public inbox for gcc-bugs@sourceware.org
help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "jakub at gcc dot gnu.org" <gcc-bugzilla@gcc.gnu.org>
To: gcc-bugs@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: [Bug tree-optimization/54073] [4.7/4.8 Regression] SciMark Monte Carlo test performance has seriously decreased in recent GCC releases
Date: Tue, 13 Nov 2012 13:05:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <bug-54073-4-YkGCrzbFye@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <bug-54073-4@http.gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/>


http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=54073

--- Comment #8 from Jakub Jelinek <jakub at gcc dot gnu.org> 2012-11-13 13:04:28 UTC ---
Created attachment 28674
  --> http://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/attachment.cgi?id=28674
gcc48-pr54073.patch

On x86_64-linux on SandyBridge CPU with -O3 -march=corei7-avx I've tracked it
down to the 
http://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?root=gcc&view=rev&rev=171341
change, in particular emit_conditional_move part of the changes.
Before the change emit_conditional_move would completely ignore the predicate
on the comparison operand (operands[1]), starting with r171341 it honors it.
And the movsicc's ordered_comparison_operator would give up on the UNLT
comparison in the MonteCarlo testcase, while ix86_expand_int_movcc expands it
just fine and at least on that loop it is beneficial to use
        vucomisd        %xmm0, %xmm1
        cmovae  %eax, %ebp
instead of:
.L4:
        addl    $1, %ebx
...
        vucomisd        %xmm0, %xmm2
        jb      .L4

The attached proof of concept patch attempts to just restore the 4.6 and
earlier behavior by allowing in all comparisons.  Of course perhaps it might be
possible it needs better tuning than that, I meant it just as a start for
discussions.

vanilla trunk:

**                                                              **
** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
** for details. (Results can be submitted to pozo@nist.gov)     **
**                                                              **
Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
Composite Score:         1886.79
FFT             Mflops:  1726.97    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:  1239.20    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   374.13
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1956.30    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  4137.37    (M=100, N=100)

patched trunk:

**                                                              **
** SciMark2 Numeric Benchmark, see http://math.nist.gov/scimark **
** for details. (Results can be submitted to pozo@nist.gov)     **
**                                                              **
Using       2.00 seconds min time per kenel.
Composite Score:         1910.08
FFT             Mflops:  1726.97    (N=1024)
SOR             Mflops:  1239.20    (100 x 100)
MonteCarlo:     Mflops:   528.94
Sparse matmult  Mflops:  1949.03    (N=1000, nz=5000)
LU              Mflops:  4106.27    (M=100, N=100)


  parent reply	other threads:[~2012-11-13 13:05 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 22+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2012-07-23 15:25 [Bug tree-optimization/54073] New: " t.artem at mailcity dot com
2012-07-23 15:44 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54073] " t.artem at mailcity dot com
2012-07-24  9:23 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54073] [4.7/4.8 Regression] " rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-24 11:29 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-07-24 13:21 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-07-26 15:41 ` venkataramanan.kumar at amd dot com
2012-07-26 16:13 ` markus at trippelsdorf dot de
2012-08-16 11:06 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-07 10:09 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-09-20 10:28 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-13 13:05 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org [this message]
2012-11-13 15:07 ` t.artem at mailcity dot com
2012-11-13 15:14 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2012-11-13 15:24 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-13 15:55 ` hubicka at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-16 11:41 ` jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-11-16 14:50 ` [Bug tree-optimization/54073] [4.7 " jakub at gcc dot gnu.org
2012-12-31  9:41 ` pinskia at gcc dot gnu.org
2013-02-16 19:12 ` jake.stine at gmail dot com
2013-02-17  8:41 ` ubizjak at gmail dot com
2013-04-11  7:59 ` rguenth at gcc dot gnu.org
2014-06-12 13:16 ` 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-54073-4-YkGCrzbFye@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: link
Be 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).