public inbox for gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
 help / color / mirror / Atom feed
From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org,  andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH] First refactor of vect_analyze_loop
Date: Thu, 04 Nov 2021 17:59:43 +0000	[thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpt35ob7qeo.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <q8957nn-n72n-ss1-9q1-n2899599q95@fhfr.qr> (Richard Biener's message of "Thu, 4 Nov 2021 13:12:07 +0100 (CET)")

Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de> writes:
>> > [...]
>> > @@ -2898,43 +2899,63 @@ vect_joust_loop_vinfos (loop_vec_info new_loop_vinfo,
>> >    return true;
>> >  }
>> >  
>> > -/* If LOOP_VINFO is already a main loop, return it unmodified.  Otherwise
>> > -   try to reanalyze it as a main loop.  Return the loop_vinfo on success
>> > -   and null on failure.  */
>> > +/* Analyze LOOP with VECTOR_MODE and as epilogue if MAIN_LOOP_VINFO is
>> > +   not NULL.  Process the analyzed loop with PROCESS even if analysis
>> > +   failed.  Sets *N_STMTS and FATAL according to the analysis.
>> > +   Return the loop_vinfo on success and wrapped null on failure.  */
>> >  
>> > -static loop_vec_info
>> > -vect_reanalyze_as_main_loop (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo, unsigned int *n_stmts)
>> > +static opt_loop_vec_info
>> > +vect_analyze_loop_1 (class loop *loop, vec_info_shared *shared,
>> > +		     machine_mode vector_mode, loop_vec_info main_loop_vinfo,
>> > +		     unsigned int *n_stmts, bool &fatal,
>> > +		     std::function<void(loop_vec_info)> process = nullptr)
>> >  {
>> > -  if (!LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo))
>> > -    return loop_vinfo;
>> > +  /* Check the CFG characteristics of the loop (nesting, entry/exit).  */
>> > +  opt_loop_vec_info loop_vinfo = vect_analyze_loop_form (loop, shared);
>> > +  if (!loop_vinfo)
>> > +    {
>> > +      if (dump_enabled_p ())
>> > +	dump_printf_loc (MSG_MISSED_OPTIMIZATION, vect_location,
>> > +			 "bad loop form.\n");
>> > +      gcc_checking_assert (main_loop_vinfo == NULL);
>> > +      return loop_vinfo;
>> > +    }
>> > +  loop_vinfo->vector_mode = vector_mode;
>> >  
>> > -  if (dump_enabled_p ())
>> > -    dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
>> > -		     "***** Reanalyzing as a main loop with vector mode %s\n",
>> > -		     GET_MODE_NAME (loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
>> > +  if (main_loop_vinfo)
>> > +    LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO (loop_vinfo) = main_loop_vinfo;
>> >  
>> > -  struct loop *loop = LOOP_VINFO_LOOP (loop_vinfo);
>> > -  vec_info_shared *shared = loop_vinfo->shared;
>> > -  opt_loop_vec_info main_loop_vinfo = vect_analyze_loop_form (loop, shared);
>> > -  gcc_assert (main_loop_vinfo);
>> > +  /* Run the main analysis.  */
>> > +  fatal = false;
>> 
>> Think this should be at the top, since we have an early return above.
>> The early return should be fatal.
>
> Indeed.  I've split and split out vect_analyze_loop_form instead, the
> failing part should only be required once for each loop.

Ah, yeah, agree that's nicer.

> [...]
>
>> > +		  if (!vect_epilogues)
>> 
>> !vect_epilogues is correct for current uses, but I think the original
>> !LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo) was more general.  As mentioned above,
>> in principle there's no reason why we couldn't reanalyse a loop as a
>> main loop if we fail to analyse it as an epilogue.
>
> OK, restored that.
>
> The following is mainly the original reorg with the additional
> refactoring of vect_analyze_loop_form.  I think I'll put this in
> before rewriting the main iteration to first only analyze main
> loops (and then possibly unrolled main loops) and only after
> settling for the cheapest main loop consider epilogue
> vectorization.
>
> As you said the original approach of saving extra analyses by
> using epilogue analysis as main loop analysis became moot and
> with partial vectors the re-analysis as epilogue wasn't
> re-usable anyway.  What we could eventually remember is
> modes that fail vectorization, those will likely not succeed
> when analyzed in epilogue context either.
>
> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>
> Since this is refactoring that should not change behavior
> but re-organizing the analysis loop might I'd like to put
> this onto trunk as intermediate step.  Is that OK?

Yeah, looks good to me FWIW.  Just a couple of small comments:

> @@ -3023,43 +3023,36 @@ vect_analyze_loop (class loop *loop, vec_info_shared *shared)
>  	 LOOP_VINFO fails when treated as an epilogue loop, succeeds when
>  	 treated as a standalone loop, and ends up being genuinely cheaper
>  	 than FIRST_LOOP_VINFO.  */
> -      if (vect_epilogues)
> -	LOOP_VINFO_ORIG_LOOP_INFO (loop_vinfo) = first_loop_vinfo;
>  
> -      res = vect_analyze_loop_2 (loop_vinfo, fatal, &n_stmts);
> -      if (mode_i == 0)
> -	autodetected_vector_mode = loop_vinfo->vector_mode;
> -      if (dump_enabled_p ())
> +      bool fatal;
> +      auto cb = [&] (loop_vec_info loop_vinfo)
>  	{
> -	  if (res)
> -	    dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> -			     "***** Analysis succeeded with vector mode %s\n",
> -			     GET_MODE_NAME (loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
> -	  else
> -	    dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> -			     "***** Analysis failed with vector mode %s\n",
> -			     GET_MODE_NAME (loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
> -	}
> -
> -      loop->aux = NULL;
> -
> -      if (!fatal)
> -	while (mode_i < vector_modes.length ()
> -	       && vect_chooses_same_modes_p (loop_vinfo, vector_modes[mode_i]))
> -	  {
> -	    if (dump_enabled_p ())
> -	      dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> -			       "***** The result for vector mode %s would"
> -			       " be the same\n",
> -			       GET_MODE_NAME (vector_modes[mode_i]));
> -	    mode_i += 1;
> -	  }
> +	  if (mode_i ==0)

s/==0/== 0/

> +	    autodetected_vector_mode = loop_vinfo->vector_mode;
> +	  if (!fatal)
> +	    while (mode_i < vector_modes.length ()
> +		   && vect_chooses_same_modes_p (loop_vinfo,
> +						 vector_modes[mode_i]))
> +	      {
> +		if (dump_enabled_p ())
> +		  dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> +				   "***** The result for vector mode %s would"
> +				   " be the same\n",
> +				   GET_MODE_NAME (vector_modes[mode_i]));
> +		mode_i += 1;
> +	      }

I guess the autodetected_vector_mode part is redundant when fatal,
so perhaps we could avoid calling the callback for fatal failures
and remove the !fatal above.  Just a suggestion though, either way's
fine with me.

Thanks,
Richard

> +	};
> +      opt_loop_vec_info loop_vinfo
> +	= vect_analyze_loop_1 (loop, shared, &loop_form_info,
> +			       next_vector_mode,
> +			       vect_epilogues
> +			       ? (loop_vec_info)first_loop_vinfo : NULL,
> +			       &n_stmts, fatal, cb);
> +      if (fatal)
> +	break;
>  
> -      if (res)
> +      if (loop_vinfo)
>  	{
> -	  LOOP_VINFO_VECTORIZABLE_P (loop_vinfo) = 1;
> -	  vectorized_loops++;
> -
>  	  /* Once we hit the desired simdlen for the first time,
>  	     discard any previous attempts.  */
>  	  if (simdlen
> @@ -3084,33 +3077,44 @@ vect_analyze_loop (class loop *loop, vec_info_shared *shared)
>  	      if (vinfos.is_empty ()
>  		  && vect_joust_loop_vinfos (loop_vinfo, first_loop_vinfo))
>  		{
> -		  loop_vec_info main_loop_vinfo
> -		    = vect_reanalyze_as_main_loop (loop_vinfo, &n_stmts);
> -		  if (main_loop_vinfo == loop_vinfo)
> +		  if (!LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo))
>  		    {
>  		      delete first_loop_vinfo;
>  		      first_loop_vinfo = opt_loop_vec_info::success (NULL);
>  		    }
> -		  else if (main_loop_vinfo
> -			   && vect_joust_loop_vinfos (main_loop_vinfo,
> -						      first_loop_vinfo))
> -		    {
> -		      delete first_loop_vinfo;
> -		      first_loop_vinfo = opt_loop_vec_info::success (NULL);
> -		      delete loop_vinfo;
> -		      loop_vinfo
> -			= opt_loop_vec_info::success (main_loop_vinfo);
> -		    }
>  		  else
>  		    {
>  		      if (dump_enabled_p ())
>  			dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> -					 "***** No longer preferring vector"
> -					 " mode %s after reanalyzing the loop"
> -					 " as a main loop\n",
> +					 "***** Reanalyzing as a main loop "
> +					 "with vector mode %s\n",
>  					 GET_MODE_NAME
> -					   (main_loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
> -		      delete main_loop_vinfo;
> +					   (loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
> +		      opt_loop_vec_info main_loop_vinfo
> +			= vect_analyze_loop_1 (loop, shared, &loop_form_info,
> +					       loop_vinfo->vector_mode,
> +					       NULL, &n_stmts, fatal);
> +		      if (main_loop_vinfo
> +			  && vect_joust_loop_vinfos (main_loop_vinfo,
> +						     first_loop_vinfo))
> +			{
> +			  delete first_loop_vinfo;
> +			  first_loop_vinfo = opt_loop_vec_info::success (NULL);
> +			  delete loop_vinfo;
> +			  loop_vinfo
> +			    = opt_loop_vec_info::success (main_loop_vinfo);
> +			}
> +		      else
> +			{
> +			  if (dump_enabled_p ())
> +			    dump_printf_loc (MSG_NOTE, vect_location,
> +					     "***** No longer preferring vector"
> +					     " mode %s after reanalyzing the "
> +					     " loop as a main loop\n",
> +					     GET_MODE_NAME
> +					       (loop_vinfo->vector_mode));
> +			  delete main_loop_vinfo;
> +			}
>  		    }
>  		}
>  	    }
> @@ -3159,16 +3163,6 @@ vect_analyze_loop (class loop *loop, vec_info_shared *shared)
>  	  if (!simdlen && !vect_epilogues && !pick_lowest_cost_p)
>  	    break;
>  	}
> -      else
> -	{
> -	  delete loop_vinfo;
> -	  loop_vinfo = opt_loop_vec_info::success (NULL);
> -	  if (fatal)
> -	    {
> -	      gcc_checking_assert (first_loop_vinfo == NULL);
> -	      break;
> -	    }
> -	}
>  
>        /* Handle the case that the original loop can use partial
>  	 vectorization, but want to only adopt it for the epilogue.
> diff --git a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.h b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.h
> index 73347ce1f4e..20eda72f829 100644
> --- a/gcc/tree-vectorizer.h
> +++ b/gcc/tree-vectorizer.h
> @@ -2061,8 +2061,17 @@ extern bool reduction_fn_for_scalar_code (enum tree_code, internal_fn *);
>  
>  /* Drive for loop transformation stage.  */
>  extern class loop *vect_transform_loop (loop_vec_info, gimple *);
> -extern opt_loop_vec_info vect_analyze_loop_form (class loop *,
> -						 vec_info_shared *);
> +struct vect_loop_form_info
> +{
> +  tree number_of_iterations;
> +  tree number_of_iterationsm1;
> +  tree assumptions;
> +  gcond *loop_cond;
> +  gcond *inner_loop_cond;
> +};
> +extern opt_result vect_analyze_loop_form (class loop *, vect_loop_form_info *);
> +extern loop_vec_info vect_create_loop_vinfo (class loop *, vec_info_shared *,
> +					     const vect_loop_form_info *);
>  extern bool vectorizable_live_operation (vec_info *,
>  					 stmt_vec_info, gimple_stmt_iterator *,
>  					 slp_tree, slp_instance, int,

      reply	other threads:[~2021-11-04 17:59 UTC|newest]

Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested]  mbox.gz  Atom feed  top
2021-10-27 12:10 Richard Biener
2021-10-27 16:27 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-11-04 12:12   ` Richard Biener
2021-11-04 17:59     ` Richard Sandiford [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=mpt35ob7qeo.fsf@arm.com \
    --to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
    --cc=andre.simoesdiasvieira@arm.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).