On 3/3/20 8:37 PM, Chris Lattner wrote:> On Feb 28, 2020, at 6:03 PM, Chris Lattner <clattner at nondot.org
> <mailto:clattner at nondot.org>> wrote:
>>
>> On Feb 28, 2020, at 8:56 AM, Johannes Doerfert
>> <johannesdoerfert at gmail.com <mailto:johannesdoerfert at
gmail.com>> wrote:
>>> On 02/28, Nicholas Krause via llvm-dev wrote:
>>>> Anyhow what is the status and what parts are we planning to
move to
>>>> MLIR in LLVM/Clang. I've not seen any discussion on that
other than
>>>> starting to plan for it.
>>>
>>> As far as I know, there is no (detailed/discussed/agreed upon/...)
plan
>>> to move any existing functionality in LLVM-Core or Clang to MLIR.
There
>>> are some people that expressed interest in there is Chris's
plan on how
>>> the transition could look like.
>>
>> Yep, agreed, I gave a talk a couple days ago (with Tatiana) with a
>> proposed path forward, but explained it as one possible path. We’ll
>> share the slides publicly in a few days after a couple things get
>> taken care of.
>
> Hi all,
>
> Here is a link to the CGO presentation slides
>
<https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/11-VjSNNNJoRhPlLxFgvtb909it1WNdxTnQFipryfAPU/edit#slide=id.g7d334b12e5_0_4> (outlining
> a possible path to incremental adoption of MLIR in Clang) for anyone
> curious.
>
> -Chris
Greetings,
As to David Blaike's suggestion I'm merging the two threads for this
discussion. The original commenters is Johannes Doefert
starting with Hey,:> Hey,
>
> Apologies for the wait, everything right now is going crazy..
Compiler Folks are very busy people as there aren't as much of us
unfortunately so no need to
apologize. I've yet to heard from someone on the GCC side and will wait
until after GCC 11
is released due to this. Also not to mention the health issues of
Coronavirus-19.>
> I think we should early in move this conversation on the llvm Dev list
> but generally speaking we can see three options here:
> 1) parallelize single passes or a subset of passes that are known to
> not interfer, e.g. the attributor,
> 2) parallelize analysis pass execution before a transformation that
> needs them,
> 3) investigate what needs to be done for a parallel execution of many
> passes, e.g. How can we avoid races on shared structure such as the
> constant pool.
I was researching this on and off for the last few months in terms of
figuring out how to make the pass manager itself async. Its not easy and
I'm not even
sure if that's possible. Not sure about GIMPLE as I would have to ask
the middle end maintainer on the GCC side but LLVM IR does not seem to
have shared
state detection or the core classes and same for the back ends. So yes
this would interest me.
The first place to start with is which data structures are shared for
sure. The biggest ones seem to be basic blocks and function definitions
in terms of shared state, as
those would be shared by passes running on each function. We should
start looking at implementing here locks or ref counting here first if
your OK with that.
It also allows me to understand a little more concrete the linkage
between the core classes as would be required for multi threading LLVM.
In addition,
it allows us to look into partitioning issues with threads at the same
thing in terms of how to do it.
As was discussed on the previous thread - generally the assumption is
that one wouldn't try to run two function optimizations on the same
function at the same time, but, for instance - run function
optimizations on unrelated functions at the same time (or CGSCC passes
on distinct CGSCCs). But this is difficult in LLVM IR because use lists
are shared - so if two functions use the same global variable or call
the same 3rd function, optimizing out a function call from each of those
functions becomes a write to shared state when trying to update the use
list of that 3rd function. MLIR apparently has a different design in
this regard that is intended to be more amenable to these situations.
If others want to chip it as I've CCed the list, that's fine as well and
this should be up for discussion with the whole community.
I've given up on the idea of a async pass manager as it seems to require
IR level detection of changed state between passes but maybe I'm wrong,
The other part of this discussion before Hey is already on this thread,
Nick
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20200318/ce20f3d8/attachment.html>