thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM [Nov 2016]

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

James Molloy via llvm-dev

2016-Nov-24 20:49 UTC

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

Hi Graham,

One high level comment without reading the patchset too much - it seems
'vscale' in particular could be just as easy to implement as an
intrinsic,
which would be a less invasive patch.

Is there a reason you didn't go down the intrinsic route?

James
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 15:39, Graham Hunter via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> Paul Walker has now uploaded the first set of IR support patches to
> phabricator, which use our revised design. We managed to remove the need
> for new instructions for basic scalable vectorization in favor of adding
> two new constant classes; here's a subset of the revised documentation
> describing just those constants:
>
> ## *vscale*
>
> ### Syntax:
>
> > `vscale`
>
> ### Overview:
>
> This complex constant represents the runtime value of `n` for any scalable
> type
> `<n x m x ty>`. This is primarily used to increment induction
variables and
> generate offsets.
>
> ### Interface:
>
> ```cpp
>   Constant *VScaleValue::get(Type *Ty);
> ```
>
> ### Example:
>
> The following shows how an induction variable would be incremented for a
> scalable vector of type `<n x 4 x i32>`.
>
> ```llvm
>   %index.next = add nuw nsw i64 %index, mul (i64 vscale, i64 4)
> ```
>
> ## *stepvector*
>
> ### Syntax:
>
> > `stepvector`
>
> ### Overview:
>
> This complex constant represents the runtime value of a vector of
> increasing
> integers in the arithmetic series:
>
> > `<0, 1, 2, ... num_elements-1>`
>
> This is the basis for a scalable form of vector constants. Adding a splat
> changes the effective starting point, and multiplying changes the step. The
> main uses for this are:
>
> * Predicate creation using vector compares for fully predicated loops (see
> also:
>   [*propff*](#propff), [*test*](#test)).
> * Creating offset vectors for gather/scatter via `getelementptr`.
> * Creating masks for `shufflevector`.
>
> For the following loop, a `stepvector` constant would be added to a splat
> of the
> loop induction variable to create the data vector to store:
>
> ```cpp
>   unsigned a[LIMIT];
>
>   for (unsigned i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) {
>     a[i] = i;
>   }
> ```
>
> ### Interface:
>
> ```cpp
>   Constant *StepVectorValue::get(Type *Ty);
> ```
>
> ### Example:
>
> The following shows the construction of a scalable vector of the form
> <start, start-2, start-4, ...>:
>
> ```llvm
>   %elt = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 %start, i32 0
>   %widestart = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %elt, <n x 4 x i32>
undef, <n x
> 4 x i32> zeroinitializer
>   %step = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 -2, i32 0
>   %widestep = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %step, <n x 4 x i32>
undef, <n x
> 4 x i32> zeroinitializer
>   %stridevec = mul <n x 4 x i32> stepvector, %widestep
>   %finalvec = add <n x 4 x i32> %widestart, %stridevec
> ```
>
>
>
>
> Current patch set:
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27101
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27102
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27103
> https://reviews.llvm.org/D27105
>
> -Graham
>
>
>
> On 22/11/2016, 14:49, "Graham Hunter via llvm-dev" <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>     Hi Renato,
>
>     Sorry for the delay in responding. We've been busy rethinking some
of
> our changes after the feedback we've received thus far (particularly
from
> the devmeeting). The incremental patches will use our revised design(which
> should be less invasive), and I'll be updating our document to match.
>
>     On 16/11/2016, 12:46, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at
linaro.org> wrote:
>
>     >  This email is long and hard to read. I'm not surprised no one
> replied
>     >  yet. I think your PDF attached is a good start away from the
>     >  complexity, but we're not going to get far if we try to do
things in
>     >  one step.
>
>     >  Based on your repository, the number of changes is so great, and
the
>     >  changes so invasive, that we really should look back at what we
need
>     >  to do, one step at a time, and only perform the refactoring
changes
>     >  that are needed for each step.
>
>     We don't intend to do this all in one go; we fully expect that
we'll
> need to refactor a few times based on community feedback as we
> incrementally add support for scalable vectors.
>
>     >  > * This is a warts-and-all release of our development tree,
with
> plenty of TODOs and unfinished experiments
>     >  > * We haven't posted our clang changes yet
>     >
>     >  I don't mind FIXMEs or TODOs, but I did see a lot of spurious
name
>     >  changes, enum value moves (breaking old binaries) and a lot of
new
>     >  high-level passes (LoopVectorisationAnalysis) which will need a
long
>     >  review on their own before we even start thinking about SVE.
>     >
>     >  I recommend you guys separate the refactoring from the
> implementation
>     >  and try to upstream the initial and uncontroversial refactorings
> (name
>     >  changes, etc), as well as move out the current functionality into
> new
>     >  passes, so then you can extend for SVE as a refactoring, not
>     >  move-and-extend in the same pass.
>
>     So our highest priority is getting basic support for SVE into the
> codebase (types, codegen, assembler/disassembler, simple vectorization);
> after that is in, we'll be happy to discuss our other changes like
> separating out loop vectorization legality, controlling loops via
> predication, or adding search loop vectorization.
>
>     >  We want to minimise the number of changes, so that we can revert
>     >  breakages more easily, and have a steady progress, rather than a
>     >  break-the-world situation.
>
>     Same for us. The individual patches will be relatively small, this
> repo was just for context if needed when discussing the smaller patches.
>
>     >  Finally, *every* test change needs to be scrutinised and
guaranteed
> to
>     >  make sense. We really dislike spurious test changes, unless we
can
>     >  prove that the test was unstable to being with, in which case we
>     >  change it to a better test.
>
>     Yep, makes sense.
>
>     Thanks,
>
>     -Graham
>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     LLVM Developers mailing list
>     llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>     http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161124/d5b78471/attachment.html>

Paul Walker via llvm-dev

2016-Nov-25 14:42 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

Hi James,

With our goal of making scalable vectors a first class type we already want to
change the IR to incorporate "vscale" as part of the printed type
(i.e. it's the "n" in "<n x 4 x i32>").  For this
reason it makes sense to us if the isolated representation of "n"
(i.e. vscale) is also treated as first class because the two representations go
hand in hand.

The above is the stylistic answer but from a more practical point of view there
will be many instances where "vscale" gets queried.  Folds that
currently exist for ConstantInt will need to have "vscale" variants. 
We concluded using an intrinsic would pollute the code base a lot more in the
long run when compared to the new constant approached.
Paul!!!

From: llvm-dev <llvm-dev-bounces at lists.llvm.org> on behalf of James
Molloy via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Reply-To: James Molloy <james at jamesmolloy.co.uk>
Date: Thursday, 24 November 2016 at 20:49
To: Graham Hunter <Graham.Hunter at arm.com>, "llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org" <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
Cc: nd <nd at arm.com>, Will Lovett <Will.Lovett at arm.com>
Subject: Re: [llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

Hi Graham,

One high level comment without reading the patchset too much - it seems
'vscale' in particular could be just as easy to implement as an
intrinsic, which would be a less invasive patch.

Is there a reason you didn't go down the intrinsic route?

James
On Thu, 24 Nov 2016 at 15:39, Graham Hunter via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:
Hi,

Paul Walker has now uploaded the first set of IR support patches to phabricator,
which use our revised design. We managed to remove the need for new instructions
for basic scalable vectorization in favor of adding two new constant classes;
here's a subset of the revised documentation describing just those
constants:

## *vscale*

### Syntax:
> `vscale`
### Overview:

This complex constant represents the runtime value of `n` for any scalable type
`<n x m x ty>`. This is primarily used to increment induction variables
and
generate offsets.

### Interface:

```cpp
  Constant *VScaleValue::get(Type *Ty);
```

### Example:

The following shows how an induction variable would be incremented for a
scalable vector of type `<n x 4 x i32>`.

```llvm
  %index.next = add nuw nsw i64 %index, mul (i64 vscale, i64 4)
```

## *stepvector*

### Syntax:
> `stepvector`
### Overview:

This complex constant represents the runtime value of a vector of increasing
integers in the arithmetic series:
> `<0, 1, 2, ... num_elements-1>`
This is the basis for a scalable form of vector constants. Adding a splat
changes the effective starting point, and multiplying changes the step. The
main uses for this are:

* Predicate creation using vector compares for fully predicated loops (see also:
  [*propff*](#propff), [*test*](#test)).
* Creating offset vectors for gather/scatter via `getelementptr`.
* Creating masks for `shufflevector`.

For the following loop, a `stepvector` constant would be added to a splat of the
loop induction variable to create the data vector to store:

```cpp
  unsigned a[LIMIT];

  for (unsigned i = 0; i < LIMIT; i++) {
    a[i] = i;
  }
```

### Interface:

```cpp
  Constant *StepVectorValue::get(Type *Ty);
```

### Example:

The following shows the construction of a scalable vector of the form
<start, start-2, start-4, ...>:

```llvm
  %elt = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 %start, i32 0
  %widestart = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %elt, <n x 4 x i32>
undef, <n x 4 x i32> zeroinitializer
  %step = insertelement <n x 4 x i32> undef, i32 -2, i32 0
  %widestep = shufflevector <n x 4 x i32> %step, <n x 4 x i32>
undef, <n x 4 x i32> zeroinitializer
  %stridevec = mul <n x 4 x i32> stepvector, %widestep
  %finalvec = add <n x 4 x i32> %widestart, %stridevec
```




Current patch set:
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27101
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27102
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27103
https://reviews.llvm.org/D27105

-Graham



On 22/11/2016, 14:49, "Graham Hunter via llvm-dev" <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org<mailto:llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>> wrote:

    Hi Renato,

    Sorry for the delay in responding. We've been busy rethinking some of
our changes after the feedback we've received thus far (particularly from
the devmeeting). The incremental patches will use our revised design(which
should be less invasive), and I'll be updating our document to match.

    On 16/11/2016, 12:46, "Renato Golin" <renato.golin at
linaro.org<mailto:renato.golin at linaro.org>> wrote:

    >  This email is long and hard to read. I'm not surprised no one
replied
    >  yet. I think your PDF attached is a good start away from the
    >  complexity, but we're not going to get far if we try to do things
in
    >  one step.

    >  Based on your repository, the number of changes is so great, and the
    >  changes so invasive, that we really should look back at what we need
    >  to do, one step at a time, and only perform the refactoring changes
    >  that are needed for each step.

    We don't intend to do this all in one go; we fully expect that we'll
need to refactor a few times based on community feedback as we incrementally add
support for scalable vectors.

    >  > * This is a warts-and-all release of our development tree, with
plenty of TODOs and unfinished experiments
    >  > * We haven't posted our clang changes yet
    >
    >  I don't mind FIXMEs or TODOs, but I did see a lot of spurious name
    >  changes, enum value moves (breaking old binaries) and a lot of new
    >  high-level passes (LoopVectorisationAnalysis) which will need a long
    >  review on their own before we even start thinking about SVE.
    >
    >  I recommend you guys separate the refactoring from the implementation
    >  and try to upstream the initial and uncontroversial refactorings (name
    >  changes, etc), as well as move out the current functionality into new
    >  passes, so then you can extend for SVE as a refactoring, not
    >  move-and-extend in the same pass.

    So our highest priority is getting basic support for SVE into the codebase
(types, codegen, assembler/disassembler, simple vectorization); after that is
in, we'll be happy to discuss our other changes like separating out loop
vectorization legality, controlling loops via predication, or adding search loop
vectorization.

    >  We want to minimise the number of changes, so that we can revert
    >  breakages more easily, and have a steady progress, rather than a
    >  break-the-world situation.

    Same for us. The individual patches will be relatively small, this repo was
just for context if needed when discussing the smaller patches.

    >  Finally, *every* test change needs to be scrutinised and guaranteed to
    >  make sense. We really dislike spurious test changes, unless we can
    >  prove that the test was unstable to being with, in which case we
    >  change it to a better test.

    Yep, makes sense.

    Thanks,

    -Graham



    _______________________________________________
    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


_______________________________________________
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20161125/b8327e02/attachment.html>

Renato Golin via llvm-dev

2016-Nov-25 15:15 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

On 25 November 2016 at 14:42, Paul Walker via llvm-dev
<llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:> The above is the stylistic answer but from a more practical point of view
> there will be many instances where "vscale" gets queried.  Folds
that
> currently exist for ConstantInt will need to have "vscale"
variants.  We
> concluded using an intrinsic would pollute the code base a lot more in the
> long run when compared to the new constant approached.
Hi Paul,

Can you give us examples on where the vscale will be constant-folded?

cheers,
--renato

llvm dev - Nov 2016 - [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM

[llvm-dev] [RFC] Supporting ARM's SVE in LLVM