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: Mon, 10 Jan 2022 18:31:39 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <e7edcb04-95b7-ffb5-15a9-0e4d35f74350@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <n3r4625s-p112-rq9p-q546-7q625rn081n@fhfr.qr>
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3009 bytes --]
Hi,
I don't think I ever ended up posting the rebased version on top of the
epilogue mode patch. So here it is, I think I had a conditional OK if I
split the epilogue mode patch, but just want to double check this is OK
for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters): Pass
new argument
suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_analyze_loop_costing): Likewise.
(_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Initialize new member
suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_determine_partial_vectors_and_peeling): Make epilogue of
unrolled
main loop use partial vectors.
(vect_analyze_loop_2): Pass and use new argument
suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_analyze_loop_1): Likewise.
(vect_analyze_loop): Change to intialize local
suggested_unroll_factor and use it.
(vectorizable_reduction): Don't use single_defuse_cycle when
unrolling.
* tree-vectorizer.h (_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Add new
member suggested_unroll_factor.
(vector_costs::vector_costs): Add new member
m_suggested_unroll_factor.
(vector_costs::suggested_unroll_factor): New getter function.
(finish_cost): Set return argument suggested_unroll_factor.
Regards,
Andre
On 30/11/2021 13:56, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2021, Andre Vieira (lists) wrote:
>
>> On 25/11/2021 12:46, Richard Biener wrote:
>>> Oops, my fault, yes, it does. I would suggest to refactor things so
>>> that the mode_i = first_loop_i case is there only once. I also wonder
>>> if all the argument about starting at 0 doesn't apply to the
>>> not unrolled LOOP_VINFO_EPIL_USING_PARTIAL_VECTORS_P as well? So
>>> what's the reason to differ here? So in the end I'd just change
>>> the existing
>>>
>>> if (LOOP_VINFO_EPIL_USING_PARTIAL_VECTORS_P (first_loop_vinfo))
>>> {
>>>
>>> to
>>>
>>> if (LOOP_VINFO_EPIL_USING_PARTIAL_VECTORS_P (first_loop_vinfo)
>>> || first_loop_vinfo->suggested_unroll_factor > 1)
>>> {
>>>
>>> and maybe revisit this when we have an actual testcase showing that
>>> doing sth else has a positive effect?
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>> So I had a quick chat with Richard Sandiford and he is suggesting resetting
>> mode_i to 0 for all cases.
>>
>> He pointed out that for some tunings the SVE mode might come after the NEON
>> mode, which means that even for not-unrolled loop_vinfos we could end up with
>> a suboptimal choice of mode for the epilogue. I.e. it could be that we pick
>> V16QI for main vectorization, but that's VNx16QI + 1 in the array, so we'd not
>> try VNx16QI for the epilogue.
>>
>> This would simplify the mode selecting cases, by just simply restarting at
>> mode_i in all epilogue cases. Is that something you'd be OK?
> Works for me with an updated comment. Even better with showing a
> testcase exercising such tuning.
>
> Richard.
[-- Attachment #2: vect_unroll8.patch --]
[-- Type: text/plain, Size: 1148 bytes --]
Hi,
I don't think I ever ended up posting the rebased version on top of the epilogue mode patch. So here it is.
OK for trunk?
gcc/ChangeLog:
* tree-vect-loop.c (vect_estimate_min_profitable_iters): Pass new argument
suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_analyze_loop_costing): Likewise.
(_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Initialize new member suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_determine_partial_vectors_and_peeling): Make epilogue of unrolled
main loop use partial vectors.
(vect_analyze_loop_2): Pass and use new argument suggested_unroll_factor.
(vect_analyze_loop_1): Likewise.
(vect_analyze_loop): Change to intialize local suggested_unroll_factor and use it.
(vectorizable_reduction): Don't use single_defuse_cycle when unrolling.
* tree-vectorizer.h (_loop_vec_info::_loop_vec_info): Add new member suggested_unroll_factor.
(vector_costs::vector_costs): Add new member m_suggested_unroll_factor.
(vector_costs::suggested_unroll_factor): New getter function.
(finish_cost): Set return argument suggested_unroll_factor.
Regards,
Andre
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2022-01-10 18:31 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)
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 ` Andre Vieira (lists) [this message]
2022-01-11 7:14 ` [PATCH 1v2/3][vect] Add main vectorized loop unrolling 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=e7edcb04-95b7-ffb5-15a9-0e4d35f74350@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).