Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf via llvm-dev
2019-Jan-22 18:43 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
Could you elaborate on what you refer to wrt data sharing. What do we currently
do in the clang code generation that we could not effectively implement in the
runtime, potentially with support of an llvm pass.
Thanks,
James
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:34:01 PM
To: Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Cc: openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey Bataev;
Arpith Chacko Jacob
Subject: Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
-------------
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
22.01.2019 13:17, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
Where we are
------------
Currently, when we generate OpenMP target offloading code for GPUs, we
use sufficient syntactic criteria to decide between two execution modes:
1) SPMD -- All target threads (in an OpenMP team) run all the code.
2) "Guarded" -- The master thread (of an OpenMP team) runs the user
code. If an OpenMP distribute region is encountered, thus
if all threads (in the OpenMP team) are supposed to
execute the region, the master wakes up the idling
worker threads and points them to the correct piece of
code for distributed execution.
For a variety of reasons we (generally) prefer the first execution mode.
However, depending on the code, that might not be valid, or we might
just not know if it is in the Clang code generation phase.
The implementation of the "guarded" execution mode follows roughly the
state machine description in [1], though the implementation is different
(more general) nowadays.
What we want
------------
Increase the amount of code executed in SPMD mode and the use of
lightweight "guarding" schemes where appropriate.
How we get (could) there
------------------------
We propose the following two modifications in order:
1) Move the state machine logic into the OpenMP runtime library. That
means in SPMD mode all device threads will start the execution of
the user code, thus emerge from the runtime, while in guarded mode
only the master will escape the runtime and the other threads will
idle in their state machine code that is now just "hidden".
Why:
- The state machine code cannot be (reasonably) optimized anyway,
moving it into the library shouldn't hurt runtime but might even
improve compile time a little bit.
- The change should also simplify the Clang code generation as we
would generate structurally the same code for both execution modes
but only the runtime library calls, or their arguments, would
differ between them.
- The reason we should not "just start in SPMD mode" and
"repair"
it later is simple, this way we always have semantically correct
and executable code.
- Finally, and most importantly, there is now only little
difference (see above) between the two modes in the code
generated by clang. If we later analyze the code trying to decide
if we can use SPMD mode instead of guarded mode the analysis and
transformation becomes much simpler.
The last item is wrong, unfortunately. A lot of things in the codegen depend on
the execution mode, e.g. correct support of the data-sharing. Of course, we can
try to generalize the codegen and rely completely on the runtime, but the
performance is going to be very poor.
We still need static analysis in the compiler. I agree, that it is better to
move this analysis to the backend, at least after the inlining, but at the
moment it is not possible. We need the support for the late outlining, which
will allow to implement better detection of the SPMD constructs + improve
performance.
2) Implement a middle-end LLVM-IR pass that detects the guarded mode,
e.g., through the runtime library calls used, and that tries to
convert it into the SPMD mode potentially by introducing lightweight
guards in the process.
Why:
- After the inliner, and the canonicalizations, we have a clearer
picture of the code that is actually executed in the target
region and all the side effects it contains. Thus, we can make an
educated decision on the required amount of guards that prevent
unwanted side effects from happening after a move to SPMD mode.
- At this point we can more easily introduce different schemes to
avoid side effects by threads that were not supposed to run. We
can decide if a state machine is needed, conditionals should be
employed, masked instructions are appropriate, or "dummy" local
storage can be used to hide the side effect from the outside
world.
None of this was implemented yet but we plan to start in the immediate
future. Any comments, ideas, criticism is welcome!
Cheers,
Johannes
P.S. [2-4] Provide further information on implementation and features.
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297
[2] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161
[3] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870
[4] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/5f063889/attachment.html>
Alexey Bataev via llvm-dev
2019-Jan-22 18:52 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
The globalization for the local variables, for example. It must be implemented in the compiler to get the good performance, not in the runtime. ------------- Best regards, Alexey Bataev 22.01.2019 13:43, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:> Could you elaborate on what you refer to wrt data sharing. What do we > currently do in the clang code generation that we could not > effectively implement in the runtime, potentially with support of an > llvm pass. > > Thanks, > James > > Get Outlook for Android <https://aka.ms/ghei36> > > ------------------------------------------------------------------------ > *From:* Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com> > *Sent:* Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:34:01 PM > *To:* Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org > *Cc:* openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey > Bataev; Arpith Chacko Jacob > *Subject:* Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation" > > > > ------------- > Best regards, > Alexey Bataev > 22.01.2019 13:17, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет: >> Where we are >> ------------ >> >> Currently, when we generate OpenMP target offloading code for GPUs, we >> use sufficient syntactic criteria to decide between two execution modes: >> 1) SPMD -- All target threads (in an OpenMP team) run all the code. >> 2) "Guarded" -- The master thread (of an OpenMP team) runs the user >> code. If an OpenMP distribute region is encountered, thus >> if all threads (in the OpenMP team) are supposed to >> execute the region, the master wakes up the idling >> worker threads and points them to the correct piece of >> code for distributed execution. >> >> For a variety of reasons we (generally) prefer the first execution mode. >> However, depending on the code, that might not be valid, or we might >> just not know if it is in the Clang code generation phase. >> >> The implementation of the "guarded" execution mode follows roughly the >> state machine description in [1], though the implementation is different >> (more general) nowadays. >> >> >> What we want >> ------------ >> >> Increase the amount of code executed in SPMD mode and the use of >> lightweight "guarding" schemes where appropriate. >> >> >> How we get (could) there >> ------------------------ >> >> We propose the following two modifications in order: >> >> 1) Move the state machine logic into the OpenMP runtime library. That >> means in SPMD mode all device threads will start the execution of >> the user code, thus emerge from the runtime, while in guarded mode >> only the master will escape the runtime and the other threads will >> idle in their state machine code that is now just "hidden". >> >> Why: >> - The state machine code cannot be (reasonably) optimized anyway, >> moving it into the library shouldn't hurt runtime but might even >> improve compile time a little bit. >> - The change should also simplify the Clang code generation as we >> would generate structurally the same code for both execution modes >> but only the runtime library calls, or their arguments, would >> differ between them. >> - The reason we should not "just start in SPMD mode" and "repair" >> it later is simple, this way we always have semantically correct >> and executable code. >> - Finally, and most importantly, there is now only little >> difference (see above) between the two modes in the code >> generated by clang. If we later analyze the code trying to decide >> if we can use SPMD mode instead of guarded mode the analysis and >> transformation becomes much simpler. > > The last item is wrong, unfortunately. A lot of things in the codegen > depend on the execution mode, e.g. correct support of the > data-sharing. Of course, we can try to generalize the codegen and rely > completely on the runtime, but the performance is going to be very poor. > > We still need static analysis in the compiler. I agree, that it is > better to move this analysis to the backend, at least after the > inlining, but at the moment it is not possible. We need the support > for the late outlining, which will allow to implement better detection > of the SPMD constructs + improve performance. > >> 2) Implement a middle-end LLVM-IR pass that detects the guarded mode, >> e.g., through the runtime library calls used, and that tries to >> convert it into the SPMD mode potentially by introducing lightweight >> guards in the process. >> >> Why: >> - After the inliner, and the canonicalizations, we have a clearer >> picture of the code that is actually executed in the target >> region and all the side effects it contains. Thus, we can make an >> educated decision on the required amount of guards that prevent >> unwanted side effects from happening after a move to SPMD mode. >> - At this point we can more easily introduce different schemes to >> avoid side effects by threads that were not supposed to run. We >> can decide if a state machine is needed, conditionals should be >> employed, masked instructions are appropriate, or "dummy" local >> storage can be used to hide the side effect from the outside >> world. >> >> >> None of this was implemented yet but we plan to start in the immediate >> future. Any comments, ideas, criticism is welcome! >> >> >> Cheers, >> Johannes >> >> >> P.S. [2-4] Provide further information on implementation and features. >> >> [1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297 >> [2] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161 >> [3] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870 >> [4] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189 >> >>-------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/daaed8e8/attachment-0001.html> -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: signature.asc Type: application/pgp-signature Size: 833 bytes Desc: OpenPGP digital signature URL: <http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/daaed8e8/attachment-0001.sig>
Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf via llvm-dev
2019-Jan-22 18:54 UTC
[llvm-dev] [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
We could still do that in clang, couldn't we?
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:52:42 PM
To: Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org
Cc: openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org; LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey Bataev;
Arpith Chacko Jacob
Subject: Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
The globalization for the local variables, for example. It must be implemented
in the compiler to get the good performance, not in the runtime.
-------------
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
22.01.2019 13:43, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
Could you elaborate on what you refer to wrt data sharing. What do we currently
do in the clang code generation that we could not effectively implement in the
runtime, potentially with support of an llvm pass.
Thanks,
James
Get Outlook for Android<https://aka.ms/ghei36>
________________________________
From: Alexey Bataev <a.bataev at outlook.com><mailto:a.bataev at
outlook.com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 22, 2019 12:34:01 PM
To: Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf; cfe-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:cfe-dev at
lists.llvm.org>
Cc: openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org<mailto:openmp-dev at lists.llvm.org>;
LLVM-Dev; Finkel, Hal J.; Alexey Bataev; Arpith Chacko Jacob
Subject: Re: [RFC] Late (OpenMP) GPU code "SPMD-zation"
-------------
Best regards,
Alexey Bataev
22.01.2019 13:17, Doerfert, Johannes Rudolf пишет:
Where we are
------------
Currently, when we generate OpenMP target offloading code for GPUs, we
use sufficient syntactic criteria to decide between two execution modes:
1) SPMD -- All target threads (in an OpenMP team) run all the code.
2) "Guarded" -- The master thread (of an OpenMP team) runs the user
code. If an OpenMP distribute region is encountered, thus
if all threads (in the OpenMP team) are supposed to
execute the region, the master wakes up the idling
worker threads and points them to the correct piece of
code for distributed execution.
For a variety of reasons we (generally) prefer the first execution mode.
However, depending on the code, that might not be valid, or we might
just not know if it is in the Clang code generation phase.
The implementation of the "guarded" execution mode follows roughly the
state machine description in [1], though the implementation is different
(more general) nowadays.
What we want
------------
Increase the amount of code executed in SPMD mode and the use of
lightweight "guarding" schemes where appropriate.
How we get (could) there
------------------------
We propose the following two modifications in order:
1) Move the state machine logic into the OpenMP runtime library. That
means in SPMD mode all device threads will start the execution of
the user code, thus emerge from the runtime, while in guarded mode
only the master will escape the runtime and the other threads will
idle in their state machine code that is now just "hidden".
Why:
- The state machine code cannot be (reasonably) optimized anyway,
moving it into the library shouldn't hurt runtime but might even
improve compile time a little bit.
- The change should also simplify the Clang code generation as we
would generate structurally the same code for both execution modes
but only the runtime library calls, or their arguments, would
differ between them.
- The reason we should not "just start in SPMD mode" and
"repair"
it later is simple, this way we always have semantically correct
and executable code.
- Finally, and most importantly, there is now only little
difference (see above) between the two modes in the code
generated by clang. If we later analyze the code trying to decide
if we can use SPMD mode instead of guarded mode the analysis and
transformation becomes much simpler.
The last item is wrong, unfortunately. A lot of things in the codegen depend on
the execution mode, e.g. correct support of the data-sharing. Of course, we can
try to generalize the codegen and rely completely on the runtime, but the
performance is going to be very poor.
We still need static analysis in the compiler. I agree, that it is better to
move this analysis to the backend, at least after the inlining, but at the
moment it is not possible. We need the support for the late outlining, which
will allow to implement better detection of the SPMD constructs + improve
performance.
2) Implement a middle-end LLVM-IR pass that detects the guarded mode,
e.g., through the runtime library calls used, and that tries to
convert it into the SPMD mode potentially by introducing lightweight
guards in the process.
Why:
- After the inliner, and the canonicalizations, we have a clearer
picture of the code that is actually executed in the target
region and all the side effects it contains. Thus, we can make an
educated decision on the required amount of guards that prevent
unwanted side effects from happening after a move to SPMD mode.
- At this point we can more easily introduce different schemes to
avoid side effects by threads that were not supposed to run. We
can decide if a state machine is needed, conditionals should be
employed, masked instructions are appropriate, or "dummy" local
storage can be used to hide the side effect from the outside
world.
None of this was implemented yet but we plan to start in the immediate
future. Any comments, ideas, criticism is welcome!
Cheers,
Johannes
P.S. [2-4] Provide further information on implementation and features.
[1] https://ieeexplore.ieee.org/document/7069297
[2] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2833161
[3] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3018870
[4] https://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=3148189
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20190122/3d32b515/attachment.html>