From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christina@arm.com>
Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, nd@arm.com, Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com,
Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com, Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com
Subject: Re: [PATCH][RFC]AArch64 SVE: Fix multiple comparison masks on inverted operands
Date: Mon, 14 Jun 2021 15:50:09 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mpt7diwjyam.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <patch-14553-tamar@arm.com> (Tamar Christina's message of "Mon, 14 Jun 2021 14:43:01 +0100")
Tamar Christina <tamar.christina@arm.com> writes:
> Hi All,
>
> This RFC is trying to address the following inefficiency when vectorizing
> conditional statements with SVE.
>
> Consider the case
>
> void f10(double * restrict z, double * restrict w, double * restrict x,
> double * restrict y, int n)
> {
> for (int i = 0; i < n; i++) {
> z[i] = (w[i] > 0) ? x[i] + w[i] : y[i] - w[i];
> }
> }
>
>
> For which we currently generate at -O3:
>
> f10:
> cmp w4, 0
> ble .L1
> mov x5, 0
> whilelo p1.d, wzr, w4
> ptrue p3.b, all
> .L3:
> ld1d z1.d, p1/z, [x1, x5, lsl 3]
> fcmgt p2.d, p1/z, z1.d, #0.0
> fcmgt p0.d, p3/z, z1.d, #0.0
> ld1d z2.d, p2/z, [x2, x5, lsl 3]
> bic p0.b, p3/z, p1.b, p0.b
> ld1d z0.d, p0/z, [x3, x5, lsl 3]
> fsub z0.d, p0/m, z0.d, z1.d
> movprfx z0.d, p2/m, z1.d
> fadd z0.d, p2/m, z0.d, z2.d
> st1d z0.d, p1, [x0, x5, lsl 3]
> incd x5
> whilelo p1.d, w5, w4
> b.any .L3
> .L1:
> ret
>
> Notice that the condition for the else branch duplicates the same predicate as
> the then branch and then uses BIC to negate the results.
>
> The reason for this is that during instruction generation in the vectorizer we
> emit
>
> mask__41.11_66 = vect__4.10_64 > vect_cst__65;
> vec_mask_and_69 = mask__41.11_66 & loop_mask_63;
> vec_mask_and_71 = mask__41.11_66 & loop_mask_63;
> mask__43.16_73 = ~mask__41.11_66;
> vec_mask_and_76 = mask__43.16_73 & loop_mask_63;
> vec_mask_and_78 = mask__43.16_73 & loop_mask_63;
>
> which ultimately gets optimized to
>
> mask__41.11_66 = vect__4.10_64 > { 0.0, ... };
> vec_mask_and_69 = loop_mask_63 & mask__41.11_66;
> mask__43.16_73 = ~mask__41.11_66;
> vec_mask_and_76 = loop_mask_63 & mask__43.16_73;
>
> Notice how the negate is on the operation and not the predicate resulting from
> the operation. When this is expanded this turns into RTL where the negate is on
> the compare directly. This means the RTL is different from the one without the
> negate and so CSE is unable to recognize that they are essentially same operation.
>
> To fix this my patch changes it so you negate the mask rather than the operation
>
> mask__41.13_55 = vect__4.12_53 > { 0.0, ... };
> vec_mask_and_58 = loop_mask_52 & mask__41.13_55;
> vec_mask_op_67 = ~vec_mask_and_58;
> vec_mask_and_65 = loop_mask_52 & vec_mask_op_67;
But to me this looks like a pessimisation in gimple terms. We've increased
the length of the critical path: vec_mask_and_65 now needs a chain of
4 operations instead of 3.
We also need to be careful not to pessimise the case in which the
comparison is an integer one. At the moment we'll generate opposed
conditions, which is the intended behaviour:
.L3:
ld1d z1.d, p0/z, [x1, x5, lsl 3]
cmpgt p2.d, p0/z, z1.d, #0
movprfx z2, z1
scvtf z2.d, p3/m, z1.d
cmple p1.d, p0/z, z1.d, #0
ld1d z0.d, p2/z, [x2, x5, lsl 3]
ld1d z1.d, p1/z, [x3, x5, lsl 3]
fadd z0.d, p2/m, z0.d, z2.d
movprfx z0.d, p1/m, z1.d
fsub z0.d, p1/m, z0.d, z2.d
st1d z0.d, p0, [x0, x5, lsl 3]
add x5, x5, x6
whilelo p0.d, w5, w4
b.any .L3
Could we handle the fcmp case using a 3->2 define_split instead: convert
(set res (and (not (fcmp X Y)) Z)) ->
(set res (fcmp X Y))
(set res (and (not res) Z))
?
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2021-06-14 14:50 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 8+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2021-06-14 13:43 Tamar Christina
2021-06-14 14:50 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2021-06-14 15:05 ` Tamar Christina
2021-06-14 15:54 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-06-30 16:08 ` Tamar Christina
2021-06-30 17:55 ` Richard Sandiford
2021-07-01 7:04 ` Tamar Christina
2021-07-01 9:15 ` 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=mpt7diwjyam.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=Kyrylo.Tkachov@arm.com \
--cc=Marcus.Shawcroft@arm.com \
--cc=Richard.Earnshaw@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=nd@arm.com \
--cc=tamar.christina@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).