From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: "gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org" <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
"Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh" <Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian@amd.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Fix bdverN vector cost of cond_[not_]taken_branch_cost
Date: Tue, 07 Apr 2015 11:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4Y-a6B19vq2k1+CfqJEFfQuqWfKN2rKg_sAXO+zP5=1dw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <alpine.LSU.2.11.1504071012120.5207@zhemvz.fhfr.qr>
On Tue, Apr 7, 2015 at 10:19 AM, Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> wrote:
>
> They are suspiciously low (compared to say scalar_stmt_cost) and with
> them and the fix for the vectorizer cost model to properly account
> scalar stmt costs (and thus correctly dealing with odd costs as bdverN
> have) we regress 252.eon because we consider a loop vectorized and
> peeled for alignment loop profitable which clearly isn't.
>
> Bootstrap and regtest running on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu. I've
> tested with all b[dt]verN -marchs and the slp-pr56812.cc testcase
> (yes, we've run into a similar issue earlier). I've also put the
> patch on our SPEC tester to look for fallout.
>
> It really looks like the costs were derived by some automatic
> searching of the parameter space and thus "optimizing" for bugs
> in the vectorizer cost model that have meanwhile been fixed
> (scalar stmt cost == 6 but scalar load/store cost == 4!?). It is
> not a good idea to put in paramters that you can't make sense of
> from an architectural point of view (yes, taken/not-taken branch
> is somewhat bogus kinds, I'd like to change that to correctly
> predicted / wrongly predicted for GCC 6).
>
> Ok for trunk and 4.9 branch?
I have added a person from AMD to comment on the decision.
Otherwise, the patch looks OK, but please wait a couple of days for
possible comments.
Thanks,
Uros.
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> 2015-04-07 Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
>
> PR target/65660
> * config/i386/i386.c (bdver1_cost): Double cond_taken_branch_cost
> and cond_not_taken_branch_cost to 4 and 2.
> (bdver2_cost): Likewise.
> (bdver3_cost): Likewise.
> (bdver4_cost): Likewise.
>
> Index: gcc/config/i386/i386.c
> ===================================================================
> *** gcc/config/i386/i386.c (revision 221888)
> --- gcc/config/i386/i386.c (working copy)
> *************** const struct processor_costs bdver1_cost
> *** 1025,1032 ****
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 1, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BDVER2 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
> --- 1025,1032 ----
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 4, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BDVER2 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
> *************** const struct processor_costs bdver2_cost
> *** 1121,1128 ****
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 1, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
>
> --- 1121,1128 ----
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 4, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
>
> *************** struct processor_costs bdver3_cost = {
> *** 1208,1215 ****
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 1, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BDVER4 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
> --- 1208,1215 ----
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 4, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BDVER4 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
> *************** struct processor_costs bdver4_cost = {
> *** 1294,1301 ****
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 1, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BTVER1 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
> --- 1294,1301 ----
> 4, /* vec_align_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_unalign_load_cost. */
> 4, /* vec_store_cost. */
> ! 4, /* cond_taken_branch_cost. */
> ! 2, /* cond_not_taken_branch_cost. */
> };
>
> /* BTVER1 has optimized REP instruction for medium sized blocks, but for
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2015-04-07 11:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 5+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2015-04-07 8:19 Richard Biener
2015-04-07 11:20 ` Uros Bizjak [this message]
2015-04-08 6:39 ` Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
2015-04-08 7:38 ` Richard Biener
2015-04-13 5:49 ` Gopalasubramanian, Ganesh
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='CAFULd4Y-a6B19vq2k1+CfqJEFfQuqWfKN2rKg_sAXO+zP5=1dw@mail.gmail.com' \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=Ganesh.Gopalasubramanian@amd.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=rguenther@suse.de \
/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).