From: Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
To: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
Cc: Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>, gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [x86_64 PATCH] Correct insn_cost of movabsq.
Date: Wed, 22 May 2024 19:54:37 +0200 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <2B04867B-884E-4A89-835E-A0DB12CE19A9@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <CAFULd4Z9Uk7AMhwuW1CQJqTeg0hG9GGscQzK8zDqmyjFG+krDA@mail.gmail.com>
> Am 22.05.2024 um 17:30 schrieb Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>:
>
> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:15 PM Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> This single line patch fixes a strange quirk/glitch in i386's rtx_costs,
>> which considers an instruction loading a 64-bit constant to be significantly
>> cheaper than loading a 32-bit (or smaller) constant.
>>
>> Consider the two functions:
>> unsigned long long foo() { return 0x0123456789abcdefULL; }
>> unsigned int bar() { return 10; }
>>
>> and the corresponding lines from combine's dump file:
>> insn_cost 1 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
>> insn_cost 4 for #: ax:SI=0xa
>>
>> The same issue can be seen in -dP assembler output.
>> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=1 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>>
>> The problem is that pattern_costs interpretation of rtx_costs contains
>> "return cost > 0 ? cost : COSTS_N_INSNS (1)" where a zero value (for
>> example a register or small immediate constant) is considered special,
>> and equivalent to a single instruction, but all other values are treated
>> as verbatim.
A zero cost is interpreted as „not implemented“ and assigned a cost of 1, assuming a COSTS_N_INSNS basing.
IMO a bit bogus but I didn’t dare to argue further with Segher.
Richard
>> Hence to make x86_64's 10-byte long movabsq instruction
>> slightly more expensive than a simple constant, rtx_costs needs to
>> return COSTS_N_INSNS(1)+1 and not 1. With this change, the insn_cost
>> of movabsq is the intended value 5:
>> insn_cost 5 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
>> and
>> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=5 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>>
>>
>> [I'd originally tried fixing this by adding a ix86_insn_cost target
>> hook, but the testsuite is very sensitive to the costing of insns].
>>
>>
>> This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
>> and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
>> with no new failures. Ok for mainline?
>>
>>
>> 2024-05-22 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog
>> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_rtx_costs) <case CONST_INT>:
>> A CONST_INT that isn't x86_64_immediate_operand requires an extra
>> (expensive) movabsq insn to load, so return COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1.
>
> 1 of 20,796
>
> [x86_64 PATCH] Correct insn_cost of movabsq.
>
> Inbox
>
> Roger Sayle
>
> 5:15 PM (12 minutes ago)
>
>
> to gcc-patches, me
> This single line patch fixes a strange quirk/glitch in i386's rtx_costs,
> which considers an instruction loading a 64-bit constant to be significantly
> cheaper than loading a 32-bit (or smaller) constant.
>
> Consider the two functions:
> unsigned long long foo() { return 0x0123456789abcdefULL; }
> unsigned int bar() { return 10; }
>
> and the corresponding lines from combine's dump file:
> insn_cost 1 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
> insn_cost 4 for #: ax:SI=0xa
>
> The same issue can be seen in -dP assembler output.
> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=1 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>
> The problem is that pattern_costs interpretation of rtx_costs contains
> "return cost > 0 ? cost : COSTS_N_INSNS (1)" where a zero value (for
> example a register or small immediate constant) is considered special,
> and equivalent to a single instruction, but all other values are treated
> as verbatim. Hence to make x86_64's 10-byte long movabsq instruction
> slightly more expensive than a simple constant, rtx_costs needs to
> return COSTS_N_INSNS(1)+1 and not 1. With this change, the insn_cost
> of movabsq is the intended value 5:
> insn_cost 5 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
> and
> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=5 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>
>
> [I'd originally tried fixing this by adding a ix86_insn_cost target
> hook, but the testsuite is very sensitive to the costing of insns].
>
>
> This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
> and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
> with no new failures. Ok for mainline?
>
>
> 2024-05-22 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_rtx_costs) <case CONST_INT>:
> A CONST_INT that isn't x86_64_immediate_operand requires an extra
> (expensive) movabsq insn to load, so return COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1.
>
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Roger
> --
>
>
> One attachment • Scanned by Gmail
>
>
> Roger Sayle (nextmovesoftware.com), gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
>
>
>> On Wed, May 22, 2024 at 5:15 PM Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
>>
>> This single line patch fixes a strange quirk/glitch in i386's rtx_costs,
>> which considers an instruction loading a 64-bit constant to be significantly
>> cheaper than loading a 32-bit (or smaller) constant.
>>
>> Consider the two functions:
>> unsigned long long foo() { return 0x0123456789abcdefULL; }
>> unsigned int bar() { return 10; }
>>
>> and the corresponding lines from combine's dump file:
>> insn_cost 1 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
>> insn_cost 4 for #: ax:SI=0xa
>>
>> The same issue can be seen in -dP assembler output.
>> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=1 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>>
>> The problem is that pattern_costs interpretation of rtx_costs contains
>> "return cost > 0 ? cost : COSTS_N_INSNS (1)" where a zero value (for
>> example a register or small immediate constant) is considered special,
>> and equivalent to a single instruction, but all other values are treated
>> as verbatim. Hence to make x86_64's 10-byte long movabsq instruction
>> slightly more expensive than a simple constant, rtx_costs needs to
>> return COSTS_N_INSNS(1)+1 and not 1. With this change, the insn_cost
>> of movabsq is the intended value 5:
>> insn_cost 5 for #: r98:DI=0x123456789abcdef
>> and
>> movabsq $81985529216486895, %rax # 5 [c=5 l=10] *movdi_internal/4
>>
>>
>> [I'd originally tried fixing this by adding a ix86_insn_cost target
>> hook, but the testsuite is very sensitive to the costing of insns].
>>
>>
>> This patch has been tested on x86_64-pc-linux-gnu with make bootstrap
>> and make -k check, both with and without --target_board=unix{-m32}
>> with no new failures. Ok for mainline?
>>
>>
>> 2024-05-22 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog
>> * config/i386/i386.cc (ix86_rtx_costs) <case CONST_INT>:
>> A CONST_INT that isn't x86_64_immediate_operand requires an extra
>> (expensive) movabsq insn to load, so return COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1.
>
> OK, with a small comment added.
>
> Thanks,
> Uros.
>
>> diff --git a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> index b4838b7..b4a9519 100644
>> --- a/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/config/i386/i386.cc
>> @@ -21569,7 +21569,7 @@ ix86_rtx_costs (rtx x, machine_mode mode, int outer_code_i, int opno,
>> if (x86_64_immediate_operand (x, VOIDmode))
>> *total = 0;
>> else
>> - *total = 1;
>> + *total = COSTS_N_INSNS (1) + 1;
>> return true;
>
> Please add a small comment that this cost belongs to movabs.
prev parent reply other threads:[~2024-05-22 17:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 3+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2024-05-22 15:15 Roger Sayle
2024-05-22 15:29 ` Uros Bizjak
2024-05-22 17:54 ` Richard Biener [this message]
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=2B04867B-884E-4A89-835E-A0DB12CE19A9@gmail.com \
--to=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=roger@nextmovesoftware.com \
--cc=ubizjak@gmail.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).