thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences [Dec 2014]

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

Kuperstein, Michael M

2014-Dec-21 08:17 UTC

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

Hello all,



In r223757 I've committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 calling
convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function arguments
onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions.



For example, it will transform this:

subl    $16, %esp

movl    $4, 12(%esp)

movl    $3, 8(%esp)

movl    $2, 4(%esp)

movl    $1, (%esp)

calll   _func

addl    $16, %esp



Into this:



pushl   $4

pushl   $3

pushl   $2

pushl   $1

calll   _func

addl    $16, %esp



The main motivation for this is code size (a "pushl $4" is 2 bytes, a
"movl $4, 12(%esp)" is 7 bytes), but there are some other advantages,
as shown below.

The way this works in r223757 is by intercepting call frame simplification in
the Prolog/Epilog Inserter, and replacing the mov sequence with pushes. Right
now it only handles functions which do not have a reserved call frame (a small
minority of cases), and I'd like to extend it to cover other cases where it
is profitable.



The currently implemented approach has a couple of drawbacks:



1) Push vs. having a reserved call frame:
This transformation is always profitable when we do not have a reserved call
frame. When a reserved frame can be used, however, there is a trade-off. For
example, in a function that contains only one call site, and no other stack
allocations, pushes are a clear win, since having a reserved call frame
wouldn't save any instructions. On the other hand, if a function contains 10
call sites, and only one of them can use pushes, then it is most probably a loss
- not reserving a call frame will  cost us 10 add instructions, and the pushes
gain very little. I'd like to be able to make the decision on whether we
want to have a reserved frame or pushes by considering the entire function. I
don't think this can be done in the context of PEI.

Note that in theory we could have both a reserved call frame and have some
specific call sites in the function use pushes, but this is fairly tricky
because it requires much more precise tracking of the stack pointer state. That
is something I'm not planning to implement at this point.



2) Register allocation inefficiency:
Ideally, pushes can be used to make direct memory-to-memory movs, freeing up
registers, and saving quite a lot of code.

For example, for this (this is obviously a constructed example, but code of this
kind does exist in the wild):



void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h);



struct st { int arr[8]; };



void bar(struct st* p)

{

  foo(p->arr[0], p->arr[1], p->arr[2], p->arr[3], p->arr[4],
p->arr[5], p->arr[6], p->arr[7]); }



We currently generate (with -m32 -O2) this:



        pushl   %ebp

        movl    %esp, %ebp

        pushl   %ebx

        pushl   %edi

        pushl   %esi

        subl    $44, %esp

        movl    8(%ebp), %eax

        movl    28(%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -20(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    24(%eax), %edx

        movl    20(%eax), %esi

        movl    16(%eax), %edi

        movl    12(%eax), %ebx

        movl    8(%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -24(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    (%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -16(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    4(%eax), %eax

        movl    -20(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %ecx, 28(%esp)

        movl    %edx, 24(%esp)

        movl    %esi, 20(%esp)

        movl    %edi, 16(%esp)

        movl    %ebx, 12(%esp)

        movl    -24(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %ecx, 8(%esp)

        movl    %eax, 4(%esp)

        movl    -16(%ebp), %eax         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %eax, (%esp)

        calll   _foo

        addl    $44, %esp

        popl    %esi

        popl    %edi

        popl    %ebx

        popl    %ebp

        retl



Which is fairly horrible.

Some parameters get mov-ed up to four times - a mov from the struct into a
register, a register spill,  a reload, and finally a mov onto the stack.



What we'd like to generate is something like:

        pushl   %ebp

        movl    %esp, %ebp

        movl    8(%ebp), %eax

        pushl   28(%eax)

        pushl   24(%eax)

        pushl   20(%eax)

        pushl   16(%eax)

        pushl   12(%eax)

        pushl   8(%eax)

        pushl   4(%eax)

        pushl   (%eax)

        calll   _foo

        addl    $32, %esp

        popl    %ebp

        retl



To produce the code above, the transformation has to run pre-reg-alloc.
Otherwise, even if we fold loads into the push, it's too late to recover
from spills.



The direction I'd like to take with this is:



1) Add an X86-specific MachineFunctionPass that does the mov -> push
transformation and runs pre-reg-alloc.

It will:

* Make a decision on whether promoting some (or all) of the call sites to use
pushes is worth giving up on the reserved call frame.

* If it is, perform the mov ->push transformation for the selected call
sites.

* Fold loads into the pushes while doing the transformation.

As an alternative, I could try to teach the peephole optimizer to do it (right
now it won't even try to do this folding because PUSHes store to memory),
but getting it right in the general case seems complex.

I think I'd rather do folding of the simple (but common) cases on the fly.



2) Alter the semantics of ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/ADJCALLSTACKUP slightly.

Doing the mov->push transformation before PEI means I'd have to leave the
ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/UP pair unbalanced.



E.g. something like:

ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>

%vreg9<def,dead> = COPY %ESP; GR32:%vreg9

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 28, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 24, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 20, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 16, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 12, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 8, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 4, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0<kill>, 1, %noreg, 0, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

CALLpcrel32 <ga:@foo>, <regmask>, %ESP<imp-use>,
%ESP<imp-def>

ADJCALLSTACKUP32 32, 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>



This, rightly, gets flagged by the verifier.

My proposal is to add an additional parameter to ADJCALLSTACKDOWN to express the
amount of adjustment the call sequence itself does. This is somewhat similar to
the second parameter of ADKCALLSTACKUP which allows adjustment for callee
stack-clean-up.

So, in this case, we will get a "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 32, 32" instead of
the "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0". The verifier will be happy, and PEI will
know it doesn't need to do any stack pointer adjustment.



Does this sound like the right approach?



Any suggestions, as well as warnings of potential pitfalls, are welcome. :-)



Thanks,

   Michael

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141221/bab25868/attachment.html>

Herbie Robinson

2014-Dec-21 08:58 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

According to the Intel performance guidelines, pushes are significantly 
slower than moves to the extent they should be avoided as much as 
possible.  It's been a decade since I was dealing with this; so, I don't
remember the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the changes you are proposing 
will slow the code down.

People who care about speed more than code size are probably not going 
to like this very much...


On 12/21/14 3:17 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote:>
> Hello all,
>
> In r223757 I’ve committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 
> calling convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push 
> function arguments onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions.
>
> For example, it will transform this:
>
> subl    $16, %esp
>
> movl    $4, 12(%esp)
>
> movl    $3, 8(%esp)
>
> movl    $2, 4(%esp)
>
> movl    $1, (%esp)
>
> calll   _func
>
> addl    $16, %esp
>
> Into this:
>
> pushl   $4
>
> pushl   $3
>
> pushl   $2
>
> pushl   $1
>
> calll   _func
>
> addl    $16, %esp
>
> The main motivation for this is code size (a “pushl $4” is 2 bytes, a 
> “movl $4, 12(%esp)” is 7 bytes), but there are some other advantages, 
> as shown below.
>
> The way this works in r223757 is by intercepting call frame 
> simplification in the Prolog/Epilog Inserter, and replacing the mov 
> sequence with pushes. Right now it only handles functions which do not 
> have a reserved call frame (a small minority of cases), and I'd like 
> to extend it to cover other cases where it is profitable.
>
> The currently implemented approach has a couple of drawbacks:
>
> 1) Push vs. having a reserved call frame:
> This transformation is always profitable when we do not have a 
> reserved call frame. When a reserved frame can be used, however, there 
> is a trade-off. For example, in a function that contains only one call 
> site, and no other stack allocations, pushes are a clear win, since 
> having a reserved call frame wouldn't save any instructions. On the 
> other hand, if a function contains 10 call sites, and only one of them 
> can use pushes, then it is most probably a loss – not reserving a call 
> frame will  cost us 10 add instructions, and the pushes gain very 
> little. I’d like to be able to make the decision on whether we want to 
> have a reserved frame or pushes by considering the entire function. I 
> don't think this can be done in the context of PEI.
>
> Note that in theory we could have both a reserved call frame and have 
> some specific call sites in the function use pushes, but this is 
> fairly tricky because it requires much more precise tracking of the 
> stack pointer state. That is something I’m not planning to implement 
> at this point.
>
> 2) Register allocation inefficiency:
> Ideally, pushes can be used to make direct memory-to-memory movs, 
> freeing up registers, and saving quite a lot of code.
>
> For example, for this (this is obviously a constructed example, but 
> code of this kind does exist in the wild):
>
> void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h);
>
> struct st { int arr[8]; };
>
> void bar(struct st* p)
>
> {
>
>   foo(p->arr[0], p->arr[1], p->arr[2], p->arr[3], p->arr[4],
> p->arr[5], p->arr[6], p->arr[7]); }
>
> We currently generate (with -m32 -O2) this:
>
>         pushl   %ebp
>
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>
>         pushl   %ebx
>
>         pushl   %edi
>
>         pushl   %esi
>
>         subl    $44, %esp
>
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>
>         movl    28(%eax), %ecx
>
>         movl    %ecx, -20(%ebp) # 4-byte Spill
>
>         movl    24(%eax), %edx
>
>         movl    20(%eax), %esi
>
>         movl    16(%eax), %edi
>
>         movl    12(%eax), %ebx
>
>         movl    8(%eax), %ecx
>
>         movl    %ecx, -24(%ebp) # 4-byte Spill
>
>         movl    (%eax), %ecx
>
>         movl    %ecx, -16(%ebp) # 4-byte Spill
>
>         movl    4(%eax), %eax
>
>         movl    -20(%ebp), %ecx # 4-byte Reload
>
>         movl    %ecx, 28(%esp)
>
>         movl    %edx, 24(%esp)
>
>         movl    %esi, 20(%esp)
>
>         movl    %edi, 16(%esp)
>
>         movl    %ebx, 12(%esp)
>
>         movl    -24(%ebp), %ecx # 4-byte Reload
>
>         movl    %ecx, 8(%esp)
>
>         movl    %eax, 4(%esp)
>
>         movl    -16(%ebp), %eax # 4-byte Reload
>
>         movl    %eax, (%esp)
>
>         calll   _foo
>
>         addl    $44, %esp
>
>         popl    %esi
>
>         popl    %edi
>
>         popl    %ebx
>
>         popl    %ebp
>
>         retl
>
> Which is fairly horrible.
>
> Some parameters get mov-ed up to four times - a mov from the struct 
> into a register, a register spill,  a reload, and finally a mov onto 
> the stack.
>
> What we’d like to generate is something like:
>
>         pushl   %ebp
>
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>
>         pushl   28(%eax)
>
>         pushl   24(%eax)
>
>         pushl   20(%eax)
>
>         pushl   16(%eax)
>
>         pushl   12(%eax)
>
>         pushl   8(%eax)
>
>         pushl   4(%eax)
>
>         pushl   (%eax)
>
>         calll   _foo
>
>         addl    $32, %esp
>
>         popl    %ebp
>
>         retl
>
> To produce the code above, the transformation has to run 
> pre-reg-alloc. Otherwise, even if we fold loads into the push, it's 
> too late to recover from spills.
>
> The direction I'd like to take with this is:
>
> 1) Add an X86-specific MachineFunctionPass that does the mov -> push 
> transformation and runs pre-reg-alloc.
>
> It will:
>
> * Make a decision on whether promoting some (or all) of the call sites 
> to use pushes is worth giving up on the reserved call frame.
>
> * If it is, perform the mov ->push transformation for the selected 
> call sites.
>
> * Fold loads into the pushes while doing the transformation.
>
> As an alternative, I could try to teach the peephole optimizer to do 
> it (right now it won't even try to do this folding because PUSHes 
> store to memory), but getting it right in the general case seems complex.
>
> I think I'd rather do folding of the simple (but common) cases on the
fly.
>
> 2) Alter the semantics of ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/ADJCALLSTACKUP slightly.
>
> Doing the mov->push transformation before PEI means I'd have to
leave
> the ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/UP pair unbalanced.
>
> E.g. something like:
>
> ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>
>
> %vreg9<def,dead> = COPY %ESP; GR32:%vreg9
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 28, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 24, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 20, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 16, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 12, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 8, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 4, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>;
> GR32:%vreg0
>
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0<kill>, 1, %noreg, 0, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, 
> %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
>
> CALLpcrel32 <ga:@foo>, <regmask>, %ESP<imp-use>,
%ESP<imp-def>
>
> ADJCALLSTACKUP32 32, 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>, 
> %ESP<imp-use>
>
> This, rightly, gets flagged by the verifier.
>
> My proposal is to add an additional parameter to ADJCALLSTACKDOWN to 
> express the amount of adjustment the call sequence itself does. This 
> is somewhat similar to the second parameter of ADKCALLSTACKUP which 
> allows adjustment for callee stack-clean-up.
>
> So, in this case, we will get a "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 32, 32"
instead of
> the “ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0”. The verifier will be happy, and PEI will 
> know it doesn't need to do any stack pointer adjustment.
>
> Does this sound like the right approach?
>
> Any suggestions, as well as warnings of potential pitfalls, are 
> welcome. :-)
>
> Thanks,
>
>    Michael
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
>
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141221/e88cc307/attachment.html>

David Chisnall

2014-Dec-21 09:05 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

Hi Michael,

You're probably in a better position than anyone to check this:

My recollection is that the microcode on some Intel processors used hidden
registers that are integrated into the register renaming pipeline for the top
few stack slots, but that all of these are pushed into the store buffer and
become real writes if the stack pointer is moved or the stack-top cache line is
subject to any coherency messages.  This means that esp-relative movs are
significantly cheaper than pushs and pops.  Is this still true with any modern
x86 processors?  (Or was it never true and I misremember)

David

On 21 Dec 2014, at 09:17, Kuperstein, Michael M <michael.m.kuperstein at
intel.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>  
> In r223757 I’ve committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 calling
convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function arguments
onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions.
>  
> For example, it will transform this:
> subl    $16, %esp
> movl    $4, 12(%esp)
> movl    $3, 8(%esp)
> movl    $2, 4(%esp)
> movl    $1, (%esp)
> calll   _func
> addl    $16, %esp
>  
> Into this:
>  
> pushl   $4
> pushl   $3
> pushl   $2
> pushl   $1
> calll   _func
> addl    $16, %esp
>  
> The main motivation for this is code size (a “pushl $4” is 2 bytes, a “movl
$4, 12(%esp)” is 7 bytes), but there are some other advantages, as shown below.
> The way this works in r223757 is by intercepting call frame simplification
in the Prolog/Epilog Inserter, and replacing the mov sequence with pushes. Right
now it only handles functions which do not have a reserved call frame (a small
minority of cases), and I'd like to extend it to cover other cases where it
is profitable.
>  
> The currently implemented approach has a couple of drawbacks:
>  
> 1) Push vs. having a reserved call frame: 
> This transformation is always profitable when we do not have a reserved
call frame. When a reserved frame can be used, however, there is a trade-off.
For example, in a function that contains only one call site, and no other stack
allocations, pushes are a clear win, since having a reserved call frame
wouldn't save any instructions. On the other hand, if a function contains 10
call sites, and only one of them can use pushes, then it is most probably a loss
– not reserving a call frame will  cost us 10 add instructions, and the pushes
gain very little. I’d like to be able to make the decision on whether we want to
have a reserved frame or pushes by considering the entire function. I don't
think this can be done in the context of PEI.
> Note that in theory we could have both a reserved call frame and have some
specific call sites in the function use pushes, but this is fairly tricky
because it requires much more precise tracking of the stack pointer state. That
is something I’m not planning to implement at this point.
>  
> 2) Register allocation inefficiency:
> Ideally, pushes can be used to make direct memory-to-memory movs, freeing
up registers, and saving quite a lot of code.
> For example, for this (this is obviously a constructed example, but code of
this kind does exist in the wild):
>  
> void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h);
>  
> struct st { int arr[8]; };
>  
> void bar(struct st* p)
> {
>   foo(p->arr[0], p->arr[1], p->arr[2], p->arr[3], p->arr[4],
p->arr[5], p->arr[6], p->arr[7]); }
>  
> We currently generate (with -m32 -O2) this:
>  
>         pushl   %ebp
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>         pushl   %ebx
>         pushl   %edi
>         pushl   %esi
>         subl    $44, %esp
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>         movl    28(%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -20(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    24(%eax), %edx
>         movl    20(%eax), %esi
>         movl    16(%eax), %edi
>         movl    12(%eax), %ebx
>         movl    8(%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -24(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    (%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -16(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    4(%eax), %eax
>         movl    -20(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %ecx, 28(%esp)
>         movl    %edx, 24(%esp)
>         movl    %esi, 20(%esp)
>         movl    %edi, 16(%esp)
>         movl    %ebx, 12(%esp)
>         movl    -24(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %ecx, 8(%esp)
>         movl    %eax, 4(%esp)
>         movl    -16(%ebp), %eax         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %eax, (%esp)
>         calll   _foo
>         addl    $44, %esp
>         popl    %esi
>         popl    %edi
>         popl    %ebx
>         popl    %ebp
>         retl
>  
> Which is fairly horrible.
> Some parameters get mov-ed up to four times - a mov from the struct into a
register, a register spill,  a reload, and finally a mov onto the stack.
>  
> What we’d like to generate is something like:
>         pushl   %ebp
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>         pushl   28(%eax)
>         pushl   24(%eax)
>         pushl   20(%eax)
>         pushl   16(%eax)
>         pushl   12(%eax)
>         pushl   8(%eax)
>         pushl   4(%eax)
>         pushl   (%eax)
>         calll   _foo
>         addl    $32, %esp
>         popl    %ebp
>         retl
>  
> To produce the code above, the transformation has to run pre-reg-alloc.
Otherwise, even if we fold loads into the push, it's too late to recover
from spills.
>  
> The direction I'd like to take with this is:
>  
> 1) Add an X86-specific MachineFunctionPass that does the mov -> push
transformation and runs pre-reg-alloc.
> It will:
> * Make a decision on whether promoting some (or all) of the call sites to
use pushes is worth giving up on the reserved call frame.
> * If it is, perform the mov ->push transformation for the selected call
sites.
> * Fold loads into the pushes while doing the transformation.
> As an alternative, I could try to teach the peephole optimizer to do it
(right now it won't even try to do this folding because PUSHes store to
memory), but getting it right in the general case seems complex.
> I think I'd rather do folding of the simple (but common) cases on the
fly.
>  
> 2) Alter the semantics of ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/ADJCALLSTACKUP slightly.
> Doing the mov->push transformation before PEI means I'd have to
leave the ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/UP pair unbalanced.
>  
> E.g. something like:
> ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>
> %vreg9<def,dead> = COPY %ESP; GR32:%vreg9
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 28, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 24, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 20, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 16, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 12, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 8, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 4, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> PUSH32rmm %vreg0<kill>, 1, %noreg, 0, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> CALLpcrel32 <ga:@foo>, <regmask>, %ESP<imp-use>,
%ESP<imp-def>
> ADJCALLSTACKUP32 32, 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>
>  
> This, rightly, gets flagged by the verifier.
> My proposal is to add an additional parameter to ADJCALLSTACKDOWN to
express the amount of adjustment the call sequence itself does. This is somewhat
similar to the second parameter of ADKCALLSTACKUP which allows adjustment for
callee stack-clean-up.
> So, in this case, we will get a "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 32, 32"
instead of the “ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0”. The verifier will be happy, and PEI will
know it doesn't need to do any stack pointer adjustment.
>  
> Does this sound like the right approach?
>  
> Any suggestions, as well as warnings of potential pitfalls, are welcome.
:-)
>  
> Thanks,
>    Michael
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

Kuperstein, Michael M

2014-Dec-21 09:27 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

Which performance guidelines are you referring to?

I'm not that familiar with decade-old CPUs, but to the best of my knowledge,
this is not true on current hardware.
There is one specific circumstance where PUSHes should be avoided - for
Atom/Silvermont processors, the memory form of PUSH is inefficient, so the
register-freeing optimization below may not be profitable (see 14.3.3.6 and
15.3.1.2 in the Intel optimization reference manual).

Having said that, one distinct possibility is to have the heuristic make
different decisions depending on the optimization flags, that is be much more
aggressive for optsize functions.

From: Herbie Robinson [mailto:HerbieRobinson at verizon.net]
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 10:58
To: Kuperstein, Michael M; LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call
sequences

According to the Intel performance guidelines, pushes are significantly slower
than moves to the extent they should be avoided as much as possible.  It's
been a decade since I was dealing with this; so, I don't remember the
numbers, but I'm pretty sure the changes you are proposing will slow the
code down.

People who care about speed more than code size are probably not going to like
this very much...


On 12/21/14 3:17 AM, Kuperstein, Michael M wrote:

Hello all,



In r223757 I've committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86 calling
convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function arguments
onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions.



For example, it will transform this:

subl    $16, %esp

movl    $4, 12(%esp)

movl    $3, 8(%esp)

movl    $2, 4(%esp)

movl    $1, (%esp)

calll   _func

addl    $16, %esp



Into this:



pushl   $4

pushl   $3

pushl   $2

pushl   $1

calll   _func

addl    $16, %esp



The main motivation for this is code size (a "pushl $4" is 2 bytes, a
"movl $4, 12(%esp)" is 7 bytes), but there are some other advantages,
as shown below.

The way this works in r223757 is by intercepting call frame simplification in
the Prolog/Epilog Inserter, and replacing the mov sequence with pushes. Right
now it only handles functions which do not have a reserved call frame (a small
minority of cases), and I'd like to extend it to cover other cases where it
is profitable.



The currently implemented approach has a couple of drawbacks:



1) Push vs. having a reserved call frame:
This transformation is always profitable when we do not have a reserved call
frame. When a reserved frame can be used, however, there is a trade-off. For
example, in a function that contains only one call site, and no other stack
allocations, pushes are a clear win, since having a reserved call frame
wouldn't save any instructions. On the other hand, if a function contains 10
call sites, and only one of them can use pushes, then it is most probably a loss
- not reserving a call frame will  cost us 10 add instructions, and the pushes
gain very little. I'd like to be able to make the decision on whether we
want to have a reserved frame or pushes by considering the entire function. I
don't think this can be done in the context of PEI.

Note that in theory we could have both a reserved call frame and have some
specific call sites in the function use pushes, but this is fairly tricky
because it requires much more precise tracking of the stack pointer state. That
is something I'm not planning to implement at this point.



2) Register allocation inefficiency:
Ideally, pushes can be used to make direct memory-to-memory movs, freeing up
registers, and saving quite a lot of code.

For example, for this (this is obviously a constructed example, but code of this
kind does exist in the wild):



void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h);



struct st { int arr[8]; };



void bar(struct st* p)

{

  foo(p->arr[0], p->arr[1], p->arr[2], p->arr[3], p->arr[4],
p->arr[5], p->arr[6], p->arr[7]); }



We currently generate (with -m32 -O2) this:



        pushl   %ebp

        movl    %esp, %ebp

        pushl   %ebx

        pushl   %edi

        pushl   %esi

        subl    $44, %esp

        movl    8(%ebp), %eax

        movl    28(%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -20(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    24(%eax), %edx

        movl    20(%eax), %esi

        movl    16(%eax), %edi

        movl    12(%eax), %ebx

        movl    8(%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -24(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    (%eax), %ecx

        movl    %ecx, -16(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill

        movl    4(%eax), %eax

        movl    -20(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %ecx, 28(%esp)

        movl    %edx, 24(%esp)

        movl    %esi, 20(%esp)

        movl    %edi, 16(%esp)

        movl    %ebx, 12(%esp)

        movl    -24(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %ecx, 8(%esp)

        movl    %eax, 4(%esp)

        movl    -16(%ebp), %eax         # 4-byte Reload

        movl    %eax, (%esp)

        calll   _foo

        addl    $44, %esp

        popl    %esi

        popl    %edi

        popl    %ebx

        popl    %ebp

        retl



Which is fairly horrible.

Some parameters get mov-ed up to four times - a mov from the struct into a
register, a register spill,  a reload, and finally a mov onto the stack.



What we'd like to generate is something like:

        pushl   %ebp

        movl    %esp, %ebp

        movl    8(%ebp), %eax

        pushl   28(%eax)

        pushl   24(%eax)

        pushl   20(%eax)

        pushl   16(%eax)

        pushl   12(%eax)

        pushl   8(%eax)

        pushl   4(%eax)

        pushl   (%eax)

        calll   _foo

        addl    $32, %esp

        popl    %ebp

        retl



To produce the code above, the transformation has to run pre-reg-alloc.
Otherwise, even if we fold loads into the push, it's too late to recover
from spills.



The direction I'd like to take with this is:



1) Add an X86-specific MachineFunctionPass that does the mov -> push
transformation and runs pre-reg-alloc.

It will:

* Make a decision on whether promoting some (or all) of the call sites to use
pushes is worth giving up on the reserved call frame.

* If it is, perform the mov ->push transformation for the selected call
sites.

* Fold loads into the pushes while doing the transformation.

As an alternative, I could try to teach the peephole optimizer to do it (right
now it won't even try to do this folding because PUSHes store to memory),
but getting it right in the general case seems complex.

I think I'd rather do folding of the simple (but common) cases on the fly.



2) Alter the semantics of ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/ADJCALLSTACKUP slightly.

Doing the mov->push transformation before PEI means I'd have to leave the
ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/UP pair unbalanced.



E.g. something like:

ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>

%vreg9<def,dead> = COPY %ESP; GR32:%vreg9

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 28, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 24, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 20, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 16, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 12, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 8, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 4, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

PUSH32rmm %vreg0<kill>, 1, %noreg, 0, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>,
%ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0

CALLpcrel32 <ga:@foo>, <regmask>, %ESP<imp-use>,
%ESP<imp-def>

ADJCALLSTACKUP32 32, 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>,
%ESP<imp-use>



This, rightly, gets flagged by the verifier.

My proposal is to add an additional parameter to ADJCALLSTACKDOWN to express the
amount of adjustment the call sequence itself does. This is somewhat similar to
the second parameter of ADKCALLSTACKUP which allows adjustment for callee
stack-clean-up.

So, in this case, we will get a "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 32, 32" instead of
the "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0". The verifier will be happy, and PEI will
know it doesn't need to do any stack pointer adjustment.



Does this sound like the right approach?



Any suggestions, as well as warnings of potential pitfalls, are welcome. :-)



Thanks,

   Michael


---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.




_______________________________________________

LLVM Developers mailing list

LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu<mailto:LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu>        
http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu

http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141221/5920f6f8/attachment.html>

Kuperstein, Michael M

2014-Dec-21 09:53 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

Hi David,

I'm not that familiar with the micro-architecture (and even if I were, I
doubt I could comment on this sort of detail :-) ), but I don't believe
there is a penalty on modern x86.

In any case, if it turns out this will introduce performance regressions, either
for this or for another reason, then we can enable it for optsize only.
I don't expect that to happen, but it's a possible fallback. I'll do
the benchmarking once I have a sane prototype.

Michael


-----Original Message-----
From: Dr D. Chisnall [mailto:dc552 at hermes.cam.ac.uk] On Behalf Of David
Chisnall
Sent: Sunday, December 21, 2014 11:05
To: Kuperstein, Michael M
Cc: LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu
Subject: Re: [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call
sequences

Hi Michael,

You're probably in a better position than anyone to check this:

My recollection is that the microcode on some Intel processors used hidden
registers that are integrated into the register renaming pipeline for the top
few stack slots, but that all of these are pushed into the store buffer and
become real writes if the stack pointer is moved or the stack-top cache line is
subject to any coherency messages.  This means that esp-relative movs are
significantly cheaper than pushs and pops.  Is this still true with any modern
x86 processors?  (Or was it never true and I misremember)

David

On 21 Dec 2014, at 09:17, Kuperstein, Michael M <michael.m.kuperstein at
intel.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>  
> In r223757 I've committed a patch that performs, for the 32-bit x86
calling convention, the transformation of MOV instructions that push function
arguments onto the stack into actual PUSH instructions.
>  
> For example, it will transform this:
> subl    $16, %esp
> movl    $4, 12(%esp)
> movl    $3, 8(%esp)
> movl    $2, 4(%esp)
> movl    $1, (%esp)
> calll   _func
> addl    $16, %esp
>  
> Into this:
>  
> pushl   $4
> pushl   $3
> pushl   $2
> pushl   $1
> calll   _func
> addl    $16, %esp
>  
> The main motivation for this is code size (a "pushl $4" is 2
bytes, a "movl $4, 12(%esp)" is 7 bytes), but there are some other
advantages, as shown below.
> The way this works in r223757 is by intercepting call frame simplification
in the Prolog/Epilog Inserter, and replacing the mov sequence with pushes. Right
now it only handles functions which do not have a reserved call frame (a small
minority of cases), and I'd like to extend it to cover other cases where it
is profitable.
>  
> The currently implemented approach has a couple of drawbacks:
>  
> 1) Push vs. having a reserved call frame: 
> This transformation is always profitable when we do not have a reserved
call frame. When a reserved frame can be used, however, there is a trade-off.
For example, in a function that contains only one call site, and no other stack
allocations, pushes are a clear win, since having a reserved call frame
wouldn't save any instructions. On the other hand, if a function contains 10
call sites, and only one of them can use pushes, then it is most probably a loss
- not reserving a call frame will  cost us 10 add instructions, and the pushes
gain very little. I'd like to be able to make the decision on whether we
want to have a reserved frame or pushes by considering the entire function. I
don't think this can be done in the context of PEI.
> Note that in theory we could have both a reserved call frame and have some
specific call sites in the function use pushes, but this is fairly tricky
because it requires much more precise tracking of the stack pointer state. That
is something I'm not planning to implement at this point.
>  
> 2) Register allocation inefficiency:
> Ideally, pushes can be used to make direct memory-to-memory movs, freeing
up registers, and saving quite a lot of code.
> For example, for this (this is obviously a constructed example, but code of
this kind does exist in the wild):
>  
> void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f, int g, int h);
>  
> struct st { int arr[8]; };
>  
> void bar(struct st* p)
> {
>   foo(p->arr[0], p->arr[1], p->arr[2], p->arr[3], p->arr[4],
> p->arr[5], p->arr[6], p->arr[7]); }
>  
> We currently generate (with -m32 -O2) this:
>  
>         pushl   %ebp
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>         pushl   %ebx
>         pushl   %edi
>         pushl   %esi
>         subl    $44, %esp
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>         movl    28(%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -20(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    24(%eax), %edx
>         movl    20(%eax), %esi
>         movl    16(%eax), %edi
>         movl    12(%eax), %ebx
>         movl    8(%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -24(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    (%eax), %ecx
>         movl    %ecx, -16(%ebp)         # 4-byte Spill
>         movl    4(%eax), %eax
>         movl    -20(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %ecx, 28(%esp)
>         movl    %edx, 24(%esp)
>         movl    %esi, 20(%esp)
>         movl    %edi, 16(%esp)
>         movl    %ebx, 12(%esp)
>         movl    -24(%ebp), %ecx         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %ecx, 8(%esp)
>         movl    %eax, 4(%esp)
>         movl    -16(%ebp), %eax         # 4-byte Reload
>         movl    %eax, (%esp)
>         calll   _foo
>         addl    $44, %esp
>         popl    %esi
>         popl    %edi
>         popl    %ebx
>         popl    %ebp
>         retl
>  
> Which is fairly horrible.
> Some parameters get mov-ed up to four times - a mov from the struct into a
register, a register spill,  a reload, and finally a mov onto the stack.
>  
> What we'd like to generate is something like:
>         pushl   %ebp
>         movl    %esp, %ebp
>         movl    8(%ebp), %eax
>         pushl   28(%eax)
>         pushl   24(%eax)
>         pushl   20(%eax)
>         pushl   16(%eax)
>         pushl   12(%eax)
>         pushl   8(%eax)
>         pushl   4(%eax)
>         pushl   (%eax)
>         calll   _foo
>         addl    $32, %esp
>         popl    %ebp
>         retl
>  
> To produce the code above, the transformation has to run pre-reg-alloc.
Otherwise, even if we fold loads into the push, it's too late to recover
from spills.
>  
> The direction I'd like to take with this is:
>  
> 1) Add an X86-specific MachineFunctionPass that does the mov -> push
transformation and runs pre-reg-alloc.
> It will:
> * Make a decision on whether promoting some (or all) of the call sites to
use pushes is worth giving up on the reserved call frame.
> * If it is, perform the mov ->push transformation for the selected call
sites.
> * Fold loads into the pushes while doing the transformation.
> As an alternative, I could try to teach the peephole optimizer to do it
(right now it won't even try to do this folding because PUSHes store to
memory), but getting it right in the general case seems complex.
> I think I'd rather do folding of the simple (but common) cases on the
fly.
>  
> 2) Alter the semantics of ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/ADJCALLSTACKUP slightly.
> Doing the mov->push transformation before PEI means I'd have to
leave the ADJCALLSTACKDOWN/UP pair unbalanced.
>  
> E.g. something like:
> ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>, 
> %ESP<imp-use> %vreg9<def,dead> = COPY %ESP; GR32:%vreg9
PUSH32rmm
> %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 28, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; 
> GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 24, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, 
> %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 20, %noreg, 
> %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1,
%noreg,
> 16, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm
> %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 12, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; 
> GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 8, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, 
> %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm %vreg0, 1, %noreg, 4, %noreg, 
> %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0 PUSH32rmm
%vreg0<kill>, 1,
> %noreg, 0, %noreg, %ESP<imp-def>, %ESP<imp-use>; GR32:%vreg0
> CALLpcrel32 <ga:@foo>, <regmask>, %ESP<imp-use>,
%ESP<imp-def>
> ADJCALLSTACKUP32 32, 0, %ESP<imp-def>, %EFLAGS<imp-def,dead>, 
> %ESP<imp-use>
>  
> This, rightly, gets flagged by the verifier.
> My proposal is to add an additional parameter to ADJCALLSTACKDOWN to
express the amount of adjustment the call sequence itself does. This is somewhat
similar to the second parameter of ADKCALLSTACKUP which allows adjustment for
callee stack-clean-up.
> So, in this case, we will get a "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 32, 32"
instead of the "ADJCALLSTACKDOWN32 0". The verifier will be happy, and
PEI will know it doesn't need to do any stack pointer adjustment.
>  
> Does this sound like the right approach?
>  
> Any suggestions, as well as warnings of potential pitfalls, are 
> welcome. :-)
>  
> Thanks,
>    Michael
>  
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> Intel Israel (74) Limited
> 
> This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for 
> the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution 
> by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended 
> recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.
> 
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> LLVMdev at cs.uiuc.edu         http://llvm.cs.uiuc.edu
> http://lists.cs.uiuc.edu/mailman/listinfo/llvmdev
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Intel Israel (74) Limited

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential material for
the sole use of the intended recipient(s). Any review or distribution
by others is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended
recipient, please contact the sender and delete all copies.

Chris Lattner

2014-Dec-22 07:03 UTC

head link

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

> On Dec 21, 2014, at 12:58 AM, Herbie Robinson <HerbieRobinson at
verizon.net> wrote:
> 
> According to the Intel performance guidelines, pushes are significantly
slower than moves to the extent they should be avoided as much as possible. 
It's been a decade since I was dealing with this; so, I don't remember
the numbers, but I'm pretty sure the changes you are proposing will slow the
code down.
> 
> People who care about speed more than code size are probably not going to
like this very much…
Very true (and confirmed downthread), but this code size optimization is still
very interesting for functions using the minsize function attribute, which is
specifically designed to favor code size over performance:
http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes
<http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#function-attributes>

The linux kernel folks really care about the size of the bootloader, for
example.

-Chris
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20141221/18936769/attachment.html>

Apparently Analagous Threads

Search for more possibly parallel threads

llvm dev - Dec 2014 - [LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

[LLVMdev] [RFC] [X86] Mov to push transformation in x86-32 call sequences

Apparently Analagous Threads