Hi, We are currently in the process of upgrading from LLVM 2.9 to LLVM 3.3. We are working on instruction scheduling (mainly for register pressure reduction). I have been following the llvmdev mailing list and have learned that a machine instruction (MI) scheduler has been implemented to replace (or work with?) the selection DAG (SD) scheduler. However, I could not find any document that describes the new MI scheduler and how it differs from and relates to the SD scheduler. So, I would appreciate any pointer to a document (or a blog) that may help us understand the difference and the relation between the two schedulers and figure out how to deal with them. We are trying to answer the following questions: - A comment at the top of the file ScheduleDAGInstrs says that this file implements re-scheduling of machine instructions. So, what does re-scheduling mean? Does it mean that the real scheduling algorithms (such as reg pressure reduction) are currently implemented in the SD scheduler, while the MI scheduler does some kind of complementary work (fine tuning) at a lower level representation of the code? And what's the future plan? Is it to move the real scheduling algorithms into the MI scheduler and get rid of the SD scheduler? Will that happen in 3.4 or later? - Based on our initial investigation of the default behavior at -O3 on x86-64, it appears that the SD scheduler is called while the MI scheduler is not. That's consistent with the above interpretation of re-scheduling, but I'd appreciate any advice on what we should do at this point. Should we integrate our work (an alternate register pressure reduction scheduler) into the SD scheduler or the MI scheduler? - Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in scheduling and/or allocation (which I doubt) or by the implementation (or enabling) of some new optimization(s) that naturally increase(s) register pressure? Thank you in advance! Ghassan Shobaki Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Princess Sumaya University for Technology Amman, Jordan -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130628/aa8126ee/attachment.html>
Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote:> Hi, > > We are currently in the process of upgrading from LLVM 2.9 to LLVM 3.3. We are working on instruction scheduling (mainly for register pressure reduction). I have been following the llvmdev mailing list and have learned that a machine instruction (MI) scheduler has been implemented to replace (or work with?) the selection DAG (SD) scheduler. However, I could not find any document that describes the new MI scheduler and how it differs from and relates to the SD scheduler.MI is now the place to implement any heuristics for profitable scheduling. SD scheduler will be directly replaced by a new pass that orders the DAG as close as it can to IR order. We currently emulate this with -pre-RA-sched=source. The only thing necessarily different about MI sched is that it runs after reg coalescing and before reg alloc, and maintains live interval analysis. As a result, register pressure tracking is more accurate. It also uses a new target interface for precise register pressure. MI sched is intended to be a convenient place to implement target specific scheduling. There is a generic implementation that uses standard heuristics to reduce register pressure and balance latency and CPU resources. That is what you currently get when you enable MI sched for x86. The generic heuristics are implemented as a priority function that makes a greedy choice over the ready instructions based on the current pressure and the resources and latency of the scheduled and unscheduled set of instructions. An DAG subtree analysis also exists (ScheduleDFS), which can be used for register pressure avoidance. This isn't hooked up to the generic heuristics yet for lack of interesting test cases.> So, I would appreciate any pointer to a document (or a blog) that may help us understand the difference and the relation between the two schedulers and figure out how to deal with them. We are trying to answer the following questions: > > - A comment at the top of the file ScheduleDAGInstrs says that this file implements re-scheduling of machine instructions. So, what does re-scheduling mean?Rescheduling just means optional scheduling. That's really what the comment should say. It's important to know that MI sched can be skipped for faster compilation.> Does it mean that the real scheduling algorithms (such as reg pressure reduction) are currently implemented in the SD scheduler, while the MI scheduler does some kind of complementary work (fine tuning) at a lower level representation of the code? > And what's the future plan? Is it to move the real scheduling algorithms into the MI scheduler and get rid of the SD scheduler? Will that happen in 3.4 or later?I would like to get rid of the SD scheduler so we can reduce compile time by streamline the scheduling data structures and interfaces. There may be some objection to doing that in 3.4 if projects haven't been able to migrate. It will be deprecated though.> > - Based on our initial investigation of the default behavior at -O3 on x86-64, it appears that the SD scheduler is called while the MI scheduler is not. That's consistent with the above interpretation of re-scheduling, but I'd appreciate any advice on what we should do at this point. Should we integrate our work (an alternate register pressure reduction scheduler) into the SD scheduler or the MI scheduler?Please refer to my recent messages on llvmdev regarding enabling MI scheduling by default on x86. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/63242/match=machinescheduler I suggest integrating with the MachineScheduler pass. There are many places to plug in. MachineSchedRegistry provides the hook. At that point you can define your own ScheduleDAGInstrs or ScheduleDAGMI subclass. People who only want to define new heuristics should reuse ScheduleDAGMI directly and only define their own MachineSchedStrategy.> > - Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement of LLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in scheduling and/or allocation (which I doubt) or by the implementation (or enabling) of some new optimization(s) that naturally increase(s) register pressure? >There is not a particular known regression. It's not surprising that optimizations increase pressure. Andy> Thank you in advance! > > Ghassan Shobaki > Assistant Professor > Department of Computer Science > Princess Sumaya University for Technology > Amman, Jordan >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130701/3374cd63/attachment.html>
Thank you for the answers! We are currently trying to test the MI scheduler. We are using LLVM 3.3 with Dragon Egg 3.3 on an x86-64 machine. So far, we have run one SPEC CPU2006 test with the MI scheduler enabled using the option -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' with -O3. This enables the machine scheduler in addition to the SD scheduler. We have verified this by adding print messages to the source code of both schedulers. In terms of correctness, enabling the MI scheduler did not cause any failure. However, in terms of performance, we have seen a mix of small positive and negative differences with the geometric mean difference being near zero. The maximum improvement that we have seen is 3% on the Gromacs benchmark. Is this consistent with your test results? We have then tried to run a test in which the MI scheduler is enabled but the SD scheduler is disabled (or neutralized) by adding the option: -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-pre-RA-sched:source' to the flags that we have used in the first test. However, this did not work; we got the following error message: GCC_4.6.4_DIR/install/bin/gcc -c -o lbm.o -DSPEC_CPU -DNDEBUG -O3 -march=core2 -mtune=core2 -fplugin='DRAGON_EGG_DIR/dragonegg.so' -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-enable-misched:true' -fplugin-arg-dragonegg-llvm-option='-pre-RA-sched:source' -DSPEC_CPU_LP64 lbm.c cc1: for the -pre-RA-sched option: may only occur zero or one times! specmake: *** [lbm.o] Error 1 What does this message mean? Is this a bug or we are doing something wrong? How can we test the MI scheduler by itself? Is it interesting to test 3.3 or there are interesting features that were added to the trunk after branching 3.3? In the latter case, we are willing to test the trunk. Thanks Ghassan Shobaki Assistant Professor Department of Computer Science Princess Sumaya University for Technology Amman, Jordan ________________________________ From: Andrew Trick <atrick at apple.com> To: Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> Cc: "llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu" <llvmdev at cs.uiuc.edu> Sent: Monday, July 1, 2013 8:10 PM Subject: Re: MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler? Sent from my iPhone On Jun 28, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Ghassan Shobaki <ghassan_shobaki at yahoo.com> wrote: Hi,> > >We are currently in the process of upgrading from LLVM 2.9 to LLVM 3.3. We are working on instruction scheduling(mainly for register pressure reduction). I have been following the llvmdev mailing list and have learned that a machine instruction (MI) scheduler has been implemented to replace (or work with?) the selection DAG (SD) scheduler. However, I could not find any document that describes the new MI scheduler and how it differs from and relates to the SD scheduler. MI is now the place to implement any heuristics for profitable scheduling. SD scheduler will be directly replaced by a new pass that orders the DAG as close as it can to IR order. We currently emulate this with -pre-RA-sched=source. The only thing necessarily different about MI sched is that it runs after reg coalescing and before reg alloc, and maintains live interval analysis. As a result, register pressure tracking is more accurate. It also uses a new target interface for precise register pressure. MI sched is intended to be a convenient place to implement target specific scheduling. There is a generic implementation that uses standard heuristics to reduce register pressure and balance latency and CPU resources. That is what you currently get when you enable MI sched for x86. The generic heuristics are implemented as a priority function that makes a greedy choice over the ready instructions based on the current pressure and the resources and latency of the scheduled and unscheduled set of instructions. An DAG subtree analysis also exists (ScheduleDFS), which can be used for register pressure avoidance. This isn't hooked up to the generic heuristics yet for lack of interesting test cases. So, I would appreciate any pointer to a document (or a blog) that may help us understand the difference and the relation between the two schedulers and figure out how to deal with them. We are trying to answer the following questions:> > >- A comment at the top of the file ScheduleDAGInstrs says that this file implements re-scheduling of machine instructions. So, what does re-scheduling mean?Rescheduling just means optional scheduling. That's really what the comment should say. It's important to know that MI sched can be skipped for faster compilation. Does it mean that the real scheduling algorithms (such as reg pressure reduction) are currently implemented in the SD scheduler, while the MI scheduler does some kind of complementary work (fine tuning) at a lower level representation of the code?>And what's the future plan? Is it to move the real scheduling algorithms into the MI scheduler and get rid of the SD scheduler? Will that happen in 3.4 or later? >I would like to get rid of the SD scheduler so we can reduce compile time by streamline the scheduling data structures and interfaces. There may be some objection to doing that in 3.4 if projects haven't been able to migrate. It will be deprecated though.> >- Based on our initial investigation of the default behavior at -O3 on x86-64, it appears that the SD scheduler is called while the MI scheduler is not. That's consistent with the above interpretation of re-scheduling, but I'd appreciate any advice on what we should do at this point. Should we integrate our work (an alternate register pressure reduction scheduler) into the SD scheduler or the MI scheduler? >Please refer to my recent messages on llvmdev regarding enabling MI scheduling by default on x86. http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.compilers.llvm.devel/63242/match=machinescheduler I suggest integrating with the MachineScheduler pass. There are many places to plug in. MachineSchedRegistry provides the hook. At that point you can define your own ScheduleDAGInstrs or ScheduleDAGMI subclass. People who only want to define new heuristics should reuse ScheduleDAGMI directly and only define their own MachineSchedStrategy.> >- Our SPEC testing on x86-64 has shown a significant performance improvement ofLLVM 3.3 relative to LLVM 2.9 (about 5% in geomean on INT2006 and 15% in geomean on FP2006), but our spill code measurements have shown that LLVM 3.3 generates significantly more spill code on most benchmarks. We will be doing more investigation on this, but are there any known facts that explain this behavior? Is this caused by a known regression in scheduling and/or allocation (which I doubt) or by the implementation (or enabling) of some new optimization(s) that naturally increase(s) register pressure?> >There is not a particular known regression. It's not surprising that optimizations increase pressure.Andy Thank you in advance!> > >Ghassan Shobaki > >Assistant Professor > >Department of Computer Science > >Princess Sumaya University for Technology > >Amman, Jordan > >-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20130702/22da3179/attachment.html>
Reasonably Related Threads
- [LLVMdev] MI Scheduler vs SD Scheduler?
- [LLVMdev] Experimental Evaluation of the Schedulers in LLVM 3.3
- [LLVMdev] Experimental Evaluation of the Schedulers in LLVM 3.3
- [LLVMdev] LLVM's Pre-allocation Scheduler Tested against a Branch-and-Bound Scheduler
- [LLVMdev] LLVM's Pre-allocation Scheduler Tested against a Branch-and-Bound Scheduler