public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org> To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org Subject: [Bug target/104912] [12 Regression] 416.gamess regression after r12-7612-g69619acd8d9b58 Date: Mon, 14 Mar 2022 13:49:13 +0000 [thread overview] Message-ID: <bug-104912-4-CafyyBLbYA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw) In-Reply-To: <bug-104912-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=104912 --- Comment #4 from Richard Biener <rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org> --- I think for the case at hand no runtime alias checking is needed, since we have DO 30 MK=1,NOC DO 30 ML=1,MK MKL = MKL+1 XPQKL(MPQ,MKL) = XPQKL(MPQ,MKL) + * VAL1*(CO(MS,MK)*CO(MR,ML)+CO(MS,ML)*CO(MR,MK)) XPQKL(MRS,MKL) = XPQKL(MRS,MKL) + * VAL3*(CO(MQ,MK)*CO(MP,ML)+CO(MQ,ML)*CO(MP,MK)) 30 CONTINUE so we're dealing with reductions which we can interleave (with -Ofast). Editing the source with !GCC$ ivdep reduces the vectorization penalty to 5% (we still need the niter/epilogue checks). It also shows that only fixing PR89755 isn't the solution we're looking for. In the end the vectorization is unlikely going to play out since V2DF is usually handled well by dual issue capabilities for DFmode arithmetic on modern archs. The only mitigation I can think of is realizing the outer inner loop niter is 0, 1, 2, .., NOC - 1 and thus the first outer iterations will have inner loop vectorization not profitable. But the question is what to do with this (not knowing the actual runtime values of NOC). As PR87561 says "Note for 416.gamess it looks like NOC is just 5 but MPQ and MRS are so that there is no runtime aliasing between iterations most of the time (sometimes they are indeed equal). The cost model check skips the vector loop for MK == 2 and 3 and only will execute it for MK == 4 and 5. An alternative for this kind of loop nest would be to cost-model for MK % 2 == 0, thus requiring no epilogue loop." In general applying no vectorization to these kind of loops looks wrong. Versioning also the outer loop in addition to the inner loop in case the number of iterations evolves in the outer loop looks excessive (but would eventually help 416.gamess). Implementation-wise it's also non-trivial.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-03-14 13:49 UTC|newest] Thread overview: 17+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top 2022-03-14 11:06 [Bug target/104912] New: [12 Regression] 416.gamess regression after r12-7612 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-14 11:06 ` [Bug target/104912] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-14 11:55 ` [Bug target/104912] [12 Regression] 416.gamess regression after r12-7612-g69619acd8d9b58 rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-14 11:58 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-14 12:17 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-14 13:49 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org [this message] 2022-03-14 14:25 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-17 12:31 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-03-21 13:08 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-13 7:54 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-13 8:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-04-20 11:28 ` cvs-commit at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-05-06 8:33 ` [Bug target/104912] [12/13 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org 2022-07-26 12:42 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-31 11:22 ` jamborm at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-01-31 12:02 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org 2023-05-08 12:24 ` [Bug target/104912] [12/13/14 " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
Reply instructions: You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email using any one of the following methods: * Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client, and reply-to-all from there: mbox Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style * Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to switches of git-send-email(1): git send-email \ --in-reply-to=bug-104912-4-CafyyBLbYA@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/ \ --to=gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org \ --cc=gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org \ /path/to/YOUR_REPLY https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html * If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header via mailto: links, try the mailto: linkBe sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox; as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).