This is a follow-up discussion on http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140324/101899.html. The front-end change was already pushed in r204677, so we want to continue with the IR optimization. In general, we want to write an IR pass to convert generic address space usage to non-generic address space usage, because accessing the generic address space in CUDA and OpenCL is significantly slower than accessing non-generic ones (such as shared and constant),. Here is an example Justin gave: %ptr = ... %val = load i32* %ptr In this case, %ptr is a generic address space pointer (assuming an address space mapping where 0 is generic). But if an analysis can prove that the pointer %ptr was originally addrspacecast'd from a specific address space (or some other mechanism through which the pointer's specific address space can be determined), it may be beneficial to explicitly convert the IR to something like: %ptr = ... %ptr.0 = addrspacecast i32* to i32 addrspace(3)* %val = load i32 addrspace(3)* %ptr.0 Such a translation may generate better code for some targets. There are two major design decisions we need to make: 1. Where does this pass live? Target-independent or target-dependent? Both NVPTX and R600 backend want this optimization, which seems a good justification for making this optimization target-independent. However, we have three concerns on this: a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM language reference ( http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, depending on the target and the address space pair." b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic address space, which makes things more complicated. c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. Therefore, I would vote for making this optimization NVPTX-specific for now. If other targets need this, we can later think about how to reuse the code. 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the NVPTX target. For example, %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* %v = load i32* %p1 => %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and gep+addrspacecast as well. In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle more instructions and more patterns. Jingyue -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140325/12e4a145/attachment.html>
On 03/25/2014 02:31 PM, Jingyue Wu wrote:> > However, we have three concerns on this: > a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM > language reference > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says > addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, > depending on the target and the address space pair."I think most of the simple cast optimizations would be acceptable. The addrspacecasted pointer still needs to point to the same memory location, so changing an access to use a different address space would be OK. I think canonicalizing accesses to use the original address space of a casted pointer when possible would make sense.> b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic > address space, which makes things more complicated. > c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. >R600 currently does not support the flat address space instructions intended to use for the generic address space. I posted a patch a while ago that half added it, which I can try to work on finishing if it would help. I also do not understand how NVPTX uses address spaces, particularly how it can use 0 as the the generic address space.> 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? > > In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary > non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the > NVPTX target. For example, > > %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* > %v = load i32* %p1 > > => > > %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 > > We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and > gep+addrspacecast as well. > > In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle > more instructions and more patterns. >I believe most of the cast simplifications that apply to bitcasts of pointers also apply to addrspacecast. I have some patches waiting that extend some of the more basic ones to understand addrspacecast (e.g. http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140120/202296.html), plus a few more that I haven't posted yet. Mostly they are little cast simplifications like your example in instcombine, but also SROA to eliminate allocas that are addrspacecasted. -Matt -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140325/ab358263/attachment.html>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 3:21 PM, Matt Arsenault <Matthew.Arsenault at amd.com>wrote:> On 03/25/2014 02:31 PM, Jingyue Wu wrote: > > > However, we have three concerns on this: > a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM > language reference ( > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says > addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, > depending on the target and the address space pair." > > I think most of the simple cast optimizations would be acceptable. The > addrspacecasted pointer still needs to point to the same memory location, > so changing an access to use a different address space would be OK. I think > canonicalizing accesses to use the original address space of a casted > pointer when possible would make sense. >"the address space conversion is legal then both result and operand refer to the same memory location". I don't quite understand this sentence. Does the same memory location mean the same numeric value?> > > b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic > address space, which makes things more complicated. > c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. > > > R600 currently does not support the flat address space instructions > intended to use for the generic address space. I posted a patch a while ago > that half added it, which I can try to work on finishing if it would help. > > I also do not understand how NVPTX uses address spaces, particularly how > it can use 0 as the the generic address space. >NVPTX backend generates ld.f32 for reading from the generic address space. There's no special machine instruction to read/write from/to the generic address space in R600?> > > 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? > > In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary > non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the NVPTX > target. For example, > > %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* > %v = load i32* %p1 > > => > > %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 > > We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and > gep+addrspacecast as well. > > In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle > more instructions and more patterns. > > I believe most of the cast simplifications that apply to bitcasts of > pointers also apply to addrspacecast. I have some patches waiting that > extend some of the more basic ones to understand addrspacecast (e.g. > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140120/202296.html), > plus a few more that I haven't posted yet. Mostly they are little cast > simplifications like your example in instcombine, but also SROA to > eliminate allocas that are addrspacecasted. >We also think InstCombine is a good place to put this optimization, if we decide to go with target-independent. Looking forward to your patches!> > > -Matt >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140325/7214198d/attachment.html>
On 03/25/2014 06:21 PM, Matt Arsenault wrote:> On 03/25/2014 02:31 PM, Jingyue Wu wrote: >> >> However, we have three concerns on this: >> a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM >> language reference >> (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says >> addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, >> depending on the target and the address space pair." > I think most of the simple cast optimizations would be acceptable. The > addrspacecasted pointer still needs to point to the same memory > location, so changing an access to use a different address space would > be OK. I think canonicalizing accesses to use the original address > space of a casted pointer when possible would make sense. > >> b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic >> address space, which makes things more complicated. >> c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. >> > > R600 currently does not support the flat address space instructions > intended to use for the generic address space. I posted a patch a > while ago that half added it, which I can try to work on finishing if > it would help. > > I also do not understand how NVPTX uses address spaces, particularly > how it can use 0 as the the generic address space.We handle alloca by expanding it to a local stack reservation plus a pointer conversion to the generic address space. So if we have IR like the following: %ptr = alloca i32 store i32 0, i32* %ptr This will really get expanded to something like the following at MachineInstr-level (in pseudo-code): %local_ptr = %SP+offset ; Stack pointer (in thread-local [private] address space) %ptr = convert %local_ptr to generic address store.generic.i32 [%ptr], 0 With the proposed optimization, this would be optimized back to a non-generic store: %local_ptr = %SP+offset %ptr = convert %local_ptr to generic address %ptr.0 = convert %ptr to thread-local address space store.local.i32 [%ptr.0], 0 This turns the address space conversion sequence into a no-op (assuming no other users) that can be eliminated, and a non-generic store is likely to be more efficient than a generic store.> >> 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? >> >> In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary >> non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the >> NVPTX target. For example, >> >> %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* >> %v = load i32* %p1 >> >> => >> >> %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 >> >> We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and >> gep+addrspacecast as well. >> >> In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle >> more instructions and more patterns. >> > I believe most of the cast simplifications that apply to bitcasts of > pointers also apply to addrspacecast. I have some patches waiting that > extend some of the more basic ones to understand addrspacecast (e.g. > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/llvm-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140120/202296.html), > plus a few more that I haven't posted yet. Mostly they are little cast > simplifications like your example in instcombine, but also SROA to > eliminate allocas that are addrspacecasted. > > -Matt----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This email message is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy all copies of the original message. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140326/73a51945/attachment.html>
On Tue, Mar 25, 2014 at 02:31:05PM -0700, Jingyue Wu wrote:> This is a follow-up discussion on > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140324/101899.html. > The front-end change was already pushed in r204677, so we want to continue > with the IR optimization. > > In general, we want to write an IR pass to convert generic address space > usage to non-generic address space usage, because accessing the generic > address space in CUDA and OpenCL is significantly slower than accessing > non-generic ones (such as shared and constant),. > > Here is an example Justin gave: > > %ptr = ... > %val = load i32* %ptr > > In this case, %ptr is a generic address space pointer (assuming an address > space mapping where 0 is generic). But if an analysis can prove that the > pointer %ptr was originally addrspacecast'd from a specific address space > (or some other mechanism through which the pointer's specific address space > can be determined), it may be beneficial to explicitly convert the IR to > something like: > > %ptr = ... > %ptr.0 = addrspacecast i32* to i32 addrspace(3)* > %val = load i32 addrspace(3)* %ptr.0 > > Such a translation may generate better code for some targets. >I think a slight variation of this optimization may be useful for the R600 backend. One thing I have been working on is migrating allocas to different address spaces, which in some cases may improve performance. Here is an example: %ptr = alloca [5 x i32] ... Would become: @local_mem = internal addrspace(3) unnamed_addr global [5 x i32] %ptr = addrspacecast [5 x i32] addrspace(3)* @local_me to i32* ... In this case I would like all users of %ptr to read and write address space 3 rather than address space 0, and it sounds like your proposed optimization pass could do this.> There are two major design decisions we need to make: > > 1. Where does this pass live? Target-independent or target-dependent? > > Both NVPTX and R600 backend want this optimization, which seems a good > justification for making this optimization target-independent. >I agree here.> However, we have three concerns on this: > a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM > language reference ( > http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says > addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, > depending on the target and the address space pair."Does it matter that it isn't valid for all targets as long as it is valid for some? We could add it, but not run it by default.> b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic address > space, which makes things more complicated.Could we add a TargetLowering callback that the pass can use to determine whether or not is is profitable to replace one address space with another? -Tom> c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. > > Therefore, I would vote for making this optimization NVPTX-specific for > now. If other targets need this, we can later think about how to reuse the > code. > > 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? > > In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary > non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the NVPTX > target. For example, > > %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* > %v = load i32* %p1 > > => > > %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 > > We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and gep+addrspacecast > as well. > > In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle more > instructions and more patterns. > > Jingyue
On 03/25/2014 02:31 PM, Jingyue Wu wrote:> This is a follow-up discussion on > http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/pipermail/cfe-commits/Week-of-Mon-20140324/101899.html. > The front-end change was already pushed in r204677, so we want to > continue with the IR optimization. > > In general, we want to write an IR pass to convert generic address > space usage to non-generic address space usage, because accessing the > generic address space in CUDA and OpenCL is significantly slower than > accessing non-generic ones (such as shared and constant),. > > Here is an example Justin gave: > > %ptr = ... > %val = load i32* %ptr > > In this case, %ptr is a generic address space pointer (assuming an > address space mapping where 0 is generic). But if an analysis can > prove that the pointer %ptr was originally addrspacecast'd from a > specific address space (or some other mechanism through which the > pointer's specific address space can be determined), it may be > beneficial to explicitly convert the IR to something like: > > %ptr = ... > %ptr.0 = addrspacecast i32* to i32 addrspace(3)* > %val = load i32 addrspace(3)* %ptr.0 > > Such a translation may generate better code for some targets.Just a note of caution: for some of us, address spaces are semantically important. (i.e. having a cast introduced from one to another would be incorrect) I have no problem with the mechanism you're describing being implemented, but it needs to be an opt in feature.> > There are two major design decisions we need to make: > > 1. Where does this pass live? Target-independent or target-dependent? > > Both NVPTX and R600 backend want this optimization, which seems a good > justification for making this optimization target-independent. > > However, we have three concerns on this: > a) I doubt this optimization is valid for all targets, because LLVM > language reference > (http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#addrspacecast-to-instruction) says > addrspacecast "can be a no-op cast or a complex value modification, > depending on the target and the address space pair." > b) NVPTX and R600 have different address numbering for the generic > address space, which makes things more complicated. > c) We don't have a good understanding of the R600 backend. > > Therefore, I would vote for making this optimization NVPTX-specific > for now. If other targets need this, we can later think about how to > reuse the code.No opinion, but if it is target independent, it needs to be behind an optin target hook.> > 2. How effective do we want this optimization to be? > > In the short term, I want it to be able to eliminate unnecessary > non-generic-to-generic addrspacecasts the front-end generates for the > NVPTX target. For example, > > %p1 = addrspace i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 to i32* > %v = load i32* %p1 > > => > > %v = load i32 addrspace(3)* %p0 > > We want similar optimization for store+addrspacecast and > gep+addrspacecast as well. > > In a long term, we could for sure improve this optimization to handle > more instructions and more patterns.Just to note, this last bit raises much less worries for me about correctness of my work. If you've loading from a pointer which was in different address space, it seems very logical to combine that with the load. We'd also never generate code like that. :) To restate my concern in general terms, it's the introduction of *new* casts which worry me, not the exploitation/optimization of existing ones. Philip -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20140326/1748fee2/attachment.html>