thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation

If this information is useful, please help other people find it:
Share via:

Matthias Braun via llvm-dev

2016-May-11 17:46 UTC

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

> On May 11, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>
> To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com>
> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>, "Quentin
Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>, "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction
and Feedback
> 
> 
> 
> Vivek Pandya
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Vivek Pandya
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
> To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>>, "Tim Amini Golling" <mehdi.amini at
apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>, "Hal Finkel"
<hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>
> Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:59:16 PM
> Subject: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and
Feedback
> 
> Hello LLVM Community,
> 
> Sorry for delay as I was busy in final exams.
> 
> I am Vivek from India. Thanks for choosing my proposal for Interprocedural
Register Allocation (IPRA) in LLVM. Mehdi Amini and Hal Finkel will be mentoring
me for this project.
> 
> IPRA can reduce code size and runtime of programs by allocating register
across the module and procedure boundaries.
> 
> I have identified some old but effective research work on this area.
> I want community's feedback for feasibility of these approach and I am
targeting to implement two of them during this project.
> 
> Here is list of the papers, I have read first two papers and I would like
to discuss those approach first, I will read other two paper then initiate
discussion for them as well. All I want is to find out a concrete implementation
plan before 23 May, 2016 and for that I need community's help.
> 
> 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure calls
- http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999>
> ====================================================================In this
approach intra-procedural register allocation is used as base but machine code
generation order is bottom up traversal of call graph and inter-procedural
effect is achieved by propagating register usage information of callee function
to caller (i.e child to parent in CallGraph) so that caller can use different
registers than callee and can save load store cost at procedure call, this is
not trivial as it seems due to recursive calls, library function usage etc. Also
for upper region of the graph in this technique available number of registers
might become zero in that case it should fall back to normal load store at
procedure call. Apart from these difficulties other difficulties have been
identified please follow this mail-chain
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion>
> My mentor has already provided me a patch that alters code generation order
as per bottom up call graph traversal, I am working from that point now. Any
other help/suggestion is always welcomed.
> 
> 2) Link time ----- Global register allocation at link time -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415>
> ====================================================================In this
particular approach (sort of true IPRA) registers will be reallocated (this
optimization will be optional if turned off still code will be compiled as per
intra-procedural allocation) at link time. Here modules are first complied as
per normal compilation but the object code is annotated with details so that
linker can build call graph and also calculate usage information at link time.
Compiler also write hints in object code that if particular variable is
allocated in some other register ( due to new allocation) then how the code
should be changed? Thus linker can use these information to decide which
variables (global) need to be in same register through out the program execution
and also according to register usage information in call graph which procedure
will not be active simultaneously so that locals for that procedures can be in
same registers with out load store at procedure calls.
> For these particular method help me to analyze feasibility: 
> 1) Can llvm collects following information at module level in MachineIR?
list of procedures in module, list of locals in procedures, list of procedures
that a particular procedure can call, and a list of the variables this procedure
references. Each entry in the last two lists includes an estimate of the number
of times the procedure is called or the variable is referenced in each execution
of this procedure
> 2) Can llvm write informative commands to object files?
> 3) Can LTO is capable of leveraging those commands? 
> In terms of scoping the project for the summer, I definitely recommend that
you focus on (1) first. If you finish that, we can certainly move on to other
things.
> 
> I'll add +1 here, but I already wrote the same thing on IRC when
discussing with Vivek. True IPRA without a proper MachineModule infrastructure
won't be doable in my opinion (even with such infrastructure, it may not be
trivial in LLVM in general).
> 
> Regarding link time, note that any such a design would likely look much
different than in David Wall's paper however, because our LTO re-codegens
everything anyway. The paper says, "Finally, it keeps us honest as
designers of the system; once we postpone anything until link time, the
temptation is great to postpone everything, ..." - Well, we've
long-since succumb to that temptation when we LTO. C'est la vie.
> 
> +1 as well, our LTO will benefit naturally from the leaf-to-root
information propagation. ThinLTO will be more challenging/interesting though!
> For the first part a mechanism similar to MachineModulePass would be
desirable but that may not be possible during this project, but if we can make
some sort of smaller version of that to suit our purpose.
> I don't think we need to make any kind of MachineModulePass to make
this work. Once we alter the visitation order based on the CGSCC iteration
scheme, we can keep state in-between functions in the pre-existing hacky way
(using static members of the relevant function passes).
>  Sorry my mistake here by first part I mean 1) requirement in the link time
approach.
>  
> I also don't see where/why we need a MachineModule(Pass) for the CGSCC
scheme, that said I'd rather avoid using a function pass with static
members, if we can have a ModuleAnalysis that is bookkeeping the results for
functions in the module and queries by the register allocator somehow.
> Matthias/Quentin may have other inputs on this aspect.
>  
> @Hal do you mean to add a simple MachineFunction pass that will just
operate on register allocated function and prepare a BitVector to indicate which
register is being used by MachineFunction, and then use this pass as analysis
pass (i.e just simply return static BitVector for clobbered register when
register allocation for next function begins. This part is not much clear to me)
this thing can be done by scheduling a pass post register allocation in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
> 
> void TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
> . 
> .
> .
>   // Run pre-ra passes.
>   addPreRegAlloc();
> 
>   // Run register allocation and passes that are tightly coupled with it,
>   // including phi elimination and scheduling.
>   if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
>     addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
>   else
>     addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
> 
>   // Run post-ra passes.
>   addPostRegAlloc();
> // Adding a new pass here which keeps register mask information across
function calls.
> .
> .
> .
> }
> 
> But this also requires current register allocators to use this information
in someway because RegMaskBits in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not static across
calls. I mean I am not clear for how to propagate static info to
Intra-procedural Register allocators (if possible without disturbing their code
)
> First, my hope is that we won't need to change the register allocators,
as such, in order to make use of this information. Instead, we'll simply be
able to alter the register masks generated for the call instructions. These
masks will indicate fewer clobbers than might otherwise be present based on the
ABI because of information gathered during the codegen of the callee. These
masks are generally constructed by target based on the calling convention. The
PowerPC backend, for example, looks like this:
> 
>   // Add a register mask operand representing the call-preserved registers.
>   const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
>   const uint32_t *Mask >      
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(), CallConv);
>   assert(Mask && "Missing call preserved mask for calling
convention");
>   Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
> 
> but it can be more complicated. If you look for uses of
'getRegisterMask' in Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp, you'll see what I
mean. Regardless, the code ends up calling some method is the targets
TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods generally look something like this:
> 
> const uint32_t *
> PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const MachineFunction &MF,
>                                       CallingConv::ID CC) const {
>   const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget =
MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
>   ...
>   return TM.isPPC64() ? (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
>                                                 : CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
>                       : (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
>                                                 : CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
> }
> 
> In any case, the fundamental idea here is that, when someone calls
getCallPreservedMask in order to set the regmask on a call, we might not have to
use the CC at all. Instead, if we've already codegened the function, we
might use a cache of 'exact' register masks computed during codegen of
the potential callees instead.
> 
> In order to do this, I think we'll need to provide a function callable
from the target's getCallPreservedMask implementation, which can return such
an 'exact' regmask when available. I think we need to do it this way for
two reasons:
> 
>  1. Not all of the target code calls getCallPreservedMask, but sometimes
calls other similar target-specific functions (e.g. getTLSCallPreservedMask).
>  2. The targets need to opt-in to this behavior because only the target can
know that all register uses are really tagged correctly post
"pre-emit".
> 
> Because the target is free to introduce uses of registers at essentially
any time, we need to do the scanning for used registers after the
"pre-emit" passes run. This can be done by scheduling some simple
register-use scanning pass after the call to addPreEmitPass in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.MachineRegister maintains linked lists with defs/uses for each register so you
can determine whether a specific register is used or not without scanning.

- Matthias

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160511/733474d2/attachment.html>

Hal Finkel via llvm-dev

2016-May-11 17:47 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

----- Original Message -----
> From: "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>,
"llvm-dev"
> <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:46:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register
> Allocation - Introduction and Feedback
> > On May 11, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <
> > llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org > wrote:
> 
> > ----- Original Message -----
> 
> > > From: "vivek pandya" < vivekvpandya at gmail.com
>
> > 
> 
> > > To: "Mehdi Amini" < mehdi.amini at apple.com >
> > 
> 
> > > Cc: "Hal Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov >,
"Quentin Colombet" <
> > > qcolombet at apple.com >, "llvm-dev" < llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org >,
> > > "Matthias Braun" < matze at braunis.de >
> > 
> 
> > > Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
> > 
> 
> > > Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
> > > Introduction and Feedback
> > 
> 
> > > Vivek Pandya
> > 
> 
> > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <
> > > vivekvpandya at gmail.com > wrote:
> > 
> 
> > > > Vivek Pandya
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <
> > > > mehdi.amini at apple.com
> > > > > wrote:
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <
hfinkel at anl.gov >
> > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > From: "vivek pandya" <
vivekvpandya at gmail.com >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > To: "llvm-dev" < llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org >, "Tim Amini
> > > > > > > Golling"
> > > > > > > <
> > > > > > > mehdi.amini at apple.com >, "Hal
Finkel" < hfinkel at anl.gov >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <
qcolombet at apple.com >
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:59:16 PM
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Subject: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register
Allocation
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > Introduction and Feedback
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Hello LLVM Community,
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Sorry for delay as I was busy in final exams.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > I am Vivek from India. Thanks for choosing my
proposal
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > Interprocedural Register Allocation (IPRA) in
LLVM. Mehdi
> > > > > > > Amini
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > Hal Finkel will be mentoring me for this
project.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > IPRA can reduce code size and runtime of
programs by
> > > > > > > allocating
> > > > > > > register across the module and procedure
boundaries.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > I have identified some old but effective
research work on
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > area.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > I want community's feedback for
feasibility of these
> > > > > > > approach
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > am targeting to implement two of them during
this
> > > > > > > project.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > Here is list of the papers, I have read first
two papers
> > > > > > > and
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > like to discuss those approach first, I will
read other
> > > > > > > two
> > > > > > > paper
> > > > > > > then initiate discussion for them as well.
All I want is
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > find
> > > > > > > out
> > > > > > > a concrete implementation plan before 23 May,
2016 and
> > > > > > > for
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > I
> > > > > > > need community's help.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing register
usage penalty
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > calls -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > >
====================================================================In
> > > > > > > this approach intra-procedural register
allocation is
> > > > > > > used
> > > > > > > as
> > > > > > > base
> > > > > > > but machine code generation order is bottom
up traversal
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > call
> > > > > > > graph and inter-procedural effect is achieved
by
> > > > > > > propagating
> > > > > > > register usage information of callee function
to caller
> > > > > > > (i.e
> > > > > > > child
> > > > > > > to parent in CallGraph) so that caller can
use different
> > > > > > > registers
> > > > > > > than callee and can save load store cost at
procedure
> > > > > > > call,
> > > > > > > this
> > > > > > > is
> > > > > > > not trivial as it seems due to recursive
calls, library
> > > > > > > function
> > > > > > > usage etc. Also for upper region of the graph
in this
> > > > > > > technique
> > > > > > > available number of registers might become
zero in that
> > > > > > > case
> > > > > > > it
> > > > > > > should fall back to normal load store at
procedure call.
> > > > > > > Apart
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > these difficulties other difficulties have
been
> > > > > > > identified
> > > > > > > please
> > > > > > > follow this mail-chain
> > > > > > >
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > My mentor has already provided me a patch
that alters
> > > > > > > code
> > > > > > > generation
> > > > > > > order as per bottom up call graph traversal,
I am working
> > > > > > > from
> > > > > > > that
> > > > > > > point now. Any other help/suggestion is
always welcomed.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 2) Link time ----- Global register allocation
at link
> > > > > > > time
> > > > > > > -
> > > > > > > http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > >
====================================================================In
> > > > > > > this particular approach (sort of true IPRA)
registers
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > reallocated (this optimization will be
optional if turned
> > > > > > > off
> > > > > > > still
> > > > > > > code will be compiled as per intra-procedural
allocation)
> > > > > > > at
> > > > > > > link
> > > > > > > time. Here modules are first complied as per
normal
> > > > > > > compilation
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > the object code is annotated with details so
that linker
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > build
> > > > > > > call graph and also calculate usage
information at link
> > > > > > > time.
> > > > > > > Compiler also write hints in object code that
if
> > > > > > > particular
> > > > > > > variable
> > > > > > > is allocated in some other register ( due to
new
> > > > > > > allocation)
> > > > > > > then
> > > > > > > how the code should be changed? Thus linker
can use these
> > > > > > > information to decide which variables
(global) need to be
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > same
> > > > > > > register through out the program execution
and also
> > > > > > > according
> > > > > > > to
> > > > > > > register usage information in call graph
which procedure
> > > > > > > will
> > > > > > > not
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > active simultaneously so that locals for that
procedures
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > same registers with out load store at
procedure calls.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > For these particular method help me to
analyze
> > > > > > > feasibility:
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 1) Can llvm collects following information at
module
> > > > > > > level
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > MachineIR? list of procedures in module, list
of locals
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > procedures, list of procedures that a
particular
> > > > > > > procedure
> > > > > > > can
> > > > > > > call,
> > > > > > > and a list of the variables this procedure
references.
> > > > > > > Each
> > > > > > > entry
> > > > > > > in
> > > > > > > the last two lists includes an estimate of
the number of
> > > > > > > times
> > > > > > > the
> > > > > > > procedure is called or the variable is
referenced in each
> > > > > > > execution
> > > > > > > of this procedure
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 2) Can llvm write informative commands to
object files?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > 3) Can LTO is capable of leveraging those
commands?
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > In terms of scoping the project for the summer, I
> > > > > > definitely
> > > > > > recommend that you focus on (1) first. If you
finish that,
> > > > > > we
> > > > > > can
> > > > > > certainly move on to other things.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > I'll add +1 here, but I already wrote the same
thing on IRC
> > > > > when
> > > > > discussing with Vivek. True IPRA without a proper
> > > > > MachineModule
> > > > > infrastructure won't be doable in my opinion (even
with such
> > > > > infrastructure, it may not be trivial in LLVM in
general).
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > Regarding link time, note that any such a design
would
> > > > > > likely
> > > > > > look
> > > > > > much different than in David Wall's paper
however, because
> > > > > > our
> > > > > > LTO
> > > > > > re-codegens everything anyway. The paper says,
"Finally, it
> > > > > > keeps
> > > > > > us
> > > > > > honest as designers of the system; once we
postpone
> > > > > > anything
> > > > > > until
> > > > > > link time, the temptation is great to postpone
everything,
> > > > > > ..."
> > > > > > -
> > > > > > Well, we've long-since succumb to that
temptation when we
> > > > > > LTO.
> > > > > > C'est
> > > > > > la vie.
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > +1 as well, our LTO will benefit naturally from the
> > > > > leaf-to-root
> > > > > information propagation. ThinLTO will be more
> > > > > challenging/interesting though!
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > > For the first part a mechanism similar to
> > > > > > > MachineModulePass
> > > > > > > would
> > > > > > > be
> > > > > > > desirable but that may not be possible during
this
> > > > > > > project,
> > > > > > > but
> > > > > > > if
> > > > > > > we can make some sort of smaller version of
that to suit
> > > > > > > our
> > > > > > > purpose.
> > > > > > 
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > > I don't think we need to make any kind of
MachineModulePass
> > > > > > to
> > > > > > make
> > > > > > this work. Once we alter the visitation order
based on the
> > > > > > CGSCC
> > > > > > iteration scheme, we can keep state in-between
functions in
> > > > > > the
> > > > > > pre-existing hacky way (using static members of
the
> > > > > > relevant
> > > > > > function passes).
> > > > > 
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > Sorry my mistake here by first part I mean 1) requirement in
> > > > the
> > > > link
> > > > time approach.
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > I also don't see where/why we need a
MachineModule(Pass) for
> > > > > the
> > > > > CGSCC scheme, that said I'd rather avoid using a
function
> > > > > pass
> > > > > with
> > > > > static members, if we can have a ModuleAnalysis that is
> > > > > bookkeeping
> > > > > the results for functions in the module and queries by
the
> > > > > register
> > > > > allocator somehow.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > > > Matthias/Quentin may have other inputs on this aspect.
> > > > 
> > > 
> > 
> 
> > > @Hal do you mean to add a simple MachineFunction pass that will
> > > just
> > > operate on register allocated function and prepare a BitVector to
> > > indicate which register is being used by MachineFunction, and
> > > then
> > > use this pass as analysis pass (i.e just simply return static
> > > BitVector for clobbered register when register allocation for
> > > next
> > > function begins. This part is not much clear to me) this thing
> > > can
> > > be done by scheduling a pass post register allocation in
> > > lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
> > 
> 
> > > void TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > // Run pre-ra passes.
> > 
> 
> > > addPreRegAlloc();
> > 
> 
> > > // Run register allocation and passes that are tightly coupled
> > > with
> > > it,
> > 
> 
> > > // including phi elimination and scheduling.
> > 
> 
> > > if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
> > 
> 
> > > addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
> > 
> 
> > > else
> > 
> 
> > > addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
> > 
> 
> > > // Run post-ra passes.
> > 
> 
> > > addPostRegAlloc();
> > 
> 
> > > // Adding a new pass here which keeps register mask information
> > > across function calls.
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > .
> > 
> 
> > > }
> > 
> 
> > > But this also requires current register allocators to use this
> > > information in someway because RegMaskBits in
> > > LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not static across calls. I mean I am
> > > not
> > > clear for how to propagate static info to Intra-procedural
> > > Register
> > > allocators (if possible without disturbing their code )
> > 
> 
> > First, my hope is that we won't need to change the register
> > allocators, as such, in order to make use of this information.
> > Instead, we'll simply be able to alter the register masks
generated
> > for the call instructions. These masks will indicate fewer clobbers
> > than might otherwise be present based on the ABI because of
> > information gathered during the codegen of the callee. These masks
> > are generally constructed by target based on the calling
> > convention.
> > The PowerPC backend, for example, looks like this:
> 
> > // Add a register mask operand representing the call-preserved
> > registers.
> 
> > const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
> 
> > const uint32_t *Mask > 
> > TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(), CallConv);
> 
> > assert(Mask && "Missing call preserved mask for calling
> > convention");
> 
> > Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
> 
> > but it can be more complicated. If you look for uses of
> > 'getRegisterMask' in Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp, you'll
see what I
> > mean. Regardless, the code ends up calling some method is the
> > targets TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods generally look
> > something like this:
> 
> > const uint32_t *
> 
> > PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const MachineFunction &MF,
> 
> > CallingConv::ID CC) const {
> 
> > const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget =
MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
> 
> > ...
> 
> > return TM.isPPC64() ? (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
> > CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
> 
> > : CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
> 
> > : (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ? CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
> 
> > : CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
> 
> > }
> 
> > In any case, the fundamental idea here is that, when someone calls
> > getCallPreservedMask in order to set the regmask on a call, we
> > might
> > not have to use the CC at all. Instead, if we've already codegened
> > the function, we might use a cache of 'exact' register masks
> > computed during codegen of the potential callees instead.
> 
> > In order to do this, I think we'll need to provide a function
> > callable from the target's getCallPreservedMask implementation,
> > which can return such an 'exact' regmask when available. I
think we
> > need to do it this way for two reasons:
> 
> > 1. Not all of the target code calls getCallPreservedMask, but
> > sometimes calls other similar target-specific functions (e.g.
> > getTLSCallPreservedMask).
> 
> > 2. The targets need to opt-in to this behavior because only the
> > target can know that all register uses are really tagged correctly
> > post "pre-emit".
> 
> > Because the target is free to introduce uses of registers at
> > essentially any time, we need to do the scanning for used registers
> > after the "pre-emit" passes run. This can be done by
scheduling
> > some
> > simple register-use scanning pass after the call to addPreEmitPass
> > in lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
> 
> MachineRegister maintains linked lists with defs/uses for each
> register so you can determine whether a specific register is used or
> not without scanning.Does this include regmask-clobbered registers? 

-Hal 
> - Matthias
-- 

Hal Finkel 
Assistant Computational Scientist 
Leadership Computing Facility 
Argonne National Laboratory 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20160511/887c15e0/attachment-0001.html>

Matthias Braun via llvm-dev

2016-May-11 17:49 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

Yes there is also MachineRegisterInfo::UsedPhysRegMask which should be the union
of all regmasks in the function.
> On May 11, 2016, at 10:47 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: "Matthias Braun" <matze at braunis.de>
> To: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov>
> Cc: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com>,
"llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 12:46:25 PM
> Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation -
Introduction and Feedback
> 
> 
> On May 11, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Hal Finkel via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
> 
> 
> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
> To: "Mehdi Amini" <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>
> Cc: "Hal Finkel" <hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at
anl.gov>>, "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>, "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>>, "Matthias
Braun" <matze at braunis.de <mailto:matze at braunis.de>>
> Sent: Wednesday, May 11, 2016 3:15:03 AM
> Subject: Re: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction
and Feedback
> 
> 
> 
> Vivek Pandya
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 10:02 AM, vivek pandya <vivekvpandya at
gmail.com <mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>> wrote:
> 
> 
> Vivek Pandya
> 
> 
> On Wed, May 11, 2016 at 9:43 AM, Mehdi Amini <mehdi.amini at apple.com
<mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>> wrote:
> 
> On May 10, 2016, at 6:06 PM, Hal Finkel <hfinkel at anl.gov
<mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>> wrote:
> 
> 
> 
> From: "vivek pandya" <vivekvpandya at gmail.com
<mailto:vivekvpandya at gmail.com>>
> To: "llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev
at lists.llvm.org>>, "Tim Amini Golling" <mehdi.amini at
apple.com <mailto:mehdi.amini at apple.com>>, "Hal Finkel"
<hfinkel at anl.gov <mailto:hfinkel at anl.gov>>
> Cc: "Quentin Colombet" <qcolombet at apple.com
<mailto:qcolombet at apple.com>>
> Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2016 2:59:16 PM
> Subject: [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and
Feedback
> 
> Hello LLVM Community,
> 
> Sorry for delay as I was busy in final exams.
> 
> I am Vivek from India. Thanks for choosing my proposal for Interprocedural
Register Allocation (IPRA) in LLVM. Mehdi Amini and Hal Finkel will be mentoring
me for this project.
> 
> IPRA can reduce code size and runtime of programs by allocating register
across the module and procedure boundaries.
> 
> I have identified some old but effective research work on this area.
> I want community's feedback for feasibility of these approach and I am
targeting to implement two of them during this project.
> 
> Here is list of the papers, I have read first two papers and I would like
to discuss those approach first, I will read other two paper then initiate
discussion for them as well. All I want is to find out a concrete implementation
plan before 23 May, 2016 and for that I need community's help.
> 
> 1) Compile time ----- Minimizing register usage penalty at procedure calls
- http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=53999>
> ====================================================================In this
approach intra-procedural register allocation is used as base but machine code
generation order is bottom up traversal of call graph and inter-procedural
effect is achieved by propagating register usage information of callee function
to caller (i.e child to parent in CallGraph) so that caller can use different
registers than callee and can save load store cost at procedure call, this is
not trivial as it seems due to recursive calls, library function usage etc. Also
for upper region of the graph in this technique available number of registers
might become zero in that case it should fall back to normal load store at
procedure call. Apart from these difficulties other difficulties have been
identified please follow this mail-chain
https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion
<https://groups.google.com/d/topic/llvm-dev/HOYAXv3m1LY/discussion>
> My mentor has already provided me a patch that alters code generation order
as per bottom up call graph traversal, I am working from that point now. Any
other help/suggestion is always welcomed.
> 
> 2) Link time ----- Global register allocation at link time -
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415
<http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=989415>
> ====================================================================In this
particular approach (sort of true IPRA) registers will be reallocated (this
optimization will be optional if turned off still code will be compiled as per
intra-procedural allocation) at link time. Here modules are first complied as
per normal compilation but the object code is annotated with details so that
linker can build call graph and also calculate usage information at link time.
Compiler also write hints in object code that if particular variable is
allocated in some other register ( due to new allocation) then how the code
should be changed? Thus linker can use these information to decide which
variables (global) need to be in same register through out the program execution
and also according to register usage information in call graph which procedure
will not be active simultaneously so that locals for that procedures can be in
same registers with out load store at procedure calls.
> For these particular method help me to analyze feasibility: 
> 1) Can llvm collects following information at module level in MachineIR?
list of procedures in module, list of locals in procedures, list of procedures
that a particular procedure can call, and a list of the variables this procedure
references. Each entry in the last two lists includes an estimate of the number
of times the procedure is called or the variable is referenced in each execution
of this procedure
> 2) Can llvm write informative commands to object files?
> 3) Can LTO is capable of leveraging those commands? 
> In terms of scoping the project for the summer, I definitely recommend that
you focus on (1) first. If you finish that, we can certainly move on to other
things.
> 
> I'll add +1 here, but I already wrote the same thing on IRC when
discussing with Vivek. True IPRA without a proper MachineModule infrastructure
won't be doable in my opinion (even with such infrastructure, it may not be
trivial in LLVM in general).
> 
> Regarding link time, note that any such a design would likely look much
different than in David Wall's paper however, because our LTO re-codegens
everything anyway. The paper says, "Finally, it keeps us honest as
designers of the system; once we postpone anything until link time, the
temptation is great to postpone everything, ..." - Well, we've
long-since succumb to that temptation when we LTO. C'est la vie.
> 
> +1 as well, our LTO will benefit naturally from the leaf-to-root
information propagation. ThinLTO will be more challenging/interesting though!
> For the first part a mechanism similar to MachineModulePass would be
desirable but that may not be possible during this project, but if we can make
some sort of smaller version of that to suit our purpose.
> I don't think we need to make any kind of MachineModulePass to make
this work. Once we alter the visitation order based on the CGSCC iteration
scheme, we can keep state in-between functions in the pre-existing hacky way
(using static members of the relevant function passes).
>  Sorry my mistake here by first part I mean 1) requirement in the link time
approach.
>  
> I also don't see where/why we need a MachineModule(Pass) for the CGSCC
scheme, that said I'd rather avoid using a function pass with static
members, if we can have a ModuleAnalysis that is bookkeeping the results for
functions in the module and queries by the register allocator somehow.
> Matthias/Quentin may have other inputs on this aspect.
>  
> @Hal do you mean to add a simple MachineFunction pass that will just
operate on register allocated function and prepare a BitVector to indicate which
register is being used by MachineFunction, and then use this pass as analysis
pass (i.e just simply return static BitVector for clobbered register when
register allocation for next function begins. This part is not much clear to me)
this thing can be done by scheduling a pass post register allocation in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp
> 
> void TargetPassConfig::addMachinePasses() {
> . 
> .
> .
>   // Run pre-ra passes.
>   addPreRegAlloc();
> 
>   // Run register allocation and passes that are tightly coupled with it,
>   // including phi elimination and scheduling.
>   if (getOptimizeRegAlloc())
>     addOptimizedRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(true));
>   else
>     addFastRegAlloc(createRegAllocPass(false));
> 
>   // Run post-ra passes.
>   addPostRegAlloc();
> // Adding a new pass here which keeps register mask information across
function calls.
> .
> .
> .
> }
> 
> But this also requires current register allocators to use this information
in someway because RegMaskBits in LiveIntervalAnalysis.cpp is not static across
calls. I mean I am not clear for how to propagate static info to
Intra-procedural Register allocators (if possible without disturbing their code
)
> First, my hope is that we won't need to change the register allocators,
as such, in order to make use of this information. Instead, we'll simply be
able to alter the register masks generated for the call instructions. These
masks will indicate fewer clobbers than might otherwise be present based on the
ABI because of information gathered during the codegen of the callee. These
masks are generally constructed by target based on the calling convention. The
PowerPC backend, for example, looks like this:
> 
>   // Add a register mask operand representing the call-preserved registers.
>   const TargetRegisterInfo *TRI = Subtarget.getRegisterInfo();
>   const uint32_t *Mask >      
TRI->getCallPreservedMask(DAG.getMachineFunction(), CallConv);
>   assert(Mask && "Missing call preserved mask for calling
convention");
>   Ops.push_back(DAG.getRegisterMask(Mask));
> 
> but it can be more complicated. If you look for uses of
'getRegisterMask' in Target/*/*ISelLowering.cpp, you'll see what I
mean. Regardless, the code ends up calling some method is the targets
TargetRegisterInfo subclass. These methods generally look something like this:
> 
> const uint32_t *
> PPCRegisterInfo::getCallPreservedMask(const MachineFunction &MF,
>                                       CallingConv::ID CC) const {
>   const PPCSubtarget &Subtarget =
MF.getSubtarget<PPCSubtarget>();
>   ...
>   return TM.isPPC64() ? (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR464_Altivec_RegMask
>                                                 : CSR_SVR464_RegMask)
>                       : (Subtarget.hasAltivec() ?
CSR_SVR432_Altivec_RegMask
>                                                 : CSR_SVR432_RegMask);
> }
> 
> In any case, the fundamental idea here is that, when someone calls
getCallPreservedMask in order to set the regmask on a call, we might not have to
use the CC at all. Instead, if we've already codegened the function, we
might use a cache of 'exact' register masks computed during codegen of
the potential callees instead.
> 
> In order to do this, I think we'll need to provide a function callable
from the target's getCallPreservedMask implementation, which can return such
an 'exact' regmask when available. I think we need to do it this way for
two reasons:
> 
>  1. Not all of the target code calls getCallPreservedMask, but sometimes
calls other similar target-specific functions (e.g. getTLSCallPreservedMask).
>  2. The targets need to opt-in to this behavior because only the target can
know that all register uses are really tagged correctly post
"pre-emit".
> 
> Because the target is free to introduce uses of registers at essentially
any time, we need to do the scanning for used registers after the
"pre-emit" passes run. This can be done by scheduling some simple
register-use scanning pass after the call to addPreEmitPass in
lib/CodeGen/Passes.cpp.
> MachineRegister maintains linked lists with defs/uses for each register so
you can determine whether a specific register is used or not without scanning.
> Does this include regmask-clobbered registers?
> 
>  -Hal
> 
> - Matthias
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Hal Finkel
> Assistant Computational Scientist
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org <mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
<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/20160511/158bd75d/attachment.html>

Reasonably Related Threads

Search for more apparently analagous threads

llvm dev - May 2016 - [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

[llvm-dev] [GSoC 2016] Interprocedural Register Allocation - Introduction and Feedback

Reasonably Related Threads