On Fri, 21 Apr 2023 at 14:47, Richard Sandiford
<richard.sandif...@arm.com> wrote:
>
> Prathamesh Kulkarni <prathamesh.kulka...@linaro.org> writes:
> > Hi,
> > I tested the interleave+zip1 for vector init patch and it segfaulted
> > during bootstrap while trying to build
> > libgfortran/generated/matmul_i2.c.
> > Rebuilding with --enable-checking=rtl showed out of bounds access in
> > aarch64_unzip_vector_init in following hunk:
> >
> > + rtvec vec = rtvec_alloc (n / 2);
> > + for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
> > + RTVEC_ELT (vec, i) = (even_p) ? XVECEXP (vals, 0, 2 * i)
> > + : XVECEXP (vals, 0, 2 * i + 1);
> >
> > which is incorrect since it allocates n/2 but iterates and stores upto n.
> > The attached patch fixes the issue, which passed bootstrap, however
> > resulted in following fallout during testsuite run:
> >
> > 1] sve/acle/general/dupq_[1-4].c tests fail.
> > For the following test:
> > int32x4_t f(int32_t x)
> > {
> > return (int32x4_t) { x, 1, 2, 3 };
> > }
> >
> > Code-gen without patch:
> > f:
> > adrp x1, .LC0
> > ldr q0, [x1, #:lo12:.LC0]
> > ins v0.s[0], w0
> > ret
> >
> > Code-gen with patch:
> > f:
> > movi v0.2s, 0x2
> > adrp x1, .LC0
> > ldr d1, [x1, #:lo12:.LC0]
> > ins v0.s[0], w0
> > zip1 v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
> > ret
> >
> > It shows, fallback_seq_cost = 20, seq_total_cost = 16
> > where seq_total_cost determines the cost for interleave+zip1 sequence
> > and fallback_seq_cost is the cost for fallback sequence.
> > Altho it shows lesser cost, I am not sure if the interleave+zip1
> > sequence is better in this case ?
>
> Debugging the patch, it looks like this is because the fallback sequence
> contains a redundant pseudo-to-pseudo move, which is costed as 1
> instruction (4 units). The RTL equivalent of the:
>
> movi v0.2s, 0x2
> ins v0.s[0], w0
>
> has a similar redundant move, but the cost of that move is subsumed by
> the cost of the other arm (the load from LC0), which is costed as 3
> instructions (12 units). So we have 12 + 4 for the parallel version
> (correct) but 12 + 4 + 4 for the serial version (one instruction too
> many).
>
> The reason we have redundant moves is that the expansion code uses
> copy_to_mode_reg to force a value into a register. This creates a
> new pseudo even if the original value was already a register.
> Using force_reg removes the moves and makes the test pass.
>
> So I think the first step is to use force_reg instead of
> copy_to_mode_reg in aarch64_simd_dup_constant and
> aarch64_expand_vector_init (as a preparatory patch).
Thanks for the clarification!
>
> > 2] sve/acle/general/dupq_[5-6].c tests fail:
> > int32x4_t f(int32_t x0, int32_t x1, int32_t x2, int32_t x3)
> > {
> > return (int32x4_t) { x0, x1, x2, x3 };
> > }
> >
> > code-gen without patch:
> > f:
> > fmov s0, w0
> > ins v0.s[1], w1
> > ins v0.s[2], w2
> > ins v0.s[3], w3
> > ret
> >
> > code-gen with patch:
> > f:
> > fmov s0, w0
> > fmov s1, w1
> > ins v0.s[1], w2
> > ins v1.s[1], w3
> > zip1 v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
> > ret
> >
> > It shows fallback_seq_cost = 28, seq_total_cost = 16
>
> The zip verson still wins after the fix above, but by a lesser amount.
> It seems like a borderline case.
>
> >
> > 3] aarch64/ldp_stp_16.c's cons2_8_float test fails.
> > Test case:
> > void cons2_8_float(float *x, float val0, float val1)
> > {
> > #pragma GCC unroll(8)
> > for (int i = 0; i < 8 * 2; i += 2) {
> > x[i + 0] = val0;
> > x[i + 1] = val1;
> > }
> > }
> >
> > which is lowered to:
> > void cons2_8_float (float * x, float val0, float val1)
> > {
> > vector(4) float _86;
> >
> > <bb 2> [local count: 119292720]:
> > _86 = {val0_11(D), val1_13(D), val0_11(D), val1_13(D)};
> > MEM <vector(4) float> [(float *)x_10(D)] = _86;
> > MEM <vector(4) float> [(float *)x_10(D) + 16B] = _86;
> > MEM <vector(4) float> [(float *)x_10(D) + 32B] = _86;
> > MEM <vector(4) float> [(float *)x_10(D) + 48B] = _86;
> > return;
> > }
> >
> > code-gen without patch:
> > cons2_8_float:
> > dup v0.4s, v0.s[0]
> > ins v0.s[1], v1.s[0]
> > ins v0.s[3], v1.s[0]
> > stp q0, q0, [x0]
> > stp q0, q0, [x0, 32]
> > ret
> >
> > code-gen with patch:
> > cons2_8_float:
> > dup v1.2s, v1.s[0]
> > dup v0.2s, v0.s[0]
> > zip1 v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
> > stp q0, q0, [x0]
> > stp q0, q0, [x0, 32]
> > ret
> >
> > It shows fallback_seq_cost = 28, seq_total_cost = 16
> >
> > I think the test fails because it doesn't match:
> > ** dup v([0-9]+)\.4s, .*
> >
> > Shall it be OK to amend the test assuming code-gen with patch is better ?
>
> Yeah, the new code seems like an improvement.
>
> > 4] aarch64/pr109072_1.c s32x4_3 test fails:
> > For the following test:
> > int32x4_t s32x4_3 (int32_t x, int32_t y)
> > {
> > int32_t arr[] = { x, y, y, y };
> > return vld1q_s32 (arr);
> > }
> >
> > code-gen without patch:
> > s32x4_3:
> > dup v0.4s, w1
> > ins v0.s[0], w0
> > ret
> >
> > code-gen with patch:
> > s32x4_3:
> > fmov s1, w1
> > fmov s0, w0
> > ins v0.s[1], v1.s[0]
> > dup v1.2s, v1.s[0]
> > zip1 v0.4s, v0.4s, v1.4s
> > ret
> >
> > It shows fallback_seq_cost = 20, seq_total_cost = 16
> > I am not sure how interleave+zip1 cost is lesser than fallback seq
> > cost for this case.
> > I assume that the fallback sequence is better here ?
>
> The fix for 1] works for this case too.
Indeed, I verified using force_reg fixes the issues.
I will send a follow up patch after the preparatory patch using force_reg.
Thanks,
Prathamesh
>
> Thanks,
> Richard
