From: Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>
To: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH/RFC] combine: Tweak the condition of last_set invalidation
Date: Wed, 9 Jun 2021 15:17:35 -0500 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <20210609201735.GJ18427@gate.crashing.org> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <6bcd32fa-d0ef-b136-ddd9-92a1d21f60af@linux.ibm.com>
Hi!
On Wed, Dec 16, 2020 at 04:49:49PM +0800, Kewen.Lin wrote:
> Currently we have the check:
>
> if (!insn
> || (value && rsp->last_set_table_tick >= label_tick_ebb_start))
> rsp->last_set_invalid = 1;
>
> which means if we want to record some value for some reg and
> this reg got refered before in a valid scope,
If we already know it is *set* in this same extended basic block.
Possibly by the same instruction btw.
> we invalidate the
> set of reg (last_set_invalid to 1). It avoids to find the wrong
> set for one reg reference, such as the case like:
>
> ... op regX // this regX could find wrong last_set below
> regX = ... // if we think this set is valid
> ... op regX
Yup, exactly.
> But because of retry's existence, the last_set_table_tick could
> be set by some later reference insns, but we see it's set due
> to retry on the set (for that reg) insn again, such as:
>
> insn 1
> insn 2
>
> regX = ... --> (a)
> ... op regX --> (b)
>
> insn 3
>
> // assume all in the same BB.
>
> Assuming we combine 1, 2 -> 3 sucessfully and replace them as two
> (3 insns -> 2 insns),
This will delete insn 1 and write the combined result to insns 2 and 3.
> retrying from insn1 or insn2 again:
Always 2, but your point remains valid.
> it will scan insn (a) again, the below condition holds for regX:
>
> (value && rsp->last_set_table_tick >= label_tick_ebb_start)
>
> it will mark this set as invalid set. But actually the
> last_set_table_tick here is set by insn (b) before retrying, so it
> should be safe to be taken as valid set.
Yup.
> This proposal is to check whether the last_set_table safely happens
> after the current set, make the set still valid if so.
> Full SPEC2017 building shows this patch gets more sucessful combines
> from 1902208 to 1902243 (trivial though).
Do you have some example, or maybe even a testcase? :-)
> + /* Record the luid of the insn whose expression involving register n. */
> +
> + int last_set_table_luid;
"Record the luid of the insn for which last_set_table_tick was set",
right?
> -static void update_table_tick (rtx);
> +static void update_table_tick (rtx, int);
Please remove this declaration instead, the function is not used until
after its actual definition :-)
> @@ -13243,7 +13247,21 @@ update_table_tick (rtx x)
> for (r = regno; r < endregno; r++)
> {
> reg_stat_type *rsp = ®_stat[r];
> - rsp->last_set_table_tick = label_tick;
> + if (rsp->last_set_table_tick >= label_tick_ebb_start)
> + {
> + /* Later references should not have lower ticks. */
> + gcc_assert (label_tick >= rsp->last_set_table_tick);
This should be obvious, but checking it won't hurt, okay.
> + /* Should pick up the lowest luid if the references
> + are in the same block. */
> + if (label_tick == rsp->last_set_table_tick
> + && rsp->last_set_table_luid > insn_luid)
> + rsp->last_set_table_luid = insn_luid;
Why? Is it conservative for the check you will do later? Please spell
this out, it is crucial!
> @@ -13359,7 +13378,10 @@ record_value_for_reg (rtx reg, rtx_insn *insn, rtx value)
>
> /* Mark registers that are being referenced in this value. */
> if (value)
> - update_table_tick (value);
> + {
> + gcc_assert (insn);
> + update_table_tick (value, DF_INSN_LUID (insn));
> + }
Don't add that assert please. If you really want one it should come
right at the start of the function, not 60 lines later :-)
Looks good if I understood this correctly :-)
Segher
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-09 20:18 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-12-16 8:49 Kewen.Lin
2021-01-14 2:29 ` PING^1 " Kewen.Lin
2021-01-15 0:22 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-01-15 8:06 ` Kewen.Lin
2021-01-22 0:30 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-01-22 2:21 ` Kewen.Lin
2021-05-07 2:45 ` Kewen.Lin
2021-05-26 3:04 ` PING^2 " Kewen.Lin
2021-06-09 2:32 ` PING^3 " Kewen.Lin
2021-06-09 20:17 ` Segher Boessenkool [this message]
2021-06-11 13:16 ` [PATCH v2] " Kewen.Lin
2021-06-28 7:00 ` PING^1 " Kewen.Lin
2021-07-15 2:00 ` PING^2 " Kewen.Lin
2021-09-08 7:03 ` PING^3 " Kewen.Lin
2021-10-13 2:27 ` PING^4 " Kewen.Lin
2021-10-20 9:28 ` PING^5 " Kewen.Lin
2021-11-04 10:56 ` PING^6 " Kewen.Lin
2021-11-22 2:22 ` PING^7 " Kewen.Lin
2021-11-29 22:28 ` Segher Boessenkool
2021-11-30 8:47 ` Kewen.Lin
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=20210609201735.GJ18427@gate.crashing.org \
--to=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=wschmidt@linux.ibm.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).