Sean Silva via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-17 02:57 UTC
[llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's?
Hi, Our backend for Pixel Visual Core uses some MVT's that aren't upstream. Does it make sense to upstream them? I figure that as architectures get wider, we'll eventually have "all" possible combinations of widths and types, but on the other hand having code that isn't used by current backends in tree isn't great. These are the MVT's that we have added: 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 1-bit predicate registers: v256i1 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: v256i16 20x20 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: (we round up to v512 instead of v400): v512i16 32-bit versions of the above 16-bit registers (to represent 32-bit accumulators for MAD instructions and also dual-issue "wide" instructions to the dual non-MAD ALU's in each lane) v256i32 v512i32 For those interested in more details about Pixel Visual Core, the 6th edition of Hennessy and Patterson's "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative Approach" http://a.co/et2K1xk has a section about it (Section 7.7 pg 579-592). I'll bring my copy to the next Bay Area LLVM Social if folks want to take a look. -- Sean Silva -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180116/59b65b8e/attachment.html>
Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-17 07:13 UTC
[llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's?
Hi Sean,
I had to add ‘v16f16’ to our out-of-tree target, and this was to primarily to
allow me to express lowering for all the OpenCL types (well, except for the
‘v3T’ types).
The trend does seem to be towards larger bit-width SIMD registers, and as you
say this will increase in time; but perhaps instead of using a discrete
enumeration combined with additional entries in several switch-statements, it
might be better to rethink MVTs using templates so that they can be instanced
automatically as needed by a target. That might be one way of avoiding the
problem of having either a sparse population of MVTs as needed by the sum of all
in-tree targets, an on the other-hand the bloat of expressing all possible
combinations.
How does LLVM handle 2D vectors/matrices? I haven’t moved on to v6.0.0 yet, but
so far as I can tell v5.0.x only abstracts 1D vectors: N-elements of M-bits, and
having types like ‘v256i16’ is not quite the same as having support for let’s
say ‘v16x16i16’. Having a high-level abstraction for reasoning about
NxN-elements of M-bits would be really useful/cool, especially for exotic
instructions with special register allocation requirements, and for classic
nested loops such as convolutions.
MartinO
From: llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] On Behalf Of Sean
Silva via llvm-dev
Sent: 17 January 2018 02:58
To: llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Subject: [llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's?
Hi,
Our backend for Pixel Visual Core uses some MVT's that aren't upstream.
Does it make sense to upstream them? I figure that as architectures get wider,
we'll eventually have "all" possible combinations of widths and
types, but on the other hand having code that isn't used by current backends
in tree isn't great.
These are the MVT's that we have added:
16x16 element (2D SIMD) 1-bit predicate registers:
v256i1
16x16 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers:
v256i16
20x20 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: (we round up to v512 instead of v400):
v512i16
32-bit versions of the above 16-bit registers (to represent 32-bit accumulators
for MAD instructions and also dual-issue "wide" instructions to the
dual non-MAD ALU's in each lane)
v256i32
v512i32
For those interested in more details about Pixel Visual Core, the 6th edition of
Hennessy and Patterson's "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative
Approach" http://a.co/et2K1xk has a section about it (Section 7.7 pg
579-592). I'll bring my copy to the next Bay Area LLVM Social if folks want
to take a look.
-- Sean Silva
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180117/217596e7/attachment.html>
Serge Pavlov via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-17 14:19 UTC
[llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's?
Hi all, Progress in machine learning gives rise to many cores designed for this task. They tend to have wide registers, I know about a core that operates vector types up to 2K bytes. Support of wide vector types off the shelf can facilitate compiler development in such cases, because adding new types is not merely several lines in ValueTypes.td. Thanks, --Serge 2018-01-17 14:13 GMT+07:00 Martin J. O'Riordan via llvm-dev < llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>:> Hi Sean, > > > > I had to add ‘v16f16’ to our out-of-tree target, and this was to > primarily to allow me to express lowering for all the OpenCL types (well, > except for the ‘v3T’ types). > > > > The trend does seem to be towards larger bit-width SIMD registers, and as > you say this will increase in time; but perhaps instead of using a discrete > enumeration combined with additional entries in several switch-statements, > it might be better to rethink MVTs using templates so that they can be > instanced automatically as needed by a target. That might be one way of > avoiding the problem of having either a sparse population of MVTs as needed > by the sum of all in-tree targets, an on the other-hand the bloat of > expressing all possible combinations. > > > > How does LLVM handle 2D vectors/matrices? I haven’t moved on to v6.0.0 > yet, but so far as I can tell v5.0.x only abstracts 1D vectors: N-elements > of M-bits, and having types like ‘v256i16’ is not quite the same as > having support for let’s say ‘v16x16i16’. Having a high-level > abstraction for reasoning about NxN-elements of M-bits would be really > useful/cool, especially for exotic instructions with special register > allocation requirements, and for classic nested loops such as convolutions. > > > > MartinO > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Sean > Silva via llvm-dev > *Sent:* 17 January 2018 02:58 > *To:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* [llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's? > > > > Hi, > > > > Our backend for Pixel Visual Core uses some MVT's that aren't upstream. > Does it make sense to upstream them? I figure that as architectures get > wider, we'll eventually have "all" possible combinations of widths and > types, but on the other hand having code that isn't used by current > backends in tree isn't great. > > > > These are the MVT's that we have added: > > > > 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 1-bit predicate registers: > > v256i1 > > > > 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: > > v256i16 > > > > 20x20 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: (we round up to v512 instead of > v400): > > v512i16 > > > > 32-bit versions of the above 16-bit registers (to represent 32-bit > accumulators for MAD instructions and also dual-issue "wide" instructions > to the dual non-MAD ALU's in each lane) > > v256i32 > > v512i32 > > > > > > For those interested in more details about Pixel Visual Core, the 6th > edition of Hennessy and Patterson's "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative > Approach" http://a.co/et2K1xk has a section about it (Section 7.7 pg > 579-592). I'll bring my copy to the next Bay Area LLVM Social if folks want > to take a look. > > > > -- Sean Silva > > _______________________________________________ > LLVM Developers mailing list > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > http://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/20180117/031a3680/attachment.html>
Sean Silva via llvm-dev
2018-Jan-17 19:40 UTC
[llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's?
On Tue, Jan 16, 2018 at 11:13 PM, Martin J. O'Riordan <MartinO at theheart.ie> wrote:> Hi Sean, > > > > I had to add ‘v16f16’ to our out-of-tree target, and this was to > primarily to allow me to express lowering for all the OpenCL types (well, > except for the ‘v3T’ types). > > > > The trend does seem to be towards larger bit-width SIMD registers, and as > you say this will increase in time; but perhaps instead of using a discrete > enumeration combined with additional entries in several switch-statements, > it might be better to rethink MVTs using templates so that they can be > instanced automatically as needed by a target. That might be one way of > avoiding the problem of having either a sparse population of MVTs as needed > by the sum of all in-tree targets, an on the other-hand the bloat of > expressing all possible combinations. > > > > How does LLVM handle 2D vectors/matrices? >We just use sufficiently wide 1D types. LLVM doesn't need to know anything about the 2D nature of the underlying SIMD. It is only visible via a restricted set of operations that we have intrinsics for. -- Sean Silva> I haven’t moved on to v6.0.0 yet, but so far as I can tell v5.0.x only > abstracts 1D vectors: N-elements of M-bits, and having types like ‘v256i16’ > is not quite the same as having support for let’s say ‘v16x16i16’. > Having a high-level abstraction for reasoning about NxN-elements of M-bits > would be really useful/cool, especially for exotic instructions with > special register allocation requirements, and for classic nested loops such > as convolutions. > > > > MartinO > > > > *From:* llvm-dev [mailto:llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org] *On Behalf Of *Sean > Silva via llvm-dev > *Sent:* 17 January 2018 02:58 > *To:* llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> > *Subject:* [llvm-dev] Does it make sense to upstream some MVT's? > > > > Hi, > > > > Our backend for Pixel Visual Core uses some MVT's that aren't upstream. > Does it make sense to upstream them? I figure that as architectures get > wider, we'll eventually have "all" possible combinations of widths and > types, but on the other hand having code that isn't used by current > backends in tree isn't great. > > > > These are the MVT's that we have added: > > > > 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 1-bit predicate registers: > > v256i1 > > > > 16x16 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: > > v256i16 > > > > 20x20 element (2D SIMD) 16-bit registers: (we round up to v512 instead of > v400): > > v512i16 > > > > 32-bit versions of the above 16-bit registers (to represent 32-bit > accumulators for MAD instructions and also dual-issue "wide" instructions > to the dual non-MAD ALU's in each lane) > > v256i32 > > v512i32 > > > > > > For those interested in more details about Pixel Visual Core, the 6th > edition of Hennessy and Patterson's "Computer Architecture: A Quantitative > Approach" http://a.co/et2K1xk has a section about it (Section 7.7 pg > 579-592). I'll bring my copy to the next Bay Area LLVM Social if folks want > to take a look. > > > > -- Sean Silva >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20180117/acfea6f1/attachment.html>