public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: "Andre Vieira (lists)" <andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
	richard.sandiford@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH 1v2/3][vect] Add main vectorized loop unrolling
Date: Wed, 24 Nov 2021 09:46:19 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <475fae98-9541-5dca-2e60-eaff172ff787@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <99qs2o2p-pn87-n164-q8n9-9p814r6n75r1@fhfr.qr>


On 22/11/2021 12:39, Richard Biener wrote:
> +  if (first_loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor > 1)
> +    {
> +      if (LOOP_VINFO_EPIL_USING_PARTIAL_VECTORS_P (first_loop_vinfo))
> +       {
> +         if (dump_enabled_p ())
> +           dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> +                            "***** Re-trying analysis with first vector
> mode"
> +                            " %s for epilogue with partial vectors of"
> +                            " unrolled first loop.\n",
> +                            GET_MODE_NAME (vector_modes[0]));
> +         mode_i = 0;
>
> and the later done check for bigger VF than main loop - why would
> we re-start at 0 rather than at the old mode?  Maybe we want to
> remember the iterator value we started at when arriving at the
> main loop mode?  So if we analyzed successfully with mode_i == 2,
> then sucessfully at mode_i == 4 which suggested an unroll of 2,
> re-start at the mode_i we continued after the mode_i == 2
> successful analysis?  To just consider the "simple" case of
> AVX vs SSE it IMHO doesn't make much sense to succeed with
> AVX V4DF, succeed with SSE V2DF and figure it's better than V4DF AVX
> but get a suggestion of 2 times unroll and then re-try AVX V4DF
> just to re-compute that yes, it's worse than SSE V2DF?  You
> are probably thinking of SVE vs ADVSIMD here but do we need to
> start at 0?  Adding a comment to the code would be nice.
>
> Thanks,

I was indeed thinking SVE vs Advanced SIMD where we end up having to 
compare different vectorization strategies, which will have different 
costs depending. The hypothetical case, as in I don't think I've come 
across one, is where if we decide to vectorize the main loop for V8QI 
and unroll 2x, yielding a VF of 16, we may then want to then use a 
predicated VNx16QI epilogue. Though the question here is whether it is 
possible for an Advanced SIMD V8QI vectorization to beat V16QI but a SVE 
predicated VNx16QI to beat a VNx8QI for the same loop.  Might be good to 
get Sandiford's opinion on this.

I do think that initially I was more concerned with skipping a VNx8QI 
after selecting a V8QI but I just checked and Advanced SIMD modes are 
listed before SVE for (among others) this reason.

Regards,
Andre


  reply	other threads:[~2021-11-24  9:46 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 40+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-09-17 15:27 [PATCH 0/3][vect] Enable vector unrolling of main loop Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-09-17 15:31 ` [PATCH 1/3][vect] Add main vectorized loop unrolling Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-09-21 12:30   ` Richard Biener
2021-09-21 16:34     ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-09-22  6:14       ` Richard Biener
2021-09-30  8:52         ` [PATCH 1v2/3][vect] " Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-10-01  8:19           ` Richard Biener
2021-10-04 16:30             ` Richard Sandiford
2021-10-12 10:35             ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-10-15  8:48               ` Richard Biener
2021-10-20 13:29                 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-10-21 12:14                   ` Richard Biener
2021-10-22 10:18                     ` Richard Sandiford
2021-11-11 16:02                       ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-11-12 13:12                         ` Richard Biener
2021-11-22 11:41                           ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-11-22 12:39                             ` Richard Biener
2021-11-24  9:46                               ` Andre Vieira (lists) [this message]
2021-11-24 11:00                                 ` Richard Biener
2021-11-25 10:40                                   ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-11-25 12:46                                     ` Richard Biener
2021-11-30 11:36                                       ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-11-30 13:56                                         ` Richard Biener
2021-12-07 11:27                                           ` [vect] Re-analyze all modes for epilogues Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-12-07 11:31                                             ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-12-07 11:48                                               ` Richard Biener
2021-12-07 13:31                                                 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-12-07 13:33                                                   ` Richard Biener
2021-12-07 11:45                                             ` Richard Biener
2021-12-07 15:17                                               ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-12-13 16:41                                                 ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-12-14 11:39                                                   ` Richard Sandiford
2021-12-17 16:33                                                     ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-01-07 12:39                                                       ` Richard Sandiford
2022-01-10 18:31                                           ` [PATCH 1v2/3][vect] Add main vectorized loop unrolling Andre Vieira (lists)
2022-01-11  7:14                                             ` Richard Biener
2021-10-22 10:12                   ` Richard Sandiford
2021-09-17 15:32 ` [PATCH 2/3][vect] Consider outside costs earlier for epilogue loops Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-10-14 13:44   ` Andre Vieira (lists)
2021-10-22 15:33   ` Richard Sandiford

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=475fae98-9541-5dca-2e60-eaff172ff787@arm.com \
    --to=andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com \
    --cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
    --cc=rguenther@suse.de \
    --cc=richard.sandiford@arm.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).