call the
>>    vectorizer to attempt to vectorize the remainder loop, or should the
>>    vectorizer use a different method?
>>
>>
>>
>> Something like that. There were patches posted at some point to enable
>> tail-loop vectorization. At this point, I imagine that you'd construct a
>> VPlan with the vectorized tail.
>>
>>
>>
>>    -
>>    -
>>
>>    mask_readwrite/nomask_readwrite: Is it a good idea to implement a
>>    pragma that will generate mask intrinsics in the IR? What other
>>    architectures (except x86) has support for masked read/writes?
>>
>>
>> ARM SVE might also fall into this category.
>>
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>
>> Reference:https://llvm.org/devmtg/2015-04/slides/MaskedIntrinsics.pdf
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__llvm.org_devmtg_2015-2D04_slides_MaskedIntrinsics.pdf&d=DwMF-g&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=O_4M49EtSpZ_-BQYeigzGv0P4__noMcSu2RYEjS1vKs&m=ttZjwoTRuUQgVSd_8PZOPypfqqn-GiNqAl9WLpPxiAk&s=o2U9j6XECBRnTOcqSIRQT-dWi8owoO8q0xKOEW6f8z0&e=>
>>
>> LLVM has mask intrinsics for targets with AVX, AVX2, AVX-512.
>>
>> From Slides: ”Most of the targets do not support masked instructions,
>> optimization of instructions with masks is problematic, avoid introducing
>> new masked instructions into LLVM IR”
>>
>>    -
>>
>>    aligned/unaligned: Is it worthwhile to have LLVM specific pragma
>>    rather depending on OpenMP?
>>
>>
>> My opinion is that, so long as we have our own vectorization pragma, it
>> should be as fully-featured as people request it to be.
>>
>>
>>  -Hal
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>    -
>>
>>
>>  -Hal
>>
>>
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>>
>> ------------------------------
>> *From:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of HAPPY Mahto via llvm-dev
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Sent:* Thursday, August 8, 2019 11:55 AM
>> *To:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> *Cc:* BHAVYA BAGLA <cs17btech11007 at iith.ac.in>
>> <cs17btech11007 at iith.ac.in>; MAMIDALA SAI PRAHARSH
>> <es17btech11013 at iith.ac.in> <es17btech11013 at iith.ac.in>; HAPPY KUMAR
>> <cs17btech11018 at iith.ac.in> <cs17btech11018 at iith.ac.in>; YASHAS ANDALURI
>> <es17btech11025 at iith.ac.in> <es17btech11025 at iith.ac.in>
>> *Subject:* [llvm-dev] [LLVM] (RFC) Addition/Support of new Vectorization
>> Pragmas in LLVM
>>
>> Hello all,
>>
>> We are students from Indian Institute of Technology(IIT), Hyderabad, we
>> would like to propose the addition of the following pragmas in LLVM that
>> aide in (or possibly increase the scope of) vectorization in LLVM (in
>> comparison with other compilers).
>>
>>
>>    1.
>>
>>    ivdep
>>    2.
>>
>>    Nontemporal
>>    3.
>>
>>    [no]vecremainder
>>    4.
>>
>>    [no]mask_readwrite
>>    5.
>>
>>    [un]aligned
>>
>>
>> Could you please check the following Google document for the semantic
>> description of these pragmas:
>>
>>
>> https://docs.google.com/document/d/1YjGnyzWFKJvqbpCsZicCUczzU8HlLHkmG9MssUw-R1A/edit?usp=sharing
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1YjGnyzWFKJvqbpCsZicCUczzU8HlLHkmG9MssUw-2DR1A_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=O_4M49EtSpZ_-BQYeigzGv0P4__noMcSu2RYEjS1vKs&m=ttZjwoTRuUQgVSd_8PZOPypfqqn-GiNqAl9WLpPxiAk&s=JAlwNOiT5i7zvP9qxjAe_Rt8ZZv_ukBvSbfEZzH_CZI&e=>
>>
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1YjGnyzWFKJvqbpCsZicCUczzU8HlLHkmG9MssUw-2DR1A_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=O_4M49EtSpZ_-BQYeigzGv0P4__noMcSu2RYEjS1vKs&m=ttZjwoTRuUQgVSd_8PZOPypfqqn-GiNqAl9WLpPxiAk&s=JAlwNOiT5i7zvP9qxjAe_Rt8ZZv_ukBvSbfEZzH_CZI&e=>
>> Vectorization Pragmas LLVM:RFC: V2
>> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__docs.google.com_document_d_1YjGnyzWFKJvqbpCsZicCUczzU8HlLHkmG9MssUw-2DR1A_edit-3Fusp-3Dsharing&d=DwMF-g&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=O_4M49EtSpZ_-BQYeigzGv0P4__noMcSu2RYEjS1vKs&m=ttZjwoTRuUQgVSd_8PZOPypfqqn-GiNqAl9WLpPxiAk&s=JAlwNOiT5i7zvP9qxjAe_Rt8ZZv_ukBvSbfEZzH_CZI&e=>
>> docs.google.com
>> Vectorization Pragmas in LLVM: An RFC Yashas Andaluri, Happy Mahto, M Sai
>> Praharsh, Bhavya Bagla IIT Hyderabad Aug 8th, 2019 [Thanks to feedback from
>> Venugopal Raghavan, Shivarama Rao (AMD) and Michael Kruse & Hal Finkel
>> (ANL).] Vectorization Pragmas ivdep vector(nontemporal)
>> vector([no]vecrema...
>>
>>
>> It would be great if you could please review the above document and
>> suggest us on how to proceed further (either about the semantics, or, about
>> the code sections in LLVM).
>>
>> Thank you
>>
>> Yashas, Happy, Sai Praharsh, and Bhavya
>>
>> B.Tech 3rd year, IITH.
>>
>> --
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>
>> https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__lists.llvm.org_cgi-2Dbin_mailman_listinfo_llvm-2Ddev&d=DwIGaQ&c=slrrB7dE8n7gBJbeO0g-IQ&r=O_4M49EtSpZ_-BQYeigzGv0P4__noMcSu2RYEjS1vKs&m=ttZjwoTRuUQgVSd_8PZOPypfqqn-GiNqAl9WLpPxiAk&s=L-X4vbafbWIKsdnIqTTXsiRM2ku9-D5cLKCXc18dtUo&e=
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20190809/e9c797f4/attachment.html>