From: Bernhard Reutner-Fischer <rep.dot.nop@gmail.com>
To: James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>,gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Cc: nd@arm.com,richard.guenther@gmail.com,Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com,bernds_cb1@t-online.de,law@redhat.com,ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr,steven@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [RFC: Patch 1/6 v2] New target hook: max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost
Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2016 21:31:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <639F46F1-9D36-4720-88E7-4D5148D10A25@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <1466524231-17412-1-git-send-email-james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
On June 21, 2016 5:50:26 PM GMT+02:00, James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
>
>On Fri, Jun 03, 2016 at 12:39:42PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 2, 2016 at 6:53 PM, James Greenhalgh
>> <james.greenhalgh@arm.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > This patch introduces a new target hook, to be used like
>BRANCH_COST but
>> > with a guaranteed unit of measurement. We want this to break away
>from
>> > the current ambiguous uses of BRANCH_COST.
>> >
>> > BRANCH_COST is used in ifcvt.c in two types of comparisons. One
>against
>> > instruction counts - where it is used as the limit on the number of
>new
>> > instructions we are permitted to generate. The other (after
>multiplying
>> > by COSTS_N_INSNS (1)) directly against RTX costs.
>> >
>> > Of these, a comparison against RTX costs is the more easily
>understood
>> > metric across the compiler, and the one I've pulled out to the new
>hook.
>> > To keep things consistent for targets which don't migrate, this new
>hook
>> > has a default value of BRANCH_COST * COSTS_N_INSNS (1).
>> >
>> > OK?
>>
>> How does the caller compute "predictable"? There are some archs
>where
>> an information on whether this is a forward or backward jump is more
>> useful I guess. Also at least for !speed_p the distance of the
>branch is
>> important given not all targets support arbitrary branch offsets.
>
>Just through a call to predictable_edge_p. It isn't perfect. My worry
>with adding more details of the branch is that you end up with a
>nonsense
>target implementation that tries way too hard to be clever. But, I
>don't
>mind passing the edge through to the target hook, that way a target has
>it if they want it. In this patch revision, I pass the edge through.
>
>> I remember that at the last Cauldron we discussed to change things to
>> compare costs of sequences of instructions rather than giving targets
>no
>> context with just asking for single (sub-)insn rtx costs.
>
>I've made better use of seq_cost in this respin. Bernd was right,
>constructing dummy RTX just for costs, then discarding it, then
>constructing the actual RTX for matching doesn't make sense as a
>pipeline.
>Better just to construct the real sequence and use the cost of that.
>
>In this patch revision, I started by removing the idea that this costs
>a branch at all. It doesn't, the use of this hook is really a target
>trying to limit if-convert to not end up pulling too much on to the
>unconditional path. It seems better to expose that limit directly by
>explicitly asking for the maximum cost of an unconditional sequence we
>would create, and comparing against seq_cost of the new RTL. This saves
>a target trying to figure out what is meant by a cost of a branch.
>
>Having done that, I think I can see a clearer path to getting the
>default hook implementation in shape. I've introduced two new params,
>which give maximum costs for the generated sequence (one for a
>"predictable"
>branch, one for "unpredictable") in the speed_p cases. I'm not
>expecting it
>to be useful to give the user control in the case we are compiling for
>size - whether this is a size win or not is independent of whether the
>branch is predictable.
>
>For the default implementation, if the parameters are not set, I just
>multiply BRANCH_COST through by COSTS_N_INSNS (1) for size and
>COSTS_N_INSNS (3) for speed. I know this is not ideal, but I'm still
>short
>of ideas on how best to form the default implementation.
How bad is it in e.g. CSiBE?
>we're
>still potentially going to introduce performance regressions for
>targets
>that don't provide an implementation of the new hook, or a default
>value
>for the new parameters. It does mean we can keep the testsuite clean by
>setting parameter values suitably high for all targets that have
>conditional move instructions.
>
>The new default causes some changes in generated conditional move
>sequences
>for x86_64. Whether these changes are for the better or not I can't
>say.
>
>This first patch introduces the two new parameters, and uses them in
>the
>default implementation of the target hook.
s/precitable/predictable/ ?
Present tense in documentation (s/will try to/tries to/).
s/should return/returns/
TARGET_MAX_NOCE_IFCVT_SEQ_COST (bool @var{speed_p}, edge @var{e}) talks about predictable_p but doesn't document e.
+DEFPARAM (PARAM_MAX_RTL_IF_CONVERSION_UNPREDICTABLE_COST, + "max-rtl-if-conversion-unpredictable-cost", + "Maximum permissible cost for the sequence that would be " + "generated by the RTL if-conversion pass for a branch which " + "is considered predictable.", + 40, 0, 200)
unpredictable.
Present tense also in target.def.
+@code{predictable_p} is true
no predictable_p anymore but e missing in docs.
/Then multiply through by/s/through by/with/
thanks,
>
>Bootstrapped on x86_64 and aarch64 with no issues.
>
>OK?
>
>Thanks,
>James
>
>---
>2016-06-21 James Greenhalgh <james.greenhalgh@arm.com>
>
> * target.def (max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost): New.
> * doc/tm.texi.in (TARGET_MAX_NOCE_IFCVT_SEQ_COST): Document it.
> * doc/tm.texi: Regenerate.
> * targhooks.h (default_max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost): New.
> * targhooks.c (default_max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost): New.
> * params.def (PARAM_MAX_RTL_IF_CONVERSION_PREDICTABLE_COST): New.
> (PARAM_MAX_RTL_IF_CONVERSION_UNPREDICTABLE_COST): Likewise.
> * doc/invoke.texi: Document new params.
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2016-06-21 21:31 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 60+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-09-08 15:01 [Patch] Teach RTL ifcvt to handle multiple simple set instructions James Greenhalgh
2015-09-10 18:24 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-09-10 21:34 ` Jeff Law
2015-09-11 8:51 ` Kyrill Tkachov
2015-09-11 21:49 ` Jeff Law
2015-09-11 9:04 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-09-11 9:08 ` Ramana Radhakrishnan
2015-09-11 10:55 ` James Greenhalgh
2015-09-25 15:06 ` [Patch ifcvt costs 0/3] Introduce a new target hook for ifcvt costs James Greenhalgh
2015-09-25 15:06 ` [Patch ifcvt 1/3] Factor out cost calculations from noce cases James Greenhalgh
2015-09-25 15:08 ` [Patch ifcvt 2/3] Move noce_if_info in to ifcvt.h James Greenhalgh
2015-09-25 15:14 ` [Patch Prototype AArch64 ifcvt 4/3] Wire up the new if-convert costs hook for AArch64 James Greenhalgh
2015-09-29 10:43 ` Richard Biener
2015-09-25 15:28 ` [Patch ifcvt 3/3] Create a new target hook for deciding profitability of noce if-conversion James Greenhalgh
2015-09-29 10:36 ` [Patch ifcvt costs 0/3] Introduce a new target hook for ifcvt costs Richard Biener
2015-09-29 15:28 ` James Greenhalgh
2015-09-29 19:52 ` Mike Stump
2015-09-30 8:42 ` Richard Biener
2015-09-30 8:48 ` Richard Biener
2015-09-30 19:01 ` Mike Stump
2015-10-01 9:37 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-10-09 11:28 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-10-09 15:28 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-02 16:54 ` [RFC: Patch 0/6] Rewrite the noce-ifcvt cost models James Greenhalgh
2016-06-02 16:54 ` [RFC: Patch 4/6] Modify cost model for noce_cmove_arith James Greenhalgh
2016-06-02 16:54 ` [RFC: Patch 1/6] New target hook: rtx_branch_cost James Greenhalgh
2016-06-03 10:39 ` Richard Biener
2016-06-21 15:51 ` [RFC: Patch 1/6 v2] New target hook: max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost James Greenhalgh
2016-06-21 15:51 ` [RFC: Patch 5/6 v2] Improve the cost model for multiple-sets James Greenhalgh
2016-07-13 21:23 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-21 15:51 ` [RFC: Patch 3/6 v2] Remove if_info->branch_cost James Greenhalgh
2016-07-13 21:19 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-21 15:51 ` [RFC: Patch 2/6 v2] Factor out the comparisons against magic numbers in ifcvt James Greenhalgh
2016-07-13 21:18 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-21 15:53 ` [RFC: Patch 6/6 v2] Remove second cost model from noce_try_store_flag_mask James Greenhalgh
2016-07-13 21:24 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-21 15:53 ` [RFC: Patch 4/6 v2] Modify cost model for noce_cmove_arith James Greenhalgh
2016-07-13 21:22 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-21 21:31 ` Bernhard Reutner-Fischer [this message]
2016-06-30 12:01 ` [RFC: Patch 1/6 v2] New target hook: max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-13 21:16 ` Jeff Law
2016-07-20 9:52 ` [Re: RFC: Patch 1/2 v3] " James Greenhalgh
2016-07-20 9:52 ` [Patch RFC: 3/2 v3] Don't expand a conditional move between identical sources James Greenhalgh
2016-07-20 9:53 ` [RFC: Patch 2/2 v3] Introduce a new cost model for ifcvt James Greenhalgh
2016-07-20 9:53 ` [Patch RFC 4/2 v3] Refactor noce_try_cmove_arith James Greenhalgh
2016-07-20 11:41 ` [Re: RFC: Patch 1/2 v3] New target hook: max_noce_ifcvt_seq_cost Bernd Schmidt
2016-07-20 16:40 ` James Greenhalgh
2016-07-21 11:32 ` Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-02 16:55 ` [RFC: Patch 2/6] Factor out the comparisons against magic numbers in ifcvt James Greenhalgh
2016-06-02 16:55 ` [RFC: Patch 5/6] Improve the cost model for multiple-sets James Greenhalgh
2016-06-02 16:56 ` [RFC: Patch 6/6] Remove second cost model from noce_try_store_flag_mask James Greenhalgh
2016-06-02 16:56 ` [RFC: Patch 3/6] Remove if_info->branch_cost James Greenhalgh
2016-06-03 9:32 ` [RFC: Patch 0/6] Rewrite the noce-ifcvt cost models Bernd Schmidt
2016-06-09 16:58 ` Jeff Law
2016-06-10 10:45 ` James Greenhalgh
2015-09-12 14:04 ` [Patch] Teach RTL ifcvt to handle multiple simple set instructions Eric Botcazou
2015-10-30 18:09 ` [Patch ifcvt] " James Greenhalgh
2015-11-04 11:04 ` Bernd Schmidt
2015-11-04 15:37 ` James Greenhalgh
2015-11-06 9:13 ` Christophe Lyon
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=639F46F1-9D36-4720-88E7-4D5148D10A25@gmail.com \
--to=rep.dot.nop@gmail.com \
--cc=Ramana.Radhakrishnan@arm.com \
--cc=bernds_cb1@t-online.de \
--cc=ebotcazou@libertysurf.fr \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=james.greenhalgh@arm.com \
--cc=law@redhat.com \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=steven@gcc.gnu.org \
/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).