From: Jeff Law <jeffreyalaw@gmail.com>
To: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
Subject: Re: [PATCH] lower-subreg, expr: Mitigate inefficiencies derived from "(clobber (reg X))" followed by "(set (subreg (reg X)) (...))"
Date: Wed, 3 Aug 2022 11:23:43 -0600 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <a84897e6-3bd9-bb0d-e40a-760276bf9dd2@gmail.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <mpt4jytpxw5.fsf@arm.com>
On 8/3/2022 1:52 AM, Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches wrote:
> Takayuki 'January June' Suwa via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> Emitting "(clobber (reg X))" before "(set (subreg (reg X)) (...))" keeps
>> data flow consistent, but it also increases register allocation pressure
>> and thus often creates many unwanted register-to-register moves that
>> cannot be optimized away.
> There are two things here:
>
> - If emit_move_complex_parts emits a clobber of a hard register,
> then that's probably a bug/misfeature. The point of the clobber is
> to indicate that the register has no useful contents. That's useful
> for wide pseudos that are written to in parts, since it avoids the
> need to track the liveness of each part of the pseudo individually.
> But it shouldn't be necessary for hard registers, since subregs of
> hard registers are simplified to hard registers wherever possible
> (which on most targets is "always").
>
> So I think the emit_move_complex_parts clobber should be restricted
> to !HARD_REGISTER_P, like the lower-subreg clobber is. If that helps
> (if only partly) then it would be worth doing as its own patch.
Agreed.
>
> - I think it'd be worth looking into more detail why a clobber makes
> a difference to register pressure. A clobber of a pseudo register R
> shouldn't make R conflict with things that are live at the point of
> the clobber.
Also agreed.
>
>> It seems just analogous to partial register
>> stall which is a famous problem on processors that do register renaming.
>>
>> In my opinion, when the register to be clobbered is a composite of hard
>> ones, we should clobber the individual elements separetely, otherwise
>> clear the entire to zero prior to use as the "init-regs" pass does (like
>> partial register stall workarounds on x86 CPUs). Such redundant zero
>> constant assignments will be removed later in the "cprop_hardreg" pass.
> I don't think we should rely on the zero being optimised away later.
>
> Emitting the zero also makes it harder for the register allocator
> to elide the move. For example, if we have:
>
> (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI P) 0) (reg:SI R0))
> (set (subreg:SI (reg:DI P) 4) (reg:SI R1))
>
> then there is at least a chance that the RA could assign hard registers
> R0:R1 to P, which would turn the moves into nops. If we emit:
>
> (set (reg:DI P) (const_int 0))
>
> beforehand then that becomes impossible, since R0 and R1 would then
> conflict with P.
>
> TBH I'm surprised we still run init_regs for LRA. I thought there was
> a plan to stop doing that, but perhaps I misremember.
I have vague memories of dealing with some of this nonsense a few
release cycles. I don't recall all the details, but init-regs +
lower-subreg + regcprop + splitting all conspired to generate poor code
on the MIPS targets. See pr87761, though it doesn't include all my
findings -- I can't recall if I walked through the entire tortured
sequence in the gcc-patches discussion or not.
I ended up working around in the mips backend in conjunction with some
changes to regcprop IIRC.
Jeff
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-08-03 17:23 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 20+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2022-08-03 1:35 Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-08-03 7:52 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-08-03 11:17 ` Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-08-04 9:49 ` Richard Sandiford
2022-08-04 12:35 ` Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-08-05 16:20 ` Jeff Law
2022-10-14 11:06 ` [PATCH] xtensa: Prepare the transition from Reload to LRA Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-10-16 5:03 ` Max Filippov
2022-10-18 2:57 ` [PATCH v2] " Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-10-18 3:14 ` Max Filippov
2022-10-18 12:16 ` Max Filippov
2022-10-19 8:16 ` [PATCH v3] " Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-10-19 11:31 ` Max Filippov
2022-10-25 20:09 ` Jan-Benedict Glaw
2022-10-26 3:23 ` Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-10-26 6:27 ` [PATCH] xtensa: Fix out-of-bounds array access Takayuki 'January June' Suwa
2022-10-26 17:05 ` Max Filippov
2022-08-05 16:12 ` [PATCH] lower-subreg, expr: Mitigate inefficiencies derived from "(clobber (reg X))" followed by "(set (subreg (reg X)) (...))" Jeff Law
2022-08-03 17:23 ` Jeff Law [this message]
2022-08-04 9:39 ` 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=a84897e6-3bd9-bb0d-e40a-760276bf9dd2@gmail.com \
--to=jeffreyalaw@gmail.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@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).