ABataev added inline comments.
================
Comment at: lib/CodeGen/CGOpenMPRuntime.cpp:8739
+/// // For each component specified by this mapper:
+/// if (currentComponent.hasMapper())
+/// (*currentComponent.Mapper())(rt_mapper_handle, arg_base, arg_begin,
----------------
lildmh wrote:
> ABataev wrote:
> > lildmh wrote:
> > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lildmh wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ABataev wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Currently `currentComponent` is generated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > by the compiler. But can we instead pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this data as an extra parameter to this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > `omp_mapper` function.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Emm, I think this scheme will be very
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > difficult and inefficient. If we pass
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > components as an argument of `omp_mapper`
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > function, it means that the runtime needs to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > generate all components related to a map
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clause. I don't think the runtime is able to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > do that efficiently. On the other hand, in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the current scheme, these components are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > naturally generated by the compiler, and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime only needs to know the base pointer,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pointer, type, size. etc.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > With the current scheme, we may end with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code blowout. We need to generate very similar
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code for different types and variables. The
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > worst thing here is that we will be unable to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > optimize this huge amount of code because the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > codegen relies on the runtime functions and the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > code cannot be inlined. That's why I would like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to move as much as possible code to the runtime
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > rather than to emit it in the compiler.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I understand your concerns. I think this is the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > best we can do right now.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The most worrisome case will be when we have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > nested mappers within each other. In this case, a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mapper function will call another mapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > function. We can inline the inner mapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > functions in this scenario, so that these mapper
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > function can be properly optimized. As a result,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think the performance should be fine.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead, we can use indirect function calls passed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the array to the runtime. Do you think it is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > going to be slower? In your current scheme, we
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > generate many runtime calls instead. Could you try
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to estimate the number of calls in cases if we'll
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call the mappers through the indirect function
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > calls and in your cuurent scheme, where we need to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > call the runtime functions many times in each
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > particular mapper?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Sorry I don't understand your idea. What indirect
> > > > > > > > > > > > > function calls do you propose to be passed to the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > runtime? What are these functions supposed to do?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > The number of function calls will be exactly equal to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the number of components mapped, no matter whether
> > > > > > > > > > > > > there are nested mappers or not. The number of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > components depend on the program. E.g., if we map a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > large array section, then there will be many more
> > > > > > > > > > > > > function calls.
> > > > > > > > > > > > I mean the pointers to the mapper function, generated
> > > > > > > > > > > > by the compiler. In your comment, it is `c.Mapper()`
> > > > > > > > > > > If we pass nested mapper functions to the runtime, I
> > > > > > > > > > > think it will slow down execution because of the extra
> > > > > > > > > > > level of indirect function calls. E.g., the runtime will
> > > > > > > > > > > call `omp_mapper1`, which calls the runtime back, which
> > > > > > > > > > > calls `omp_mapper2`, .... This can result in a deep call
> > > > > > > > > > > stack.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I think the current implementation will be more
> > > > > > > > > > > efficient, which doesn't pass nested mappers to the
> > > > > > > > > > > runtime. One call to the outer most mapper function will
> > > > > > > > > > > have all data mapping done. The call stack will be 2
> > > > > > > > > > > level deep (the first level is the mapper function, and
> > > > > > > > > > > the second level is `__tgt_push_mapper_component`) in
> > > > > > > > > > > this case from the runtime. There are also more compiler
> > > > > > > > > > > optimization space when we inline all nested mapper
> > > > > > > > > > > functions.
> > > > > > > > > > Yes, if we leave it as is. But if instead of the bunch
> > > > > > > > > > unique functions we'll have the common one, that accept
> > > > > > > > > > list if indirect pointers to functions additionally, and
> > > > > > > > > > move it to the runtime library, we won't need those 2
> > > > > > > > > > functions we have currently. We'll have full access to the
> > > > > > > > > > mapping data vector in the runtime library and won't need
> > > > > > > > > > to use those 2 accessors we have currently. Instead, we'll
> > > > > > > > > > need just one runtime functions, which implements the whole
> > > > > > > > > > mapping logic. We still need to call it recursively, but I
> > > > > > > > > > assume the number of calls will remain the same as in the
> > > > > > > > > > current scheme. Did you understand the idea? If yes, it
> > > > > > > > > > would good if you coild try to estimate the number of
> > > > > > > > > > function calls in current scheme and in this new scheme to
> > > > > > > > > > estimate possible pros and cons.
> > > > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Could you give an example for this scheme? 1) I don't
> > > > > > > > > understand how the mapper function can have full access to
> > > > > > > > > the mapping data vector without providing these 2 accessors.
> > > > > > > > > 2) I don't think it is possible to have a common function
> > > > > > > > > instead of bunch of unique functions for each mapper declared.
> > > > > > > > Hi Lingda, something like this.
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > > void __tgt_mapper(void *base, void *begin, size_t size, int64_t
> > > > > > > > type, auto components[]) {
> > > > > > > > // Allocate space for an array section first.
> > > > > > > > if (size > 1 && !maptype.IsDelete)
> > > > > > > > <push>(base, begin, size*sizeof(Ty), clearToFrom(type));
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > // Map members.
> > > > > > > > for (unsigned i = 0; i < size; i++) {
> > > > > > > > // For each component specified by this mapper:
> > > > > > > > for (auto c : components) {
> > > > > > > > if (c.hasMapper())
> > > > > > > > (*c.Mapper())(c.arg_base, c.arg_begin, c.arg_size,
> > > > > > > > c.arg_type);
> > > > > > > > else
> > > > > > > > <push>(c.arg_base, c.arg_begin, c.arg_size,
> > > > > > > > c.arg_type);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > // Delete the array section.
> > > > > > > > if (size > 1 && maptype.IsDelete)
> > > > > > > > <push>(base, begin, size*sizeof(Ty), clearToFrom(type));
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > void <type>.mapper(void *base, void *begin, size_t size,
> > > > > > > > int64_t type) {
> > > > > > > > auto sub_components[] = {...};
> > > > > > > > __tgt_mapper(base, begin, size, type, sub_components);
> > > > > > > > }
> > > > > > > > ```
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I don't think this scheme is more efficient than the current
> > > > > > > scheme. My reasons are:
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 1) Most code here is essentially to generate `components`, i.e.,
> > > > > > > we need to generate `c.arg_base, c.arg_begin, c.arg_size,
> > > > > > > c.arg_type` for each `c` in `components`, so there will still be
> > > > > > > a lot of code in `<type>.mapper`. It will not reduce the mapper
> > > > > > > function code, i.e., we will still have a bunch of unique mapper
> > > > > > > functions.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 2) This scheme will prevent a lot of compiler optimization from
> > > > > > > happening. In reality, a lot of computation should be redundant.
> > > > > > > E.g., for two components `c1` and `c2`, `c1`'s base may be the
> > > > > > > same as `c2`'s begin, so the compiler will be able to eliminate
> > > > > > > these reduction computation, especially when we inline all nested
> > > > > > > mapper functions together. If we move these computation into the
> > > > > > > runtime, the compiler will not be able to do such optimization.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > 3) In terms of the number of `push` function calls, this scheme
> > > > > > > has the exact same number of calls as the current scheme, so I
> > > > > > > don't think this scheme can bring performance benefits. The
> > > > > > > scheme should perform worse than the current scheme, because it
> > > > > > > reduces the opportunities of compiler optimization as mentioned
> > > > > > > above.
> > > > > > Hi Lingda, I'm trying to simplify the code generated by clang and
> > > > > > avoid some unnecessary code duplications. If the complexity of this
> > > > > > scheme is the same as proposed by you, I would prefer to use this
> > > > > > scheme unless there are some other opinions.
> > > > > > 1. It is not a problem. This code is unique and is not duplicated
> > > > > > in the different mappers.
> > > > > > 2. Inlining is no solution here. We still generate to much code,
> > > > > > which is almost the same in many cases and it will lead to very
> > > > > > ineffective codegen because we still end up with a lot of almost
> > > > > > the same code. This also might lead to poor performance.
> > > > > > 3. Yes, the number of pushes is always the same, in all possible
> > > > > > schemes. It would be good to compare somehow the performance of
> > > > > > both schemes, at least preliminary.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also, this solution reduces the number of required runtime
> > > > > > functions, instead of 2 we need just 1 and, thus, we need to make
> > > > > > fewer runtime functions calls.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think it would better to propose this scheme as an alternate
> > > > > > design and discuss it in the OpenMP telecon. What do you think? Or
> > > > > > we can try to discuss it in the offline mode via the e-mail with
> > > > > > other members.
> > > > > > I'm not trying to convince you to implement this scheme right now,
> > > > > > but it would be good to discuss it. Maybe it will lead to some
> > > > > > better ideas from others?
> > > > > Hi Alexey,
> > > > >
> > > > > I still prefer the current scheme, because:
> > > > > 1) I don't like recursive mapper calls, which goes back to my
> > > > > original scheme a little bit. I really think inlining can make a big
> > > > > difference when we have nested mappers. These compiler optimizations
> > > > > are the keys to have better performance for mappers.
> > > > > 2) I don't think the codegen here is inefficient. Yes there is
> > > > > duplicated code across different mapper functions, but why that will
> > > > > lead to poor performance?
> > > > > 3) Although we have 2 runtime functions now, the
> > > > > `__tgt_mapper_num_components` is called only once per mapper. It
> > > > > should have very negligible performance impact.
> > > > >
> > > > > But if you have a different option, we can discuss it next time in
> > > > > the meeting. I do have a time constraint to work on the mapper
> > > > > implementation. I'll no longer work in this project starting this
> > > > > September, and I have about 30% of my time working on it until then.
> > > > Lingda,
> > > > 1. We have recursive (actually, not recursive, because you cannot use
> > > > types recursively) mappers calls anyway, it is nature of
> > > > struсtures/classes.
> > > > 2. We have a lot of similar code. And I'm not sure that it can be
> > > > optimized out.
> > > > 3. Yes, but it means that we have n extra runtime calls, where n is the
> > > > number of branches in the structure/class tree.
> > > >
> > > > I see :(. I understand your concern. In this case, we could try to
> > > > discuss it offline, in the mailing list, to make it a little bit
> > > > faster. We just need to hear other opinions on this matter, maybe there
> > > > are some other pros and cons for these schemes.
> > > Hi Alexey,
> > >
> > > Sure, let's discuss this in the mailing list. I'll summarize it and send
> > > it to the mailing list later.
> > >
> > > > We have recursive (actually, not recursive, because you cannot use
> > > > types recursively) mappers calls anyway, it is nature of
> > > > struсtures/classes.
> > > We won't have recursive calls with inlining.
> > >
> > > > We have a lot of similar code. And I'm not sure that it can be
> > > > optimized out.
> > > I think it's even harder to optimized these code out when we move them
> > > into the runtime.
> > >
> > > > Yes, but it means that we have n extra runtime calls, where n is the
> > > > number of branches in the structure/class tree.
> > > I don't quite understand. It's still equal to the number of mappers in
> > > any case.
> > > Sure, let's discuss this in the mailing list. I'll summarize it and send
> > > it to the mailing list later.
> >
> > Good, thanks!
> >
> > > We won't have recursive calls with inlining.
> >
> > We won't have recursive calls anyway (recursive types are not allowed).
> > Plus, I'm not sure that inlining is the best option here. We have a lot of
> > code for each mapper and I'm not sure that the optimizer will be able to
> > squash it effectively.
> >
> > > I think it's even harder to optimized these code out when we move them
> > > into the runtime.
> >
> > Definitely not, unless we use LTO or inlined runtime.
> >
> > We won't have recursive calls anyway (recursive types are not allowed).
> > Plus, I'm not sure that inlining is the best option here. We have a lot of
> > code for each mapper and I'm not sure that the optimizer will be able to
> > squash it effectively.
> Sorry I should not say recursive calls. Here it needs to "recursively" call
> other mapper functions in case of nested mappers, but we don't need it in
> case of inlining.
>
> > Definitely not, unless we use LTO or inlined runtime.
> But you are proposing to move many code to the runtime here, right? That
> doesn't make sense to me.
>
> But you are proposing to move much code to the runtime here, right? That
> doesn't make sense to me.
I'm just not sure that there going be significant problems with the performance
because of that. And it significantly simplifies codegen in the compiler and
moves the common part into a single function.
Plus, if in future we'll need to modify this functionality for some reason, 2
different versions of the compiler will produce incompatible code. With my
scheme, you still can use old runtime and have the same functionality as the
old compiler and the new one.
CHANGES SINCE LAST ACTION
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474/new/
https://reviews.llvm.org/D59474
_______________________________________________
cfe-commits mailing list
cfe-commits@lists.llvm.org
https://lists.llvm.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/cfe-commits
