llvm dev - Apr 2021 - NVPTX codegen for llvm.sin (and friends)

>
> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:56:32 -0400
> From: William Moses via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
> To: Artem Belevich <tra at google.com>
> ...
>
> Hi all,
>
> Reviving this thread as Johannes and I recently had some time to take a
> look and do some additional design work. We'd love any thoughts on the
> following proposal.
>
Keenly interested in this. Simplification (subjective) of the metadata
proposal at the end. Some extra background info first though as GPU libm is
a really interesting design space. When I did the bring up for a different
architecture ~3 years ago, iirc I found the complete set:
- clang lowering libm (named functions) to intrinsics
- clang lowering intrinsic to libm functions
- optimisation passes that transform libm and ignore intrinsics
- optimisation passes that transform intrinsics and ignore libm
- selectiondag represents some intrinsics as nodes
- strength reduction, e.g. cos(double) -> cosf(float) under fast-math

I then wrote some more IR passes related to opencl-style vectorisation and
some combines to fill in the gaps (which have not reached upstream). So my
knowledge here is out of date but clang/llvm wasn't a totally consistent
lowering framework back then.

Cuda ships an IR library containing functions similar to libm. ROCm does
something similar, also IR. We do an impedance matching scheme in inline
headers which blocks various optimisations and poses some challenges for
fortran.

 *Background:*
> ...
> While in theory we could define the lowering of these intrinsics to be a
> table which looks up the correct __nv_sqrt, this would require the
> definition of all such functions to remain or otherwise be available. As
> it's undesirable for the LLVM backend to be aware of CUDA paths, etc,
this
> means that the original definitions brought in by merging libdevice.bc must
> be maintained. Currently these are deleted if they are unused (as libdevice
> has them marked as internal).
>
The deleting is it's own hazard in the context of fast-math, as the
function can be deleted, and then later an optimisation creates a reference
to it, which doesn't link. It also prevents the backend from (safely)
assuming the functions are available, which is moderately annoying for
lowering some SDag ISD nodes.

 2) GPU math functions aren't able to be optimized, unlike standard math
> functions.
>
This one is bad.

*Design Constraints:*
>
> To remedy the problems described above we need a design that meets the
> following:
> * Does not require modifying libdevice.bc or other code shipped by a
> vendor-specific installation
> * Allows llvm math intrinsics to be lowered to device-specific code
> * Keeps definitions of code used to implement intrinsics until after all
> potential relevant intrinsics (including those created by LLVM passes) have
> been lowered.
>
Yep, constraints sound right. Back ends can emit calls to these functions
too, but I think nvptx/amdgcn do not. Perhaps they would like to be able to
in places.

 *Initial Design:*
>
> ... metadata / aliases ...
>
Design would work, lets us continue with the header files we have now.
Avoids some tedious programming, i.e. if we approached this as the usual
back end lowering, where intrinsics / isd nodes are emitted as named
function calls. That can be mostly driven by a table lookup as the function
arity is limited. It is (i.e. was) quite tedious programming that in ISel.
Doing basically the same thing for SDag + GIsel / ptx + gcn, with
associated tests, is also unappealing.

The set of functions near libm is small and known. We would need to mark
'sin' as 'implemented by' slightly different functions for nvptx
and
amdgcn, and some of them need thin wrapper code (e.g. modf in amdgcn takes
an argument by pointer). It would be helpful for the fortran runtime
libraries effort if the implementation didn't use inline code in headers.

There's very close to a 1:1 mapping between the two gpu libraries, even
some extensions to libm exist in both. Therefore we could write a table,
{llvm.sin.f64, "sin", __nv_sin, __ocml_sin},
with NULL or similar for functions that aren't available.

A function level IR pass, called late in the pipeline, crawls the call
instructions and rewrites based on simple rules and that table. That is,
would rewrite a call to llvm.sin.f64 to a call to __ocml_sin. Exactly the
same net effect as a header file containing metadata annotations, except we
don't need the metadata machinery and we can use a single trivial IR pass
for N architectures (by adding a column). Pass can do the odd ugly thing
like impedance match function type easily enough.

The other side of the problem - that functions once introduced have to hang
around until we are sure they aren't needed - is the same as in your
proposal. My preference would be to introduce the libdevice functions
immediately after the lowering pass above, but we can inject it early and
tag them to avoid erasure instead. Kind of need that to handle the
cos->cosf transform anyway.

Quite similar to the 'in theory ... table' suggestion, which I like
because
I remember it being far simpler than the sdag rewrite rules.

Thanks!

Jon
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://lists.llvm.org/pipermail/llvm-dev/attachments/20210430/3b781c02/attachment.html>

+bump

Jon did respond positive to the proposal. I think the table implementation
vs the "implemented_by" implementation is something we can experiment
with.
I'm in favor of the latter as it is more general and can be used in other
places more easily, e.g., by providing source annotations. That said, having
the table version first would be a big step forward too.

I'd say, if we hear some other positive voices towards this we go ahead with
patches on phab. After an end-to-end series is approved we merge it 
together.

That said, people should chime in if they (dis)like the approach to get math
optimizations (and similar things) working on the GPU.

~ Johannes


On 4/29/21 6:25 PM, Jon Chesterfield via llvm-dev wrote:
>> Date: Wed, 28 Apr 2021 18:56:32 -0400
>> From: William Moses via llvm-dev <llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org>
>> To: Artem Belevich <tra at google.com>
>> ...
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Reviving this thread as Johannes and I recently had some time to take a
>> look and do some additional design work. We'd love any thoughts on
the
>> following proposal.
>>
> Keenly interested in this. Simplification (subjective) of the metadata
> proposal at the end. Some extra background info first though as GPU libm is
> a really interesting design space. When I did the bring up for a different
> architecture ~3 years ago, iirc I found the complete set:
> - clang lowering libm (named functions) to intrinsics
> - clang lowering intrinsic to libm functions
> - optimisation passes that transform libm and ignore intrinsics
> - optimisation passes that transform intrinsics and ignore libm
> - selectiondag represents some intrinsics as nodes
> - strength reduction, e.g. cos(double) -> cosf(float) under fast-math
>
> I then wrote some more IR passes related to opencl-style vectorisation and
> some combines to fill in the gaps (which have not reached upstream). So my
> knowledge here is out of date but clang/llvm wasn't a totally
consistent
> lowering framework back then.
>
> Cuda ships an IR library containing functions similar to libm. ROCm does
> something similar, also IR. We do an impedance matching scheme in inline
> headers which blocks various optimisations and poses some challenges for
> fortran.
>
>   *Background:*
>
>> ...
>> While in theory we could define the lowering of these intrinsics to be
a
>> table which looks up the correct __nv_sqrt, this would require the
>> definition of all such functions to remain or otherwise be available.
As
>> it's undesirable for the LLVM backend to be aware of CUDA paths,
etc, this
>> means that the original definitions brought in by merging libdevice.bc
must
>> be maintained. Currently these are deleted if they are unused (as
libdevice
>> has them marked as internal).
>>
> The deleting is it's own hazard in the context of fast-math, as the
> function can be deleted, and then later an optimisation creates a reference
> to it, which doesn't link. It also prevents the backend from (safely)
> assuming the functions are available, which is moderately annoying for
> lowering some SDag ISD nodes.
>
>   2) GPU math functions aren't able to be optimized, unlike standard
math
>
>> functions.
>>
> This one is bad.
>
> *Design Constraints:*
>> To remedy the problems described above we need a design that meets the
>> following:
>> * Does not require modifying libdevice.bc or other code shipped by a
>> vendor-specific installation
>> * Allows llvm math intrinsics to be lowered to device-specific code
>> * Keeps definitions of code used to implement intrinsics until after
all
>> potential relevant intrinsics (including those created by LLVM passes)
have
>> been lowered.
>>
> Yep, constraints sound right. Back ends can emit calls to these functions
> too, but I think nvptx/amdgcn do not. Perhaps they would like to be able to
> in places.
>
>   *Initial Design:*
>
>> ... metadata / aliases ...
>>
> Design would work, lets us continue with the header files we have now.
> Avoids some tedious programming, i.e. if we approached this as the usual
> back end lowering, where intrinsics / isd nodes are emitted as named
> function calls. That can be mostly driven by a table lookup as the function
> arity is limited. It is (i.e. was) quite tedious programming that in ISel.
> Doing basically the same thing for SDag + GIsel / ptx + gcn, with
> associated tests, is also unappealing.
>
> The set of functions near libm is small and known. We would need to mark
> 'sin' as 'implemented by' slightly different functions for
nvptx and
> amdgcn, and some of them need thin wrapper code (e.g. modf in amdgcn takes
> an argument by pointer). It would be helpful for the fortran runtime
> libraries effort if the implementation didn't use inline code in
headers.
>
> There's very close to a 1:1 mapping between the two gpu libraries, even
> some extensions to libm exist in both. Therefore we could write a table,
> {llvm.sin.f64, "sin", __nv_sin, __ocml_sin},
> with NULL or similar for functions that aren't available.
>
> A function level IR pass, called late in the pipeline, crawls the call
> instructions and rewrites based on simple rules and that table. That is,
> would rewrite a call to llvm.sin.f64 to a call to __ocml_sin. Exactly the
> same net effect as a header file containing metadata annotations, except we
> don't need the metadata machinery and we can use a single trivial IR
pass
> for N architectures (by adding a column). Pass can do the odd ugly thing
> like impedance match function type easily enough.
>
> The other side of the problem - that functions once introduced have to hang
> around until we are sure they aren't needed - is the same as in your
> proposal. My preference would be to introduce the libdevice functions
> immediately after the lowering pass above, but we can inject it early and
> tag them to avoid erasure instead. Kind of need that to handle the
> cos->cosf transform anyway.
>
> Quite similar to the 'in theory ... table' suggestion, which I like
because
> I remember it being far simpler than the sdag rewrite rules.
>
> Thanks!
>
> Jon
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> LLVM Developers mailing list
> llvm-dev at lists.llvm.org
> https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/llvm-dev