llvm dev - Oct 2017 - Less aggressive on the first allocation of CSR if detecting an early exit

On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote:
> 
>> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that shrink-wrapping
>> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry
block.
>> So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block is
>> taken.
>> 
>> int getI(int i);
>> 
>> int foo(int *P, int i) {
>> 
>> if (i>0)
>> 
>> return P[i];
>> 
>> i = getI(i);
>> 
>> return P[i];
>> 
>> }
>> 
>> It's not that hard to find such cases where RegAllocGreedy
>> aggressively allocates a CSRs when a live range expands across a
>> call-site.  That's because of the conservatively initialized
>> CSRCost, causing RegAllocGreedy to strongly favour allocating a CSR
>> over splitting a region. Since allocation of CSRs requires the cost
>> of spilling CSRs, allocating CSRs is not always beneficial. Like the
>> case above, if a function has an early exit code, we may want to be
>> less aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry block by
>> increasing the CSRCost.
>> 
>> Previously, I proposed https://reviews.llvm.org/D34608 in this
>> matter, but the way I detect the profitable cases and the way I
>> increase the CRSCost was somewhat unclear. Now, I'm thinking to
less
>> aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry block in case
>> where the function has an early exit so that encourage more
>> shrink-wrapping and avoid executing CSR spill/recover when the early
>> exit is taken. By sending this out, I just want to get any high
>> level feedback early. Please let me know if anyone has any opinion
>> about this.
> 
> So the heuristic will have nothing to do with the presence of calls?
> Might this increase spilling in loops?
> 
>  -Hal
> 
Before allowing the first allocation from CSRs, I will check if the 
virtual register is really live across a call in other blocks. If the 
function have a call in entry or exit, we don't need to increase the 
CSRCost. This heuristic will be applied only for the very first 
allocation from CSRs only in the entry block when the function has an 
early exit; if a CSR is already allocated in the function, we will use 
the current default global CSRCost.

Even after increasing the CSRCost, we should end up allocating the first 
CSR if the cost of splitting the live-range is still higher than the 
increased CSRCost. I believe the amount we want to increase the CSRCost 
must be target-dependent, but it must be conservative enough to avoid 
too many copies in the related spots.

Thanks,
Jun
>> 
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
> 
> --
> Hal Finkel
> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
> Leadership Computing Facility
> Argonne National Laboratory
-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a 
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.

On 10/30/2017 12:20 PM, junbuml at codeaurora.org wrote:
> On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote:
>> On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote:
>>
>>> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that
shrink-wrapping
>>> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the entry
block.
>>> So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit block
is
>>> taken.
>>>
>>> int getI(int i);
>>>
>>> int foo(int *P, int i) {
>>>
>>> if (i>0)
>>>
>>> return P[i];
>>>
>>> i = getI(i);
>>>
>>> return P[i];
>>>
>>> }
>>>
>>> It's not that hard to find such cases where RegAllocGreedy
>>> aggressively allocates a CSRs when a live range expands across a
>>> call-site.  That's because of the conservatively initialized
>>> CSRCost, causing RegAllocGreedy to strongly favour allocating a CSR
>>> over splitting a region. Since allocation of CSRs requires the cost
>>> of spilling CSRs, allocating CSRs is not always beneficial. Like
the
>>> case above, if a function has an early exit code, we may want to be
>>> less aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry block
by
>>> increasing the CSRCost.
>>>
>>> Previously, I proposed https://reviews.llvm.org/D34608 in this
>>> matter, but the way I detect the profitable cases and the way I
>>> increase the CRSCost was somewhat unclear. Now, I'm thinking to
less
>>> aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry block in
case
>>> where the function has an early exit so that encourage more
>>> shrink-wrapping and avoid executing CSR spill/recover when the
early
>>> exit is taken. By sending this out, I just want to get any high
>>> level feedback early. Please let me know if anyone has any opinion
>>> about this.
>>
>> So the heuristic will have nothing to do with the presence of calls?
>> Might this increase spilling in loops?
>>
>>  -Hal
>>
>
> Before allowing the first allocation from CSRs, I will check if the 
> virtual register is really live across a call in other blocks. If the 
> function have a call in entry or exit, we don't need to increase the 
> CSRCost. This heuristic will be applied only for the very first 
> allocation from CSRs only in the entry block when the function has an 
> early exit; if a CSR is already allocated in the function, we will use 
> the current default global CSRCost.
>
> Even after increasing the CSRCost, we should end up allocating the 
> first CSR if the cost of splitting the live-range is still higher than 
> the increased CSRCost. I believe the amount we want to increase the 
> CSRCost must be target-dependent, but it must be conservative enough 
> to avoid too many copies in the related spots.
Thanks for explaining.

I suppose you'll want to make sure that the call(s) in question come 
after the early exit (i.e., that there aren't calls before the early exit)?

When you say "only in the entry block" you mean that the live range 
starts in the entry block, right (i.e., that it is a function parameter 
or a vreg defined by some instruction in the entry block)? Does it 
matter that it is in the entry block, or do you only need it to come 
before the early exit and have an execution frequency <= to the entry 
block's execution frequency?

  -Hal
>
> Thanks,
> Jun
>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
>> -- 
>> Hal Finkel
>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>> Leadership Computing Facility
>> Argonne National Laboratory
>
-- 
Hal Finkel
Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
Leadership Computing Facility
Argonne National Laboratory

On 2017-10-30 21:20, Hal Finkel wrote:
> On 10/30/2017 12:20 PM, junbuml at codeaurora.org wrote:
>> On 2017-10-27 19:50, Hal Finkel wrote:
>>> On 10/27/2017 03:32 PM, Jun Lim via llvm-dev wrote:
>>> 
>>>> When compiling C code below for AArach64, I saw that
shrink-wrapping
>>>> didn't happen due to the very early uses of CSRs in the
entry block.
>>>> So CSR spills/reloads are executed even when the early exit
block is
>>>> taken.
>>>> 
>>>> int getI(int i);
>>>> 
>>>> int foo(int *P, int i) {
>>>> 
>>>> if (i>0)
>>>> 
>>>> return P[i];
>>>> 
>>>> i = getI(i);
>>>> 
>>>> return P[i];
>>>> 
>>>> }
>>>> 
>>>> It's not that hard to find such cases where RegAllocGreedy
>>>> aggressively allocates a CSRs when a live range expands across
a
>>>> call-site.  That's because of the conservatively
initialized
>>>> CSRCost, causing RegAllocGreedy to strongly favour allocating a
CSR
>>>> over splitting a region. Since allocation of CSRs requires the
cost
>>>> of spilling CSRs, allocating CSRs is not always beneficial.
Like the
>>>> case above, if a function has an early exit code, we may want
to be
>>>> less aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry
block by
>>>> increasing the CSRCost.
>>>> 
>>>> Previously, I proposed https://reviews.llvm.org/D34608 in this
>>>> matter, but the way I detect the profitable cases and the way I
>>>> increase the CRSCost was somewhat unclear. Now, I'm
thinking to less
>>>> aggressive on the first allocation of CSR in the entry block in
case
>>>> where the function has an early exit so that encourage more
>>>> shrink-wrapping and avoid executing CSR spill/recover when the
early
>>>> exit is taken. By sending this out, I just want to get any high
>>>> level feedback early. Please let me know if anyone has any
opinion
>>>> about this.
>>> 
>>> So the heuristic will have nothing to do with the presence of
calls?
>>> Might this increase spilling in loops?
>>> 
>>>  -Hal
>>> 
>> 
>> Before allowing the first allocation from CSRs, I will check if the 
>> virtual register is really live across a call in other blocks. If the 
>> function have a call in entry or exit, we don't need to increase
the
>> CSRCost. This heuristic will be applied only for the very first 
>> allocation from CSRs only in the entry block when the function has an 
>> early exit; if a CSR is already allocated in the function, we will use 
>> the current default global CSRCost.
>> 
>> Even after increasing the CSRCost, we should end up allocating the 
>> first CSR if the cost of splitting the live-range is still higher than 
>> the increased CSRCost. I believe the amount we want to increase the 
>> CSRCost must be target-dependent, but it must be conservative enough 
>> to avoid too many copies in the related spots.
> 
> Thanks for explaining.
> 
> I suppose you'll want to make sure that the call(s) in question come
> after the early exit (i.e., that there aren't calls before the early
> exit)?
> 
I will check if a virtual register is live across only calls which will 
be executed when the early exit is not taken. By increasing CSRcost for 
such case, we increase chances to avoid executing CSR spill/recover when 
the early exit is taken.
> When you say "only in the entry block" you mean that the live
range
> starts in the entry block, right (i.e., that it is a function
> parameter or a vreg defined by some instruction in the entry block)?
Yes.
> Does it matter that it is in the entry block, or do you only need it
> to come before the early exit and have an execution frequency <= to
> the entry block's execution frequency?
The reason I specifically check the entry block is because for now I see 
the early exit happen only in entry block; limiting that the early exit 
condition is checked in the entry block and branch to the exit block 
directly from the entry block if hitting the condition. If overall 
approach is reasonable, we can certainly extend it.

>  -Hal
> 
>> 
>> Thanks,
>> Jun
>> 
>>>> 
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>>>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>>>> http://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>> 
>>> -- Hal Finkel
>>> Lead, Compiler Technology and Programming Languages
>>> Leadership Computing Facility
>>> Argonne National Laboratory
>> 
-- 
Qualcomm Datacenter Technologies, Inc. as an affiliate of Qualcomm 
Technologies, Inc.
Qualcomm Technologies, Inc. is a member of the Code Aurora Forum, a 
Linux Foundation Collaborative Project.