Undelivered Mail Returned to Sender

[MAILER-DAEMON (Mail Delivery System)]

[-- Attachment #1: Notification --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 601 bytes --]

This is the mail system at host fx408.security-mail.net.

I'm sorry to have to inform you that your message could not
be delivered to one or more recipients. It's attached below.

For further assistance, please send mail to postmaster.

If you do so, please include this problem report. You can
delete your own text from the attached returned message.

                   The mail system

<marc.poulhies@kalray.eu>: host zimbra2.kalray.eu[195.135.97.26] said: 550
    5.1.1 <marc.poulhies@kalray.eu>: Recipient address rejected: User unknown
    in virtual mailbox table (in reply to RCPT TO command)

[-- Attachment #2: Delivery report --]
[-- Type: message/delivery-status, Size: 475 bytes --]

[-- Attachment #3: Undelivered Message --]
[-- Type: message/rfc822, Size: 13109 bytes --]

From: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
To: Xionghu Luo <luoxhu@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: segher@kernel.crashing.org, wschmidt@linux.ibm.com, linkw@gcc.gnu.org, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, hubicka@ucw.cz
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix loop split incorrect count and probability
Date: Tue, 10 Aug 2021 16:47:41 +0200 (CEST)
Message-ID: <nycvar.YFH.7.76.2108101634250.11781@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>

On Mon, 9 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:

> Thanks,
> 
> On 2021/8/6 19:46, Richard Biener wrote:
> > On Tue, 3 Aug 2021, Xionghu Luo wrote:
> > 
> >> loop split condition is moved between loop1 and loop2, the split bb's
> >> count and probability should also be duplicated instead of (100% vs INV),
> >> secondly, the original loop1 and loop2 count need be propotional from the
> >> original loop.
> >>
> >>
> >> diff base/loop-cond-split-1.c.151t.lsplit  patched/loop-cond-split-1.c.151t.lsplit:
> >> ...
> >>     int prephitmp_16;
> >>     int prephitmp_25;
> >>
> >>     <bb 2> [local count: 118111600]:
> >>     if (n_7(D) > 0)
> >>       goto <bb 4>; [89.00%]
> >>     else
> >>       goto <bb 3>; [11.00%]
> >>
> >>     <bb 3> [local count: 118111600]:
> >>     return;
> >>
> >>     <bb 4> [local count: 105119324]:
> >>     pretmp_3 = ga;
> >>
> >> -  <bb 5> [local count: 955630225]:
> >> +  <bb 5> [local count: 315357973]:
> >>     # i_13 = PHI <i_10(20), 0(4)>
> >>     # prephitmp_12 = PHI <prephitmp_5(20), pretmp_3(4)>
> >>     if (prephitmp_12 != 0)
> >>       goto <bb 6>; [33.00%]
> >>     else
> >>       goto <bb 7>; [67.00%]
> >>
> >> -  <bb 6> [local count: 315357972]:
> >> +  <bb 6> [local count: 104068130]:
> >>     _2 = do_something ();
> >>     ga = _2;
> >>
> >> -  <bb 7> [local count: 955630225]:
> >> +  <bb 7> [local count: 315357973]:
> >>     # prephitmp_5 = PHI <prephitmp_12(5), _2(6)>
> >>     i_10 = inc (i_13);
> >>     if (n_7(D) > i_10)
> >>       goto <bb 21>; [89.00%]
> >>     else
> >>       goto <bb 11>; [11.00%]
> >>
> >>     <bb 11> [local count: 105119324]:
> >>     goto <bb 3>; [100.00%]
> >>
> >> -  <bb 21> [local count: 850510901]:
> >> +  <bb 21> [local count: 280668596]:
> >>     if (prephitmp_12 != 0)
> >> -    goto <bb 20>; [100.00%]
> >> +    goto <bb 20>; [33.00%]
> >>     else
> >> -    goto <bb 19>; [INV]
> >> +    goto <bb 19>; [67.00%]
> >>
> >> -  <bb 20> [local count: 850510901]:
> >> +  <bb 20> [local count: 280668596]:
> >>     goto <bb 5>; [100.00%]
> >>
> >> -  <bb 19> [count: 0]:
> >> +  <bb 19> [local count: 70429947]:
> >>     # i_23 = PHI <i_10(21)>
> >>     # prephitmp_25 = PHI <prephitmp_5(21)>
> >>
> >> -  <bb 12> [local count: 955630225]:
> >> +  <bb 12> [local count: 640272252]:
> >>     # i_15 = PHI <i_23(19), i_22(16)>
> >>     # prephitmp_16 = PHI <prephitmp_25(19), prephitmp_16(16)>
> >>     i_22 = inc (i_15);
> >>     if (n_7(D) > i_22)
> >>       goto <bb 16>; [89.00%]
> >>     else
> >>       goto <bb 11>; [11.00%]
> >>
> >> -  <bb 16> [local count: 850510901]:
> >> +  <bb 16> [local count: 569842305]:
> >>     goto <bb 12>; [100.00%]
> >>
> >>   }
> >>
> >> gcc/ChangeLog:
> >>
> >> 	* tree-ssa-loop-split.c (split_loop): Fix incorrect probability.
> >> 	(do_split_loop_on_cond): Likewise.
> >> ---
> >>   gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c | 16 ++++++++--------
> >>   1 file changed, 8 insertions(+), 8 deletions(-)
> >>
> >> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
> >> index 3a09bbc39e5..8e5a7ded0f7 100644
> >> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
> >> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-loop-split.c
> >> @@ -583,10 +583,10 @@ split_loop (class loop *loop1)
> >>   	basic_block cond_bb;
> 
>  	if (!initial_true)
> -	  cond = fold_build1 (TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, cond); 
> +	  cond = fold_build1 (TRUTH_NOT_EXPR, boolean_type_node, cond);
> +
> +	edge true_edge = EDGE_SUCC (bbs[i], 0)->flags & EDGE_TRUE_VALUE
> +			   ? EDGE_SUCC (bbs[i], 0)
> +			   : EDGE_SUCC (bbs[i], 1);
> 
> >>   
> >>   	class loop *loop2 = loop_version (loop1, cond, &cond_bb,
> >> -					   profile_probability::always (),
> >> -					   profile_probability::always (),
> >> -					   profile_probability::always (),
> >> -					   profile_probability::always (),
> >> +					   true_edge->probability,
> >> +					   true_edge->probability.invert (),
> >> +					   true_edge->probability,
> >> +					   true_edge->probability.invert (),
> >>   					   true);
> > 
> > there is no 'true_edge' variable at this point.
> 
> Sorry, missed the above hunk when split the patch. 
> 
> > 
> >>   	gcc_assert (loop2);
> >>   
> >> @@ -1486,10 +1486,10 @@ do_split_loop_on_cond (struct loop *loop1, edge invar_branch)
> >>     initialize_original_copy_tables ();
> >>   
> >>     struct loop *loop2 = loop_version (loop1, boolean_true_node, NULL,
> >> -				     profile_probability::always (),
> >> -				     profile_probability::never (),
> >> -				     profile_probability::always (),
> >> -				     profile_probability::always (),
> >> +				     invar_branch->probability.invert (),
> >> +				     invar_branch->probability,
> >> +				     invar_branch->probability.invert (),
> >> +				     invar_branch->probability,
> >>   				     true);
> >>     if (!loop2)
> >>       {
> > 
> > The patch introduction seems to talk about do_split_loop_on_cond only.
> 
> split_loop faces similar issue though it sets the two branches to 100% vs 100%
> and no scaling which seems also incorrect.
> 
> > Since loop versioning inserts a condition with the passed probabilities
> > but in this case a 'boolean_true_node' condition the then and else
> > probabilities passed look correct.  It's just the scaling arguments
> > that look wrong?  This loop_version call should get a comment as to
> > why we are passing probabilities the way we do.
> 
> This optimization is transforming from:
> 
> for (i = 0; i < n; i = inc (i))
>     {
>       if (ga)
>         ga = do_something ();
> }
> 
> to: 
> 
>   for (i = 0; i < x; i = inc (i))
> {
>     if (true)
>          ga = do_something ();
>         if (!ga)
>           break;
> }
>   for (; i < n; i = inc (i))
> {
>     if (false)
>          ga = do_something ();
> }
> 
> 
> `boolean_true_node` is passed in to make the first loop's condition
> statement to be 'true', after returning from loop_version, there is a
> piece of code forcing the condition in second loop to be false,
> and the original condition is moved from *in loop* to *exit edge*
> between loop1 and loop2. 

Yes, one complication is that we use loop_version but do not retain
the CFG it creates.  Something like the vectorizers
slpeel_tree_duplicate_loop_to_edge_cfg would be a better "fit"
but then that code doesn't do any scaling yet.  But then
loop_version uses cfg_hook_duplicate_loop_to_header_edge and I suppose
we could write a variant that simply doesn't mangle the CFG
with a new condition switching between both loops but keeps them
executed after each other ...

As said, this adds to the confusion and some awkwardness.

> @fxue may have inputs about this since he contributed it years ago.
> 
> > 
> > It does seem that scaling the loop by the invar_branch probability
> > is correct.  Since this does similar things to unswitching, I see
> > that unswitching does
> > 
> > prob_true = edge_true->probability;
> > loop_version (loop, unshare_expr (cond),
> >                         NULL, prob_true,
> >                         prob_true.invert (),
> >                         prob_true, prob_true.invert (),
> >                         false);
> > 
> > which maybe suggests that your invar_branch based passing should
> > depend on 'true_invar'?
> > 
> > Also compared to unswitching the first loop is always entered,
> > so I wonder if the scaling is correct with respect to that
> > given unswitching where only ever one loop is entered?
> 
> 
> Scaling is based on the probability calculated on "if (ga)", if it is
> 33% vs 67% before split, then it is reasonable to scale loop1 to 33%
> and loop2 to 67% suppose the branch probability is correct enough?
> 
> unswitch also scaled the two loops based on prob_true, if prob_true
> is 50%, it decreases X's count to HALF unexpectedly since it should be
> executed on both branches?  while loop split still kept execute both first
> loop and second loop, it seems even more accurate than loop unswitching?

I just was saying that both doing exactly the same looks wrong (on
either side).

> tree-ssa-loop-unswitch.c:
> 
>    while (A)
>      {
>        if (inv)
>          B;
> 
>        X;
> 
>        if (!inv)
> 	 C;
>      }
> 
>    where inv is the loop invariant, into
> 
>    if (inv)
>      {
>        while (A)
> 	 {
>            B;
> 	   X;
> 	 }
>      }
>    else
>      {
>        while (A)
> 	 {
> 	   X;
> 	   C;
> 	 }
>      }

Yes, here scaling based on the if (inv) probability looks obviously
100% correct to me.  But I might be wrong.  And thus the
splitting case must be still off (so I conclude).  Hmm, in fact
I think for the loop unswitching case the scaling of the B and
C blocks is off?  Those should be considered always executed.
Note the loop unswitching pass is altering the conditions
condition to static true/false but I don't think it performs
further adjustments.

That said, likely the profile update cannot be done uniformly
for all blocks of a loop?

Richard.


To declare a filtering error, please use the following link : https://www.security-mail.net/reporter.php?mid=4755.611291c9.bbe20.0&r=marc.poulhies%40kalray.eu&s=gcc-patches-bounces%2Bmarc.poulhies%3Dkalray.eu%40gcc.gnu.org&o=Re%3A+%5BPATCH%5D+Fix+loop+split+incorrect+count+and+probability&verdict=C&c=5b848bab159a481116cc4a7f585423cde878a78a