public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jakub Jelinek <jakub@redhat.com>
To: Julian Brown <julian@codesourcery.com>
Cc: Bernd Schmidt <bernds@codesourcery.com>,
	       Thomas Schwinge <thomas@codesourcery.com>,
	gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,
	       Nathan Sidwell <nathan@codesourcery.com>
Subject: Re: [gomp4] Preserve NVPTX "reconvergence" points
Date: Mon, 22 Jun 2015 18:48:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20150622182759.GC10247@tucnak.redhat.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20150622184810.76fba1c2@octopus>

On Mon, Jun 22, 2015 at 06:48:10PM +0100, Julian Brown wrote:
> In vector-single or worker-single mode, divergence of threads within a
> warp or a CTA is controlled by broadcasting the controlling expression
> of conditional branches to the set of "inactive" threads, so each of
> those follows along with the active thread. So you only get
> potentially-problematic thread divergence when workers or vectors are
> operating in partitioned mode.
> 
> So, for instance, a made-up example:
> 
> #pragma acc parallel
> {
>   #pragma acc loop gang
>   for (i = 0; i < N; i++))
>   {
>     #pragma acc loop worker
>     for (j = 0; j < M; j++)
>     {
>       if (j < M / 2)
>         /* stmt 1 */
>       else
>         /* stmt 2 */
>     }
> 
>     /* reconvergence point: thread barrier */
> 
>     [...]
>   }
> }
> 
> Here "stmt 1" and "stmt 2" execute in worker-partitioned, vector-single
> mode. With "early lowering", the reconvergence point can be
> inserted at the end of the loop, and abnormal edges (etc.) can be used
> to ensure that the CFG does not get changed in such a way that there is
> no longer a unique point at which the loop threads reconverge.
> 
> With "late lowering", it's no longer obvious to me if that can still be
> done.

Why?  The loop still has an exit edge (if there is no break/return/throw out of
the loop which I bet is not allowed), so you just insert the reconvergence
point at the exit edge from the loop.
For the "late lowering", I said it is up for benchmarking/investigation
where it would be best placed, it doesn't have to be after the loop passes,
there are plenty of optimization passes even before those.  But once you turn
many of the SSA_NAMEs in a function into (ab) ssa vars, many optimizations
just give up.
And, if you really want to avoid certain loop optimizations, you have always
the possibility to e.g. wrap certain statement in the loop in internal
function (e.g. the loop condition) or something similar to make the passes
more careful about those loops and make it easier to lower it later.

	Jakub

  reply	other threads:[~2015-06-22 18:28 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2015-05-28 14:20 Julian Brown
2015-05-28 14:59 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-05-28 15:14   ` Thomas Schwinge
2015-05-28 15:28     ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-19 10:44       ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-19 12:32         ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-19 13:07           ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-19 14:10             ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 14:04               ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-22 14:25                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-24 13:37               ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-24 14:08                 ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 14:00           ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 14:36             ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 15:18               ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 15:33               ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-06-22 16:13                 ` Nathan Sidwell
2015-06-22 16:27                   ` Jakub Jelinek
2015-06-22 16:35                     ` Nathan Sidwell
2015-06-22 17:54               ` Julian Brown
2015-06-22 18:48                 ` Jakub Jelinek [this message]
2015-05-28 15:02 ` Richard Biener
2015-06-03 11:47   ` Julian Brown

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=20150622182759.GC10247@tucnak.redhat.com \
    --to=jakub@redhat.com \
    --cc=bernds@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=julian@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=nathan@codesourcery.com \
    --cc=thomas@codesourcery.com \
    /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).