Re: More aggressive threading causing loop-interchange-9.c regression

[Aldy Hernandez <aldyh@redhat.com>]

On 9/10/21 5:43 PM, Jeff Law wrote:
> 
> 
> On 9/9/2021 3:21 AM, Aldy Hernandez wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>    /* If this path does not thread through the loop latch, then we are
>>>       using the FSM threader to find old style jump threads. This
>>>       is good, except the FSM threader does not re-use an existing
>>>       threading path to reduce code duplication.
>>>
>>>       So for that case, drastically reduce the number of statements
>>>       we are allowed to copy.  */
>>
>> *blink*
>>
>> Woah.  The backward threader has been using FSM threads 
>> indiscriminately as far as I can remember.  I wonder what would break 
>> if we "fixed it".
> ?!?  I'm not sure what you're suggesting here.  If you s/FSM 
> threader/backwards threader/ in the comment does it make more sense? The 
> term FSM really should largely have been dropped as the backwards 
> threader was improved to handle more cases.

back_threader_registry::register_path() uses EDGE_FSM_THREAD as the 
thread type to register threads.  I was wondering if it should have been 
some combination of EDGE_START_JUMP_THREAD / EDGE_*_COPY_SRC_BLOCK, etc. 
  I (purposely) know nothing about the underlying threading types ;-). 
But if the backwards threader has been improved, then perhaps we should 
just remove the confusing FSM references.

> 
> 
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> so these cases should use the "old style" validity/costing metrics 
>>> and thus
>>> classify threading opportunities in a different way?
>>
>> Jeff, do you have any insight here?
> This is precisely what you're cleaning up.
> 
> 
>>
>>>
>>> I think today "backwards" vs, "forwards" only refers to the way we find
>>> threading opportunities.
>>
>> Yes, it's a mess.
>>
>> I ran some experiments a while back, and my current work on the 
>> enhanced solver/threader, can fold virtually everything the 
>> DOM/threader gets (even with its use of const_and_copies, avail_exprs, 
>> and evrp_range_analyzer), while getting 5% more DOM threads and 1% 
>> more overall threads.  That is, I've been testing if the path solver 
>> can solve everything the DOM threader needs (the hybrid approach I 
>> mentioned).
>>
>> Unfortunately, replacing the forward threader right now is not 
>> feasible for a few reasons:
> Right.  But I thought the short term goal was to replace/remove the 
> forward threading from VRP.   Dropping from DOM is going to be tougher.

My current thinking is that replacing the forward VRP threader with a 
hybrid one is a gentler approach to the longer term goal of replacing 
the forward threader altogether.  However, all the work I've been doing 
could go either way-- we could try the forward/VRP replacement or a 
hybrid approach.  It will all use the path solver underneath.

My main problem with replacing the forward/VRP with a backward client is 
that the cost models are so different that it was difficult to compare 
how we fared.  I constantly ran into threads the solver could handle 
just fine, but profitable_path_p was holding it back.

FWIW, we get virtually everything the forward threader gets, minus a 
very few things.  At least when I plug in the solver to the 
DOM/forwarder threader, it can solve everything it can (minus noise and 
floats).

If you prefer a backward threader instance to replace the VRP/forward 
threader, I'm game.  It's just harder to compare.  Either way (backward 
threader or a hybrid forward+solver) uses the same underlying solver 
which is solid.

>> a) The const_and_copies/avail_exprs relation framework can do floats, 
>> and that's next year's ranger work.
> Right.  I'd actually run into this as well when I wanted to drop all the 
> range bits out of DOM and rely exclusively on EVRP.   It'd still be a 
> step forward to rip out the EVRP engine from DOM and simplify all the 
> code that derives one equivalence from another so that it's only working 
> on FP values.

Sure.

> 
>>
>> b) Even though we can seemingly fold everything DOM/threader does, in 
>> order to replace it with a backward threader instance we'd have to 
>> merge the cost/profitability code scattered throughout the forward 
>> threader, as well as the EDGE_FSM* / EDGE_COPY* business.
> Right.  This is a prerequisite.  Though some of the costing will need to 
> be conditional on the threader being used.  Refer back to the discussion 
> around how the forward threader can commonize thread paths that lead to 
> the same destination while the backwards threader can not.

Yup, yup.

> 
>>
>> c) DOM changes the IL as it goes.  Though we could conceivably divorce 
>> do the threading after DOM is done.
> The only reason threading runs in parallel with DOM is so that it can 
> use the context sensitive equivalences.  With the infrastructure you're 
> building, there's a reasonable chance we can move to a model where we 
> run DOM (and in the long term a simpler DOM) and threading as distinct, 
> independent passes.

Andrew mumbled something about replacing all of DOM eventually :-). 
Well, except that value-numbering business I bet.

Aldy