From: Uros Bizjak <ubizjak@gmail.com>
To: Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Subject: Re: [x86 PATCH] PR target/108229: A minor STV compute_convert_gain tweak.
Date: Sun, 1 Jan 2023 19:22:59 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <CAFULd4beOsyBUBLx_vT-MSq0P35toX28kQNto2Z7_KyXtyE3Xw@mail.gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <005a01d91e01$80bd4af0$8237e0d0$@nextmovesoftware.com>
On Sun, Jan 1, 2023 at 5:53 PM Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com> wrote:
>
>
> This patch addresses PR target/108229, which is a change in code
> generation during the STV pass, due to the recently approved patch
> to handle vec_select (reductions) in the vector unit. The recent
> change is innocent, but exposes a latent STV "gain" calculation issue
> that is benign (or closely balanced) on most microarchitectures.
>
> The issue is when STV considers converting PLUS with a MEM operand.
>
> On TARGET_64BIT (m=1):
> addq 24(%rdi), %rdx // 4 bytes
> or with -m32 (m=2)
> addl 24(%esi), %eax // 3 bytes
> adcl 28(%esi), %edx // 3 bytes
> is being converted by STV to
> vmovq 24(%rdi), %xmm5 // 5 bytes
> vpaddq %xmm5, %xmm4, %xmm4 // 4 bytes
>
> The current code in general_scalar_chain::compute_convert_gain
> considers that scalar unit addition is replaced with a vector
> unit addition (usually about the same cost), but doesn't consider
> anything special about MEM operands, assuming that a scalar load
> gains/costs nothing compared to a vector load. We can allow the
> backend slightly better fine tuning by including in the gain
> calculation that m scalar loads are being replaced by one vector
> load, and when optimizing for size including that we're increasing
> code size (e.g. an extra vmovq instruction for a MEM operand).
>
> This patch is a win on the CSiBE benchmark when compiled with -Os.
> Alas I've no new testcase as this is extremely sensitive to the
> backend microarchitecture parameterization (and it's dangerous to
> select parameters from the N=1 statistics of a single bugzilla PR).
>
> 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?
>
>
> 2023-01-01 Roger Sayle <roger@nextmovesoftware.com>
>
> gcc/ChangeLog
> PR target/108229
> * config/i386/i386-features.cc
> (general_scalar_chain::compute_convert_gain) <case PLUS>: Consider
> the gain/cost of converting a MEM operand.
LGTM.
Thanks,
Uros.
>
> Thanks in advance,
> Roger
> --
>
prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-01-01 18:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 2+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-01-01 16:52 Roger Sayle
2023-01-01 18:22 ` Uros Bizjak [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=CAFULd4beOsyBUBLx_vT-MSq0P35toX28kQNto2Z7_KyXtyE3Xw@mail.gmail.com \
--to=ubizjak@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=roger@nextmovesoftware.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).