* Interesting paper from Perdue @ 2004-09-20 13:31 Steven Bosscher 2004-09-21 7:21 ` tm_gccmail 2004-09-21 16:01 ` Vladimir Makarov 0 siblings, 2 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Steven Bosscher @ 2004-09-20 13:31 UTC (permalink / raw) To: gcc I don't know if anyone has ever seen/read/mentioned this paper before, I might have missed it. Otherwise, interesting reading: https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Research/TR/2004pdfs/TR-ECE-04-01.pdf Gr. Steven ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting paper from Perdue 2004-09-20 13:31 Interesting paper from Perdue Steven Bosscher @ 2004-09-21 7:21 ` tm_gccmail 2004-09-21 17:59 ` Vladimir Makarov 2004-09-21 16:01 ` Vladimir Makarov 1 sibling, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: tm_gccmail @ 2004-09-21 7:21 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steven Bosscher; +Cc: gcc On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote: > I don't know if anyone has ever seen/read/mentioned this paper > before, I might have missed it. Otherwise, interesting reading: > https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Research/TR/2004pdfs/TR-ECE-04-01.pdf > > Gr. > Steven I'll digress and rant a bit; apologizes in advance. This is just the tip of the iceberg, really. There are many other instances where various optimizations are improved in isolation and degrade performance because they don't consider the effects on the other optimization passes. For example, Some of the recent work on alias analysis really worries me because I believe this will result in a medium-term net performance decrease on many targets. Consider: 1. Improved alias analysis allows better disambiguation of memory references. 2. The current scheduler is overly aggressive about hoisting loads, and is only restrained by the inadequacy of the current alias analysis. When alias analysis is improved, the first scheduling pass will greatly increase register pressure. 3. The register allocator inserts code suboptimially (in particular, restores are too early) and lacks basic fatures such as live-range splitting and rematerialization. Therefore, it exhibits increasingly bad behavior as register pressure increases. I think the following will occur: 1. Targets with the first instruction scheduling pass enabled will exhibit a net decrease in performance due to increased register pressure. This will be exacerbated if the target has fewer registers (e.g. slightly worse on IA64, much worse on PPC). The SH is unlikely to be affected due to scheduler modifications already implemented. 1. Targets without the first scheduling pass enabled will exhibit a net decrease in performance only if the register set is very small (fewer than 16 registers). This includes the x86 and most embedded processors such as the H8/300, M68HC11, 8051, etc. As I see it, the register allocator and the instruction scheduler are really the base of the foundations for GCC optimization. We keep adding improvements which: 1. Allow more intermediate values to be kept in registers which increase register pressure 2. Allow memory to be retained in registers longer, which increases register pressure 3. Create larger basic blocks, which increases register pressure 4. Allow more loop unrolling, which increases register pressure 5. etc ...and the register allocator doesn't handle the increased register pressure well, so the net result is very little improvement. We really spend some time improving the foundation of GCC instead of piling more and more optimizations on top of it. Toshi ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting paper from Perdue 2004-09-21 7:21 ` tm_gccmail @ 2004-09-21 17:59 ` Vladimir Makarov 2004-09-21 18:39 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 1 reply; 5+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2004-09-21 17:59 UTC (permalink / raw) To: tm_gccmail; +Cc: Steven Bosscher, gcc tm_gccmail@kloo.net wrote: >On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote: > > > >>I don't know if anyone has ever seen/read/mentioned this paper >>before, I might have missed it. Otherwise, interesting reading: >>https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Research/TR/2004pdfs/TR-ECE-04-01.pdf >> >>Gr. >>Steven >> >> > >I'll digress and rant a bit; apologizes in advance. > >This is just the tip of the iceberg, really. There are many other >instances where various optimizations are improved in isolation and >degrade performance because they don't consider the effects on the other >optimization passes. > > > I think the approach mentioned in article has a merit for any compiler. Any optimized compiler is bunch of pass because of complexity task. Many passes are trying to solve subproblem not taking other passes into account. It creates unpredictable compiler behaviour for given program when an optimization is on or off. >...and the register allocator doesn't handle the increased register >pressure well, so the net result is very little improvement. > >We really spend some time improving the foundation of GCC instead of >piling more and more optimizations on top of it. > > > I agree with this. Gcc probably is a compiler with very upredictabe behaviour because inadequate register allocator/scheduler. But writing a good register allocator is not easy task in gcc because of very rich register file model and a lot of machine-dependent macros used by gcc ports. The colour-based register allocator project is an example of this. I know about this because I worked on register allocator improvements and I am still working on it. I think the key component is reload pass. Tasks solved by reload should be combined with the register allocator. We should rid off reload. But it is an eneormous task. Vlad ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting paper from Perdue 2004-09-21 17:59 ` Vladimir Makarov @ 2004-09-21 18:39 ` Daniel Berlin 0 siblings, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Daniel Berlin @ 2004-09-21 18:39 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Vladimir Makarov; +Cc: gcc, tm_gccmail, Steven Bosscher On Sep 21, 2004, at 12:01 PM, Vladimir Makarov wrote: > tm_gccmail@kloo.net wrote: > >> On Mon, 20 Sep 2004, Steven Bosscher wrote: >> >> >>> I don't know if anyone has ever seen/read/mentioned this paper >>> before, I might have missed it. Otherwise, interesting reading: >>> https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Research/TR/2004pdfs/TR-ECE-04 >>> -01.pdf >>> >>> Gr. >>> Steven >>> >> >> I'll digress and rant a bit; apologizes in advance. >> >> This is just the tip of the iceberg, really. There are many other >> instances where various optimizations are improved in isolation and >> degrade performance because they don't consider the effects on the >> other >> optimization passes. >> >> > I think the approach mentioned in article has a merit for any > compiler. Any optimized compiler is bunch of pass because of > complexity task. Many passes are trying to solve subproblem not taking > other passes into account. It creates unpredictable compiler > behaviour for given program when an optimization is on or off. > >> ...and the register allocator doesn't handle the increased register >> pressure well, so the net result is very little improvement. >> >> We really spend some time improving the foundation of GCC instead of >> piling more and more optimizations on top of it. >> >> > I agree with this. Gcc probably is a compiler with very upredictabe > behaviour because inadequate register allocator/scheduler. But > writing a good register allocator is not easy task in gcc because of > very rich register file model and a lot of machine-dependent macros > used by gcc ports. We have a register file model so rich that no single architecture is described well enough to get good results. There is something ironic about this. :) > The colour-based register allocator project is an example of this. I > know about this because I worked on register allocator improvements > and I am still working on it. I think the key component is reload > pass. Tasks solved by reload should be combined with the register > allocator. We should rid off reload. But it is an eneormous task. Yes, which is one of a myriad of reasons new-ra never succeeded. The goals were too ambitious Getting rid of reload is a project all itself. > > Vlad > > ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
* Re: Interesting paper from Perdue 2004-09-20 13:31 Interesting paper from Perdue Steven Bosscher 2004-09-21 7:21 ` tm_gccmail @ 2004-09-21 16:01 ` Vladimir Makarov 1 sibling, 0 replies; 5+ messages in thread From: Vladimir Makarov @ 2004-09-21 16:01 UTC (permalink / raw) To: Steven Bosscher; +Cc: gcc Steven Bosscher wrote: >I don't know if anyone has ever seen/read/mentioned this paper >before, I might have missed it. Otherwise, interesting reading: >https://engineering.purdue.edu/ECE/Research/TR/2004pdfs/TR-ECE-04-01.pdf > > > The most interesting thing about the article is that they spent a lot of machine time (which I have no in my disposal) to investigate individual options to get a better SPECInt2000 results. But I see they used a black box approach because they don't know gcc internals at all (they tried -fschedule-insns for p4 which does nothing, they also did not use -mtune=pentium4, etc). Their most complex algorithm (3rd algorithm) to choose better option combination is just oversimplified taboo search algorithm (with list of taboo moves which never expire). I think that an algorithm based on taboo metaheuristic would achieve better results for the same number of tries. Imho the taboo algorithm is the best fit approach for solution of the task (genetic apporach used by Scott Ladd or more random semulated annealing approach would work much worse on my opinion). In any case, the approach is not practical (on my evaluation it needs about 15 hours to choose options by the 3rd algorithm for one SPECInt2000 test -- three 3 minutes runs, 20 options, 4 iteration as they reported). Alhough it could be used to get a better (peak) SPECInt2000 report. Vlad ^ permalink raw reply [flat|nested] 5+ messages in thread
end of thread, other threads:[~2004-09-21 17:59 UTC | newest] Thread overview: 5+ messages (download: mbox.gz / follow: Atom feed) -- links below jump to the message on this page -- 2004-09-20 13:31 Interesting paper from Perdue Steven Bosscher 2004-09-21 7:21 ` tm_gccmail 2004-09-21 17:59 ` Vladimir Makarov 2004-09-21 18:39 ` Daniel Berlin 2004-09-21 16:01 ` Vladimir Makarov
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).