llvm dev - Sep 2020 - [EXTERNAL] RE: Machinepipeliner interface. shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.

Hi James,

Adding Hendrik, who has taken over ownership of the downstream code
involved.

I can also add background about the rationale, of that helps? It was added
to ignore induction variable update code (scalar code) that is rewritten
when we unroll / peel the prolog epilog anyway.

Targets like Hexagon or PPC with dedicated loop control instructions for
pipelined loops don't need this, but our target was simple RISC. It was for
that reason that I felt the feature would be useful for other targets.

James

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, 17:19 Nagurne, James, <j-nagurne at ti.com> wrote:
> Ah, I apologize for not seeing the meaning of your first email. I had not
> considered that he was working on an out-of-tree target that utilizes the
> ignore capability. You’ve made things very clear, thank you!
>
>
>
> Since he’s on the email thread now:
>
>
>
> James, do you plan on upstreaming any portion of the ignore capability? If
> not, do you have any pointers for a target that may want to implement it?
> The one issue I see that might exist is that the scheduler wants a region
> begin and end as iterators, meaning contiguous instructions. It doesn’t
> really support the removal of instructions between those two points, so
> you’d have to synthesize a region, create a meta-iterator, or some other
> intrusive modification.
>
>
>
> JB
>
>
>
> *From:* Jinsong Ji [mailto:jji at us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:03 AM
> *To:* Nagurne, James; jmolloy at google.com
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned before,
> this API was introduced by James, mostly for his out-of-tree
> implementations,
> the in tree implementation NEVER implement it.
>
> If it is causing confusion, I think we have two choices:
> 1. See whether James would like to upstream part of his code? Or any other
> target that would like to use this can post a patch to use it.
> 2. Remove this confusing API in tree.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.
>
> XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development
> E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for "Nagurne, James" ---09/02/2020
01:43:29
> PM---Sorry to bring this thread from 3 months ago back, but
I]"Nagurne,
> James" ---09/02/2020 01:43:29 PM---Sorry to bring this thread from 3
months
> ago back, but I’m running into this issue too. I do see tha
>
> From: "Nagurne, James" <j-nagurne at ti.com>
> To: Jinsong Ji <jji at us.ibm.com>, Sander <sanderruben at
gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> Date: 09/02/2020 01:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to bring this thread from 3 months ago back, but I’m running into
> this issue too.
> I do see that shouldIgnore is not called in the MachinePipeliner, however,
> James’ comment doesn’t really resolve the issue or make the story any
> clearer.
>
> My summary of the comment is: “Hexagon and PPC9 do not need to ignore any
> instructions. However, in the case that you do, such as when the indvar
> update is explicit, this function is provided to allow the target to strip
> those instructions from the pipelined kernel.”
>
> However, the reality is that the implementation seems incomplete and
> there’s no instructions on how to achieve the desired result. Is it left as
> an exercise to the reader/implementer? Is there something I’m missing?
>
> J.B. Nagurne
> Code Generation
> Texas Instruments
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jinsong Ji via
llvm-dev
> * Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:58 PM
> * To:* Sander
> * Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> * Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
> Hi Sander:
>
> It may be confusing, but it is not a bug.
> And you are right, if you are using the in-tree machinepipeliner, it
won't
> have any effects,
> because there is NO In tree reference of this API at all.
>
> You can see the comments when James introduced this API in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D67167
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.
>
> XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development
> E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Sander via llvm-dev ---06/02/2020
> 03:47:53 PM---Hi all, I think there is a mistake in the machinepipe]Sander
> via llvm-dev ---06/02/2020 03:47:53 PM---Hi all, I think there is a mistake
> in the machinepipeliner interface. In the
>
> From: Sander via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Date: 06/02/2020 03:47 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
> Sent by: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there is a mistake in the machinepipeliner interface. In the
> TargetInstrInfo.h in the class PipelinerLoopInfo there is a function
> "bool shouldIgnoreForPipelining(const MachineInstr *MI)". The
> description says that if this function returns true for a given
> MachineInstr it will not be pipelined.
>
> However in reality it is not ignored and is being considered for
> pipelining. I implemented this function in my own backend, and put an
> instruction there that I want to be ignored, but still this instruction
> end up trying to be pipelined. I implemented the same way as in
> PPCInstrInfo.cpp, and I think it has the same bug. Is this a bug, or am
> I forgetting something?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sander Ruben
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/b5728987/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/b5728987/attachment.gif>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: image001.gif
Type: image/gif
Size: 105 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200903/b5728987/attachment-0001.gif>

Hi James,

Having not worked on this for circa one year I've gone and refreshed my
memory.

We have a pretty capable implementation of swing modulo scheduling
downstream, distinct from the MachinePipeliner implementation.
Historically, MachinePipeliner had very tight coupling between the finding
of a suitable schedule and emitting the code that adheres to that schedule.

I spent quite a bit of time separating the two; this led to the
"ModuloSchedule" and "ModuloScheduleExpander" classes, which
we use
downstream too (we actually have a minor variant, where we use
predication for the prolog and epilog). However, the code that analyzes
loops and determines a good schedule is completely custom. It is in this
code that we use "shouldIgnoreForPipelining".

All of this code is designed to go upstream. There is nothing stopping us
putting it upstream (modulo some non-upstreamable features that may have
crept in, but those can be removed). The major hurdle is that the target
architecture is NOT upstream, and no existing upstream architecture looks
similar enough apart from Hexagon (RISC, VLIW, predicate register file),
and we don't have enough knowledge of Hexagon to use it as a testing target.

We toyed with the idea of coming up with a toy architecture just so we
could have something to test against upstream, but the personpower required
wasn't available.

As always, it was with the best of intentions, and I do think that the
cleanup of MachinePipeliner was worth it (the PeelingScheduleExpander is
much easier to reason about, IMHO).

Cheers,

James

On Thu, 3 Sep 2020 at 20:41, Nagurne, James <j-nagurne at ti.com> wrote:
> We have that behaves similarly to yours in this regard it seems.
> Specifically, our target utilizes the HardwareLoop pass with CounterInReg
> true, and then treats loops augmented by this pass as software pipeline
> candidates. It seems PPC does this as well, but has CounterInReg false. Our
> loop body ends up looking like this (in mildly simplified pseudocode):
>
>
>
> %body:
>
> *                %indvar = PHI(%init, %preheader, %dec, %body)*
>
>                 …
>
> *                %dec = subtract %indvar, count*
>
>                 branch-compare (%dec > 0), %body
>
>                 branch %end
>
> %end:
>
>                 …
>
>
>
> The instructions I’ve bolded cause problems in the pipeliner as you are
> well aware. They are the induction variable updates that shouldn’t be
> pipelined and will be re-inserted or updated post-scheduling. When I saw
> “ignoreForPipelining” I was excited that the problem was already solved,
> but alas! J
>
>
>
> I’m in the process of trying to come up with a workaround pass
> before/after pipelining that temporarily hides these instructions inside
> the branch, but I’m always on the lookout for better alternatives.
>
>
>
> Thanks for the response! I would appreciate anything that Hendrik could
> add to the discussion as well. If it’s just that the implementation isn’t
> robust enough to upstream, our team might be amenable to help out. I do,
> however, wonder if the implementation was used in a custom scheduler rather
> than the default SMS and expander. That would make generalizing quite a bit
> tougher.
>
>
>
> JB
>
>
>
> *From:* James Molloy [mailto:jmolloy at google.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 2:07 PM
> *To:* Nagurne, James
> *Cc:* Jinsong Ji; llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander; Hendrik Greving
> *Subject:* Re: [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
>
>
> Hi James,
>
>
>
> Adding Hendrik, who has taken over ownership of the downstream code
> involved.
>
>
>
> I can also add background about the rationale, of that helps? It was added
> to ignore induction variable update code (scalar code) that is rewritten
> when we unroll / peel the prolog epilog anyway.
>
>
>
> Targets like Hexagon or PPC with dedicated loop control instructions for
> pipelined loops don't need this, but our target was simple RISC. It was
for
> that reason that I felt the feature would be useful for other targets.
>
>
>
> James
>
>
>
> On Thu, 3 Sep 2020, 17:19 Nagurne, James, <j-nagurne at ti.com>
wrote:
>
> Ah, I apologize for not seeing the meaning of your first email. I had not
> considered that he was working on an out-of-tree target that utilizes the
> ignore capability. You’ve made things very clear, thank you!
>
>
>
> Since he’s on the email thread now:
>
>
>
> James, do you plan on upstreaming any portion of the ignore capability? If
> not, do you have any pointers for a target that may want to implement it?
> The one issue I see that might exist is that the scheduler wants a region
> begin and end as iterators, meaning contiguous instructions. It doesn’t
> really support the removal of instructions between those two points, so
> you’d have to synthesize a region, create a meta-iterator, or some other
> intrusive modification.
>
>
>
> JB
>
>
>
> *From:* Jinsong Ji [mailto:jji at us.ibm.com]
> *Sent:* Thursday, September 3, 2020 10:03 AM
> *To:* Nagurne, James; jmolloy at google.com
> *Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org; Sander
> *Subject:* [EXTERNAL] RE: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
>
>
> As I mentioned before,
> this API was introduced by James, mostly for his out-of-tree
> implementations,
> the in tree implementation NEVER implement it.
>
> If it is causing confusion, I think we have two choices:
> 1. See whether James would like to upstream part of his code? Or any other
> target that would like to use this can post a patch to use it.
> 2. Remove this confusing API in tree.
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.
>
> XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development
> E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for "Nagurne, James" ---09/02/2020
01:43:29
> PM---Sorry to bring this thread from 3 months ago back, but
I]"Nagurne,
> James" ---09/02/2020 01:43:29 PM---Sorry to bring this thread from 3
months
> ago back, but I’m running into this issue too. I do see tha
>
> From: "Nagurne, James" <j-nagurne at ti.com>
> To: Jinsong Ji <jji at us.ibm.com>, Sander <sanderruben at
gmail.com>
> Cc: "llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
> Date: 09/02/2020 01:43 PM
> Subject: RE: [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
> Sorry to bring this thread from 3 months ago back, but I’m running into
> this issue too.
> I do see that shouldIgnore is not called in the MachinePipeliner, however,
> James’ comment doesn’t really resolve the issue or make the story any
> clearer.
>
> My summary of the comment is: “Hexagon and PPC9 do not need to ignore any
> instructions. However, in the case that you do, such as when the indvar
> update is explicit, this function is provided to allow the target to strip
> those instructions from the pipelined kernel.”
>
> However, the reality is that the implementation seems incomplete and
> there’s no instructions on how to achieve the desired result. Is it left as
> an exercise to the reader/implementer? Is there something I’m missing?
>
> J.B. Nagurne
> Code Generation
> Texas Instruments
>
> *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org
> <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>] *On Behalf Of *Jinsong Ji via
llvm-dev
> * Sent:* Tuesday, June 2, 2020 2:58 PM
> * To:* Sander
> * Cc:* llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> * Subject:* [EXTERNAL] Re: [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
>
> Hi Sander:
>
> It may be confusing, but it is not a bug.
> And you are right, if you are using the in-tree machinepipeliner, it
won't
> have any effects,
> because there is NO In tree reference of this API at all.
>
> You can see the comments when James introduced this API in
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D67167
>
>
>
> Best,
>
> Jinsong Ji (纪金松), PhD.
>
> XL/LLVM on Power Compiler Development
> E-mail: jji at us.ibm.com
>
> [image: Inactive hide details for Sander via llvm-dev ---06/02/2020
> 03:47:53 PM---Hi all, I think there is a mistake in the machinepipe]Sander
> via llvm-dev ---06/02/2020 03:47:53 PM---Hi all, I think there is a mistake
> in the machinepipeliner interface. In the
>
> From: Sander via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> Date: 06/02/2020 03:47 PM
> Subject: [EXTERNAL] [llvm-dev] Machinepipeliner interface.
> shouldIgnoreForPipelining, actually not ignoring.
> Sent by: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org>
> ------------------------------
>
>
>
>
>
> Hi all,
>
> I think there is a mistake in the machinepipeliner interface. In the
> TargetInstrInfo.h in the class PipelinerLoopInfo there is a function
> "bool shouldIgnoreForPipelining(const MachineInstr *MI)". The
> description says that if this function returns true for a given
> MachineInstr it will not be pipelined.
>
> However in reality it is not ignored and is being considered for
> pipelining. I implemented this function in my own backend, and put an
> instruction there that I want to be ignored, but still this instruction
> end up trying to be pipelined. I implemented the same way as in
> PPCInstrInfo.cpp, and I think it has the same bug. Is this a bug, or am
> I forgetting something?
>
> Kind regards,
>
> Sander Ruben
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200907/537d275b/attachment.html>