thr3ads.net - llvm dev - [llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector. [Oct 2019]

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

Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev

2019-Sep-27 02:59 UTC

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

> I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined as here?
Can you provide a buildable example?
Sorry, I should provide a cross-platform version using vector
extension of frontend :) `vector int` is a vector extension on
PowerPC, which is enabled if you set target to PowerPC platforms.
Example below should be successfully compiled in any platform:

    typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vector_size(16)));

    void foo(v4sf *a) {
      (*a)[0] = 1;
      (*a)[3] = 2;
    }

And we can get the IR mentioned before:

    %0 = load <4 x float>, <4 x float>* %a, align 16
    %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x float> <float 1.000000e+00, float
undef, float undef, float 2.000000e+00>, <4 x float> %0, <4 x
i32>
<i32 0, i32 5, i32 6, i32 3>
    store <4 x float> %vecins1, <4 x float>* %a, align 16

Regards,
Qiu Chaofan


Florian Hahn <florian_hahn at apple.com> 于2019年9月26日周四
下午7:15写道：>
> Hi
>
> > On Sep 26, 2019, at 10:53, Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at
lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> >
> > Hi there,
> >
> > I notice that LLVM seems to always generate vector instructions for
> > vector operations in C, even it's just simple stores:
> >
> > void foo(vector int* c) {
> >  (*c)[0] = 1;
> >  (*c)[1] = 2;
> > }
> >
>
> I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined as here?
Can you provide a buildable example?
>
> > %0 = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
> > %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 2, i32 undef,
i32
> > undef>, <4 x i32> %0, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1, i32
6, i32 7>
> > store <4 x i32> %vecins1, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
> >
>
> For some reason, we load 4 elements from %c and write the last 2 elements
back unchanged. This causes sub-optimal codegen here. We could do a better job
at dropping the writes of unchanged elements. But from the original code, it is
not immediately obvious to me why we generate them in the first place. Maybe we
could avoid generating them?
>
> Cheers,
> Florian

Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev

2019-Oct-03 16:32 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

Just out of curiosity,
would it perhaps make sense to canonicalize this to a masked store?

Nemanja

On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined as
> here? Can you provide a buildable example?
>
> Sorry, I should provide a cross-platform version using vector
> extension of frontend :) `vector int` is a vector extension on
> PowerPC, which is enabled if you set target to PowerPC platforms.
> Example below should be successfully compiled in any platform:
>
>     typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vector_size(16)));
>
>     void foo(v4sf *a) {
>       (*a)[0] = 1;
>       (*a)[3] = 2;
>     }
>
> And we can get the IR mentioned before:
>
>     %0 = load <4 x float>, <4 x float>* %a, align 16
>     %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x float> <float 1.000000e+00,
float
> undef, float undef, float 2.000000e+00>, <4 x float> %0, <4 x
i32>
> <i32 0, i32 5, i32 6, i32 3>
>     store <4 x float> %vecins1, <4 x float>* %a, align 16
>
> Regards,
> Qiu Chaofan
>
>
> Florian Hahn <florian_hahn at apple.com> 于2019年9月26日周四 下午7:15写道：
> >
> > Hi
> >
> > > On Sep 26, 2019, at 10:53, Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Hi there,
> > >
> > > I notice that LLVM seems to always generate vector instructions
for
> > > vector operations in C, even it's just simple stores:
> > >
> > > void foo(vector int* c) {
> > >  (*c)[0] = 1;
> > >  (*c)[1] = 2;
> > > }
> > >
> >
> > I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined as
> here? Can you provide a buildable example?
> >
> > > %0 = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
> > > %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 2, i32
undef, i32
> > > undef>, <4 x i32> %0, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32 1,
i32 6, i32 7>
> > > store <4 x i32> %vecins1, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
> > >
> >
> > For some reason, we load 4 elements from %c and write the last 2
> elements back unchanged. This causes sub-optimal codegen here. We could do
> a better job at dropping the writes of unchanged elements. But from the
> original code, it is not immediately obvious to me why we generate them in
> the first place. Maybe we could avoid generating them?
> >
> > Cheers,
> > Florian
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20191003/a4393e94/attachment.html>

Sanjay Patel via llvm-dev

2019-Oct-04 12:35 UTC

head link

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

Canonicalizing to a masked store intrinsic is possible, but we might have
to expand back to the load/shuffle/store sequence for targets that don't
support masked store. And then you'd likely have to do the store splitting
that I think is being requested for the original pattern anyway.

But I'd like to step back to the premise - "LLVM seems to always
generate
vector instructions for vector operations in C, even it's just simple
stores."
That's not correct. It's not LLVM that created the vector memory
accesses.
That's how the IR begins from clang:

define void @foo(<4 x float>* %a) #0 {
entry:
  %a.addr = alloca <4 x float>*, align 8
  store <4 x float>* %a, <4 x float>** %a.addr, align 8, !tbaa !3
  %0 = load <4 x float>*, <4 x float>** %a.addr, align 8, !tbaa !3
  %1 = load <4 x float>, <4 x float>* %0, align 16
  %vecins = insertelement <4 x float> %1, float 1.000000e+00, i32 0
  store <4 x float> %vecins, <4 x float>* %0, align 16
  %2 = load <4 x float>*, <4 x float>** %a.addr, align 8, !tbaa !3
  %3 = load <4 x float>, <4 x float>* %2, align 16
  %vecins1 = insertelement <4 x float> %3, float 2.000000e+00, i32 3
  store <4 x float> %vecins1, <4 x float>* %2, align 16
  ret void
}

Should this have been translated to GEP+scalar stores by clang rather than
vector load+store?


On Thu, Oct 3, 2019 at 12:33 PM Nemanja Ivanovic via llvm-dev <
llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
> Just out of curiosity,
> would it perhaps make sense to canonicalize this to a masked store?
>
> Nemanja
>
> On Thu, Sep 26, 2019 at 10:59 PM Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>
>> > I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined
as
>> here? Can you provide a buildable example?
>>
>> Sorry, I should provide a cross-platform version using vector
>> extension of frontend :) `vector int` is a vector extension on
>> PowerPC, which is enabled if you set target to PowerPC platforms.
>> Example below should be successfully compiled in any platform:
>>
>>     typedef float v4sf __attribute__ ((vector_size(16)));
>>
>>     void foo(v4sf *a) {
>>       (*a)[0] = 1;
>>       (*a)[3] = 2;
>>     }
>>
>> And we can get the IR mentioned before:
>>
>>     %0 = load <4 x float>, <4 x float>* %a, align 16
>>     %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x float> <float 1.000000e+00,
float
>> undef, float undef, float 2.000000e+00>, <4 x float> %0, <4
x i32>
>> <i32 0, i32 5, i32 6, i32 3>
>>     store <4 x float> %vecins1, <4 x float>* %a, align 16
>>
>> Regards,
>> Qiu Chaofan
>>
>>
>> Florian Hahn <florian_hahn at apple.com> 于2019年9月26日周四 下午7:15写道：
>> >
>> > Hi
>> >
>> > > On Sep 26, 2019, at 10:53, Qiu Chaofan via llvm-dev <
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org> wrote:
>> > >
>> > > Hi there,
>> > >
>> > > I notice that LLVM seems to always generate vector
instructions for
>> > > vector operations in C, even it's just simple stores:
>> > >
>> > > void foo(vector int* c) {
>> > >  (*c)[0] = 1;
>> > >  (*c)[1] = 2;
>> > > }
>> > >
>> >
>> > I may be missing something obvious, but what is `vector` defined
as
>> here? Can you provide a buildable example?
>> >
>> > > %0 = load <4 x i32>, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
>> > > %vecins1 = shufflevector <4 x i32> <i32 1, i32 2,
i32 undef, i32
>> > > undef>, <4 x i32> %0, <4 x i32> <i32 0, i32
1, i32 6, i32 7>
>> > > store <4 x i32> %vecins1, <4 x i32>* %c, align 16
>> > >
>> >
>> > For some reason, we load 4 elements from %c and write the last 2
>> elements back unchanged. This causes sub-optimal codegen here. We could
do
>> a better job at dropping the writes of unchanged elements. But from the
>> original code, it is not immediately obvious to me why we generate them
in
>> the first place. Maybe we could avoid generating them?
>> >
>> > Cheers,
>> > Florian
>> _______________________________________________
>> LLVM Developers mailing list
>> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
>> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev
>>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://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/20191004/1ac25391/attachment.html>

Possibly Parallel Threads

Search for more seemingly similar threads

llvm dev - Oct 2019 - Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

[llvm-dev] Opportunity to split store of shuffled vector.

Possibly Parallel Threads