On Wed, 4 Nov 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
> Hi Richi,
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: rguent...@c653.arch.suse.de <rguent...@c653.arch.suse.de> On
> > Behalf Of Richard Biener
> > Sent: Wednesday, November 4, 2020 8:07 AM
> > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; o...@ucw.cz
> > Subject: RE: [PATCH] SLP: Move load/store-lanes check till late
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Richi,
> > >
> > > We decided to take the regression in any code-gen this could give and
> > > fix it properly next stage-1. As such here's a new patch based on
> > > your previous feedback.
> > >
> > > Ok for master?
> >
> > Looks good sofar but be aware that you elide the
> >
> > - && vect_store_lanes_supported
> > - (STMT_VINFO_VECTYPE (scalar_stmts[0]), group_size,
> > false))
> >
> > part of the check - that is, you don't verify the store part of the
> > instance can
> > use store-lanes. Btw, this means the original code cancelled an instance
> > only
> > when the SLP graph entry is a store-lane capable store but your variant
> > would also cancel in case there's a load-lane capable reduction.
> >
>
> I do still have it,
>
> if (loads_permuted
> && vect_store_lanes_supported (vectype, group_size, false))
>
> I just grab the type from the SLP_TREE_VECTYPE (slp_root); which should be
> the store if
> one exists.
Ah, I see.
> > I think that you eventually want to re-instantiate the store-lane check but
> > treat it the same as any of the load checks (thus not require all instances
> > to
> > be stores for the cancellation).
> > But at least when a store cannot use store-lanes we probably shouldn't
> > cancel the SLP.
>
> I did however elide the kind check, that was added as part of the rebase, it
> looked like kind wasn't
> Being stored inside the SLP instance and I'd have to redo the analysis to
> find it.
>
> Does it does reasonable to include kind as a field in the SLP instance?
Yeah, it's on my list of things - I just didn't (yet) have a use outside
of the current narrow scope. So feel free to add a field to the SLP
instance and move the enum to tree-vectorizer.h.
> >
> > Anyway, the patch is OK for master. The store-lane check part can be re-
> > added as followup.
> >
>
> Thanks! Will do.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Tamar
> > >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_analyze_slp_instance): Moved load/store
> > lanes
> > > check to ...
> > > * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): ..Here
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-11b.c: Update output scan.
> > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-6.c: Likewise.
> > >
> > > > -----Original Message-----
> > > > From: rguent...@c653.arch.suse.de <rguent...@c653.arch.suse.de> On
> > > > Behalf Of Richard Biener
> > > > Sent: Thursday, October 22, 2020 9:44 AM
> > > > To: Tamar Christina <tamar.christ...@arm.com>
> > > > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; nd <n...@arm.com>; o...@ucw.cz
> > > > Subject: Re: [PATCH] SLP: Move load/store-lanes check till late
> > > >
> > > > On Wed, 21 Oct 2020, Tamar Christina wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi All,
> > > > >
> > > > > This moves the code that checks for load/store lanes further in
> > > > > the pipeline and places it after slp_optimize. This would allow
> > > > > us to perform optimizations on the SLP tree and only bail out if
> > > > > we really have a
> > > > permute.
> > > > >
> > > > > With this change it allows us to handle permutes such as {1,1,1,1}
> > > > > which should be handled by a load and replicate.
> > > > >
> > > > > This change however makes it all or nothing. Either all instances
> > > > > can be handled or none at all. This is why some of the test cases
> > > > > have been
> > > > adjusted.
> > > >
> > > > So this possibly leaves a loop unvectorized in case there's a
> > > > ldN/stN opportunity but another SLP instance with a permutation not
> > > > handled by interleaving is present. What I was originally
> > > > suggesting is to only cancel the SLP build if _all_ instances can be
> > > > handled
> > with ldN/stN.
> > > >
> > > > Of course I'm also happy with completely removing this heuristics.
> > > >
> > > > Note some of the comments look off now, also the assignment to ok
> > > > before the goto is pointless and you should probably turn this into
> > > > a dump print instead.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Richard.
> > > >
> > > > > Bootstrapped Regtested on aarch64-none-linux-gnu,
> > > > > -x86_64-pc-linux-gnu and no issues.
> > > > >
> > > > > Ok for master?
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > > Thanks,
> > > > > Tamar
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * tree-vect-slp.c (vect_analyze_slp_instance): Moved load/store
> > > > lanes
> > > > > check to ...
> > > > > * tree-vect-loop.c (vect_analyze_loop_2): ..Here
> > > > >
> > > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > > >
> > > > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-11b.c: Update output scan.
> > > > > * gcc.dg/vect/slp-perm-6.c: Likewise.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > > > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409
> > > > Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imend
> > >
> >
> > --
> > Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
> > SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409
> > Nuernberg, Germany; GF: Felix Imend
>
--
Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de>
SUSE Software Solutions Germany GmbH, Maxfeldstrasse 5, 90409 Nuernberg,
Germany; GF: Felix Imend
