From: Richard Sandiford <richard.sandiford@arm.com>
To: Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>
Cc: Richard Biener <rguenther@suse.de>
Subject: Re: [PATCH] Improve RTL CSE hash table hash usage
Date: Fri, 03 Feb 2023 15:54:09 +0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <mptmt5u923i.fsf@arm.com> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <617912D0-503E-4F87-BFE1-CC9324ED67CA@suse.de> (Richard Biener via Gcc-patches's message of "Fri, 3 Feb 2023 16:44:12 +0100")
Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>> Am 03.02.2023 um 15:20 schrieb Richard Sandiford via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org>:
>>
>> Richard Biener via Gcc-patches <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> writes:
>>> The RTL CSE hash table has a fixed number of buckets (32) each
>>> with a linked list of entries with the same hash value. The
>>> actual hash values are computed using hash_rtx which uses adds
>>> for mixing and adds the rtx CODE as CODE << 7 (apart from some
>>> exceptions such as MEM). The unsigned int typed hash value
>>> is then simply truncated for the actual lookup into the fixed
>>> size table which means that usually CODE is simply lost.
>>>
>>> The following improves this truncation by first mixing in more
>>> bits using xor. It does not change the actual hash function
>>> since that's used outside of CSE as well.
>>>
>>> An alternative would be to bump the fixed number of buckets,
>>> say to 256 which would retain the LSB of CODE or to 8192 which
>>> can capture all 6 bits required for the last CODE.
>>>
>>> As the comment in CSE says, there's invalidate_memory and
>>> flush_hash_table done possibly frequently and those at least
>>> need to walk all slots, so when the hash table is mostly empty
>>> enlarging it will be a loss. Still there should be more
>>> regular lookups by hash, so less collisions should pay off
>>> as well.
>>
>> Going purely from this description and without having looked
>> at the code properly, would it be possible to link all current
>> values together, not just those with the same hash? And would
>> that help? It looks like the list is already doubly-linked,
>> and there's spare room to store a "start of new hash" marker.
>
> We already do have equivalent values linked, but I’m not sure that’s what you are suggesting.
I was thinking of linking every active value in the table together,
but with entries for the same hash being consecutive. That way, things
like invalidate_memory can just walk the list and ignore the hash table.
> Those should also have the same hash value, so both lists are somewhat redundant and we might be able to save some storage here by making this a list of lists of same hash and value list?
I thought the value-equality list was to establish that (e.g.)
(reg R1) and (reg R2) are known to have the same value, despite
being different expressions with different hash values.
But I suppose if we reused an existing hash table structure (with its
own mechanism for handling collisions), it would make sense to use the
equivalent-value list to join everything together, rather than the
same-hash list. Again, there could be a marker to establish the start
of a new equivalent-value sublist.
Thanks,
Richard
>
>>
>> Thanks,
>> Richard
>>
>>> Without enlarging the table a better hash function is unlikely
>>> going to make a big difference, simple statistics on the
>>> number of collisions at insertion time shows a reduction of
>>> around 10%. Bumping HASH_SHIFT by 1 improves that to 30%
>>> at the expense of reducing the average table fill by 10%
>>> (all of this stats from looking just at fold-const.i at -O2).
>>> Increasing HASH_SHIFT more leaves the table even more sparse
>>> likely showing that hash_rtx uses add for mixing which is
>>> quite bad. Bumping HASH_SHIFT by 2 removes 90% of all
>>> collisions.
>>>
>>> Experimenting with using inchash instead of adds for the
>>> mixing does not improve things when looking at the HASH_SHIFT
>>> bumped by 2 numbers.
>>>
>>> Bootstrapped and tested on x86_64-unknown-linux-gnu.
>>>
>>> Any opinions?
>>>
>>> * cse.cc (HASH): Turn into inline function and mix
>>> in another HASH_SHIFT bits.
>>> (SAFE_HASH): Likewise.
>>> ---
>>> gcc/cse.cc | 37 +++++++++++++++++++++++--------------
>>> 1 file changed, 23 insertions(+), 14 deletions(-)
>>>
>>> diff --git a/gcc/cse.cc b/gcc/cse.cc
>>> index 37afc88b439..4777e559b86 100644
>>> --- a/gcc/cse.cc
>>> +++ b/gcc/cse.cc
>>> @@ -420,20 +420,6 @@ struct table_elt
>>> #define HASH_SIZE (1 << HASH_SHIFT)
>>> #define HASH_MASK (HASH_SIZE - 1)
>>>
>>> -/* Compute hash code of X in mode M. Special-case case where X is a pseudo
>>> - register (hard registers may require `do_not_record' to be set). */
>>> -
>>> -#define HASH(X, M) \
>>> - ((REG_P (X) && REGNO (X) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER \
>>> - ? (((unsigned) REG << 7) + (unsigned) REG_QTY (REGNO (X))) \
>>> - : canon_hash (X, M)) & HASH_MASK)
>>> -
>>> -/* Like HASH, but without side-effects. */
>>> -#define SAFE_HASH(X, M) \
>>> - ((REG_P (X) && REGNO (X) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER \
>>> - ? (((unsigned) REG << 7) + (unsigned) REG_QTY (REGNO (X))) \
>>> - : safe_hash (X, M)) & HASH_MASK)
>>> -
>>> /* Determine whether register number N is considered a fixed register for the
>>> purpose of approximating register costs.
>>> It is desirable to replace other regs with fixed regs, to reduce need for
>>> @@ -586,6 +572,29 @@ static machine_mode cse_cc_succs (basic_block, basic_block, rtx, rtx,
>>>
>>> static const struct rtl_hooks cse_rtl_hooks = RTL_HOOKS_INITIALIZER;
>>> \f
>>> +/* Compute hash code of X in mode M. Special-case case where X is a pseudo
>>> + register (hard registers may require `do_not_record' to be set). */
>>> +
>>> +static inline unsigned
>>> +HASH (rtx x, machine_mode mode)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned h = (REG_P (x) && REGNO (x) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
>>> + ? (((unsigned) REG << 7) + (unsigned) REG_QTY (REGNO (x)))
>>> + : canon_hash (x, mode));
>>> + return (h ^ (h >> HASH_SHIFT)) & HASH_MASK;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> +/* Like HASH, but without side-effects. */
>>> +
>>> +static inline unsigned
>>> +SAFE_HASH (rtx x, machine_mode mode)
>>> +{
>>> + unsigned h = (REG_P (x) && REGNO (x) >= FIRST_PSEUDO_REGISTER
>>> + ? (((unsigned) REG << 7) + (unsigned) REG_QTY (REGNO (x)))
>>> + : safe_hash (x, mode));
>>> + return (h ^ (h >> HASH_SHIFT)) & HASH_MASK;
>>> +}
>>> +
>>> /* Nonzero if X has the form (PLUS frame-pointer integer). */
>>>
>>> static bool
next prev parent reply other threads:[~2023-02-03 15:54 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 6+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2023-02-03 14:06 Richard Biener
2023-02-03 14:19 ` Richard Sandiford
2023-02-03 15:44 ` Richard Biener
2023-02-03 15:54 ` Richard Sandiford [this message]
2023-02-03 19:05 ` Richard Biener
2023-05-03 10:22 ` Richard Biener
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=mptmt5u923i.fsf@arm.com \
--to=richard.sandiford@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).