From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: "Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com>
Cc: GCC Patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>,
Bill Schmidt <wschmidt@linux.ibm.com>,
Segher Boessenkool <segher@kernel.crashing.org>,
Richard Biener <richard.guenther@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH v4] vect/rs6000: Support vector with length cost modeling
Date: Fri, 31 Jul 2020 12:03:00 +0100 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptft98aqvv.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <7d90d154-6a76-c8f5-75f6-1e1057dfcc0f@linux.ibm.com> (Kewen Lin's message of "Tue, 28 Jul 2020 16:36:42 +0800")
"Kewen.Lin" <linkw@linux.ibm.com> writes:
>>> + bool niters_known_p = LOOP_VINFO_NITERS_KNOWN_P (loop_vinfo);
>>> + bool need_iterate_p
>>> + = (!LOOP_VINFO_EPILOGUE_P (loop_vinfo)
>>> + && !vect_known_niters_smaller_than_vf (loop_vinfo));
>>> +
>>> + /* Init min/max, shift and minus cost relative to single
>>> + scalar_stmt. For now we only use length-based partial vectors on
>>> + Power, target specific cost tweaking may be needed for other
>>> + ports in future. */
>>> + unsigned int min_max_cost = 2;
>>> + unsigned int shift_cost = 1, minus_cost = 1;
>>
>> Please instead add a scalar_min_max to vect_cost_for_stmt, and use
>> scalar_stmt for shift and minus. There shouldn't be any Power things
>> hard-coded into target-independent code.
>>
>
> Agree! It's not good to leave them there. I thought to wait and see
> if other targets which support vector with length can reuse this, or
> move it to target specific codes then if not sharable. But anyway
> it looks not good, let's fix it.
>
> I had some concerns on vect_cost_for_stmt way, since it seems to allow
> more computations similar to min/max to be added like this, in long
> term it probably leads to the situtation like: scalar_min_max,
> scalar_div_expr, scalar_mul_expr ... an enum (cost types) bloat, it
> seems not good to maintain.
I guess doing that doesn't seem so bad to me :-) I think it's been
a recurring problem that the current classification isn't fine-grained
enough for some cases.
> I noticed that i386 port ix86_add_stmt_cost will check stmt_info->stmt,
> whether is assignment and the subcode of the expression, it provides the
> chance to check the statement more fine-grain, not just as normal
> scalar_stmt/vector_stmt.
>
> For the case here, we don't have the stmt_info, but we know the type
> of computation(expression), how about to extend the hook add_stmt_cost
> with one extra tree_code type argument, by default it can be some
> unmeaningful code, for some needs like here, we specify the tree_code
> as the code of computation, like {MIN,MAX}_EXPR, then target specific
> add_stmt_cost can check this tree_code and adjust the cost accordingly.
If we do that, I guess we should “promote” code_helper out of
gimple-match.h and use that instead, so that we can handle
internal and built-in functions too.
Would like to hear Richard's opinion on the best way forward here.
Thanks,
Richard
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2020-07-31 11:03 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 23+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2020-07-21 5:51 [PATCH] vect: " Kewen.Lin
2020-07-21 7:57 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-22 1:26 ` [PATCH v2] vect/rs6000: " Kewen.Lin
2020-07-22 6:38 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-22 7:08 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-22 9:11 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-07-22 15:48 ` [PATCH v3] " Kewen.Lin
2020-07-22 16:25 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-24 16:21 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-07-27 3:58 ` [PATCH v4] " Kewen.Lin
2020-07-27 13:40 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-07-28 8:36 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-31 11:03 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2020-07-31 11:20 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-31 12:37 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-31 13:01 ` Richard Biener
2020-07-31 13:21 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-31 14:51 ` [PATCH v5] " Kewen.Lin
2020-08-05 7:27 ` Richard Sandiford
2020-08-05 14:06 ` Segher Boessenkool
2020-08-06 6:47 ` Kewen.Lin
2020-07-22 17:49 ` [PATCH v2] " Segher Boessenkool
2020-07-27 3:44 ` Kewen.Lin
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=mptft98aqvv.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@arm.com \
--cc=gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org \
--cc=linkw@linux.ibm.com \
--cc=richard.guenther@gmail.com \
--cc=segher@kernel.crashing.org \
--cc=wschmidt@linux.ibm.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).