public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: Do not give realistic estimates for loop with array accesses
Date: Wed, 30 Mar 2016 12:36:00 -0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <20160330122751.GA97459@kam.mff.cuni.cz> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1603301325530.13384@t29.fhfr.qr>

> 
> You are only changing one place in this file.

You are right. I am attaching the updated patch which I am re-testing now.
> 
> The vectorizer already checks this (albeit indirectly):
> 
>   HOST_WIDE_INT max_niter
>     = max_stmt_executions_int (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo));
>   if ((LOOP_VINFO_NITERS_KNOWN_P (loop_vinfo)
>        && (LOOP_VINFO_INT_NITERS (loop_vinfo) < vectorization_factor))
>       || (max_niter != -1
>           && (unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) max_niter < vectorization_factor))
>     {
>       if (dump_enabled_p ())
>         dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
>                          "not vectorized: iteration count smaller than "
>                          "vectorization factor.\n");
>       return false;
>     }

Yes, but one tests only vectorization_factor and other min_profitable_estimate
which probably should be greater than vectorization_factor.

The check above should therefore become redundant.  My reading of the code is
that min_profiltable_estimate is computed after the check above, so it is
probably an useful shortcut and the message is also bit more informative.
I updated the later test to use max_niter variable once it is computed.

OK with those changes assuming testing passes?

Honza

	* tree-ssa-loop-niter.c (idx_infer_loop_bounds): We can't get realistic
	estimates here.
	* tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c (tree_unswitch_single_loop): Use also
	max_loop_iterations_int.
	(tree_unswitch_outer_loop): Likewise.
	* tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (avg_loop_niter): Likewise.
	* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): Likewise.
Index: tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c
===================================================================
--- tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c	(revision 234516)
+++ tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c	(working copy)
@@ -121,7 +121,11 @@ avg_loop_niter (struct loop *loop)
 {
   HOST_WIDE_INT niter = estimated_stmt_executions_int (loop);
   if (niter == -1)
-    return AVG_LOOP_NITER (loop);
+    {
+      niter = max_stmt_executions_int (loop);
+      if (niter == -1 || niter > AVG_LOOP_NITER (loop))
+        return AVG_LOOP_NITER (loop);
+    }
 
   return niter;
 }
Index: tree-ssa-loop-niter.c
===================================================================
--- tree-ssa-loop-niter.c	(revision 234516)
+++ tree-ssa-loop-niter.c	(working copy)
@@ -3115,7 +3115,6 @@ idx_infer_loop_bounds (tree base, tree *
   tree low, high, type, next;
   bool sign, upper = true, at_end = false;
   struct loop *loop = data->loop;
-  bool reliable = true;
 
   if (TREE_CODE (base) != ARRAY_REF)
     return true;
@@ -3187,14 +3186,14 @@ idx_infer_loop_bounds (tree base, tree *
       && tree_int_cst_compare (next, high) <= 0)
     return true;
 
-  /* If access is not executed on every iteration, we must ensure that overlow may
-     not make the access valid later.  */
+  /* If access is not executed on every iteration, we must ensure that overlow
+     may not make the access valid later.  */
   if (!dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, loop->latch, gimple_bb (data->stmt))
       && scev_probably_wraps_p (initial_condition_in_loop_num (ev, loop->num),
 				step, data->stmt, loop, true))
-    reliable = false;
+    upper = false;
 
-  record_nonwrapping_iv (loop, init, step, data->stmt, low, high, reliable, upper);
+  record_nonwrapping_iv (loop, init, step, data->stmt, low, high, false, upper);
   return true;
 }
 
Index: tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c
===================================================================
--- tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c	(revision 234516)
+++ tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c	(working copy)
@@ -223,6 +223,8 @@ tree_unswitch_single_loop (struct loop *
       /* If the loop is not expected to iterate, there is no need
 	 for unswitching.  */
       iterations = estimated_loop_iterations_int (loop);
+      if (iterations < 0)
+        iterations = max_loop_iterations_int (loop);
       if (iterations >= 0 && iterations <= 1)
 	{
 	  if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
@@ -439,6 +441,8 @@ tree_unswitch_outer_loop (struct loop *l
   /* If the loop is not expected to iterate, there is no need
       for unswitching.  */
   iterations = estimated_loop_iterations_int (loop);
+  if (iterations < 0)
+    iterations = max_loop_iterations_int (loop);
   if (iterations >= 0 && iterations <= 1)
     {
       if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
Index: tree-vect-loop.c
===================================================================
--- tree-vect-loop.c	(revision 234516)
+++ tree-vect-loop.c	(working copy)
@@ -2063,6 +2063,8 @@ start_over:
 
   estimated_niter
     = estimated_stmt_executions_int (LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo));
+  if (estimated_niter != -1)
+    estimated_niter = max_niter;
   if (estimated_niter != -1
       && ((unsigned HOST_WIDE_INT) estimated_niter
           <= MAX (th, (unsigned)min_profitable_estimate)))

  reply	other threads:[~2016-03-30 12:27 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 9+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2016-03-30 11:02 Jan Hubicka
2016-03-30 12:09 ` Richard Biener
2016-03-30 12:36   ` Jan Hubicka [this message]
2016-03-30 12:49     ` Richard Biener
2016-03-30 18:52       ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer
2016-04-07 14:52       ` Tom de Vries
2016-03-30 13:50 ` Bin.Cheng
2016-03-30 14:41   ` Jan Hubicka
2016-03-30 15:30     ` Bin.Cheng

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=20160330122751.GA97459@kam.mff.cuni.cz \
    --to=hubicka@ucw.cz \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=rguenther@suse.de \
    /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).