Sorry, I realised later that I had an implicit assumption here:
if there are multiple rgroups, it's better to have a single IV
for the smallest rgroup and scale that up to bigger rgroups.
E.g. if the loop control IV is taken from an N-control rgroup
and has a step S, an N*M-control rgroup would be based on M*S.
Of course, it's also OK to create multiple IVs if you prefer.
It's just a question of which approach gives the best output
in practice.
Another way of going from an N-control rgroup ("G1") to an N*M-control
rgroup ("G2") would be to reuse all N controls from G1. E.g. the
first M controls in G2 would come from G1[0], the next M from
G1[1], etc. That might lower the longest dependency chain.
But whatever we do, it doesn't feel like max_nscalars_per_iter
should be part of the decision. (I realise it will be part of
the decision for the follow-on SELECT_IV patch. But that's
because we require the number of elements processed in each
iteration to be a multiple of max_nscalars_per_iter, and AIUI
SELECT_IV wouldn't guarantee that. max_nscalars_per_iter shouldn't
matter for the current patch though.)
钟居哲 <[email protected]> writes:
> Hi, Richard. It's quite complicated for me and I am not sure whether I can
> catch up with you.
> So I will rather split the work step by step to implement the decrement IV
>
> For the first step you mentioned:
>
>>> (1) In vect_set_loop_condition_partial_vectors, for the first iteration of:
>
> >> FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (*controls, i, rgc)
> >> if (!rgc->controls.is_empty ())
>
>>> call vect_set_loop_controls_directly. That is:
>
>>> >> /* See whether zero-based IV would ever generate all-false masks
>>> or zero length before wrapping around. */
>>> bool might_wrap_p = vect_rgroup_iv_might_wrap_p (loop_vinfo, rgc);
>>>
> /* Set up all controls for this group. */
>>> test_ctrl = vect_set_loop_controls_directly (loop, loop_vinfo,
> >> &preheader_seq,
> >> &header_seq,
> >> loop_cond_gsi, rgc,
> >> niters, niters_skip,
> >> might_wrap_p);
>
>>> needs to be an "if" that (for LOOP_VINFO_USING_DECREMENTING_IV_P)
>>> is only executed on the first iteration.
>
> Is it correct like this?
>
> FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (*controls, i, rgc)
> if (!rgc->controls.is_empty ())
> {
> /* First try using permutes. This adds a single vector
> instruction to the loop for each mask, but needs no extra
> loop invariants or IVs. */
> unsigned int nmasks = i + 1;
> if (use_masks_p && (nmasks & 1) == 0)
> {
> rgroup_controls *half_rgc = &(*controls)[nmasks / 2 - 1];
> if (!half_rgc->controls.is_empty ()
> && vect_maybe_permute_loop_masks (&header_seq, rgc, half_rgc))
> continue;
> }
>
> /* See whether zero-based IV would ever generate all-false masks
> or zero length before wrapping around. */
> bool might_wrap_p = vect_rgroup_iv_might_wrap_p (loop_vinfo, rgc);
>
> /* Set up all controls for this group. */
> test_ctrl = vect_set_loop_controls_directly (loop, loop_vinfo,
> &preheader_seq,
> &header_seq,
> loop_cond_gsi, rgc,
> niters, niters_skip,
> might_wrap_p);
>
> /* Decrement IV only run vect_set_loop_controls_directly once. */
> if (LOOP_VINFO_USING_DECREMENTING_IV_P (loop_vinfo))
> break;
> }
I meant something like:
FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (*controls, i, rgc)
if (!rgc->controls.is_empty ())
{
/* First try using permutes. This adds a single vector
instruction to the loop for each mask, but needs no extra
loop invariants or IVs. */
unsigned int nmasks = i + 1;
if (use_masks_p && (nmasks & 1) == 0)
{
rgroup_controls *half_rgc = &(*controls)[nmasks / 2 - 1];
if (!half_rgc->controls.is_empty ()
&& vect_maybe_permute_loop_masks (&header_seq, rgc, half_rgc))
continue;
}
if (!LOOP_VINFO_USING_DECREMENTING_IV_P (loop_vinfo)
|| !LOOP_VINFO_DECREMENTING_IV_STEP (loop_info))
{
/* See whether zero-based IV would ever generate all-false masks
or zero length before wrapping around. */
bool might_wrap_p = vect_rgroup_iv_might_wrap_p (loop_vinfo, rgc);
/* Set up all controls for this group. */
test_ctrl = vect_set_loop_controls_directly (loop, loop_vinfo,
&preheader_seq,
&header_seq,
loop_cond_gsi, rgc,
niters, niters_skip,
might_wrap_p);
}
if (LOOP_VINFO_USING_DECREMENTING_IV_P (loop_vinfo)
&& rgc->controls.length () > 1)
...use vect_adjust_loop_lens_control...
}
where LOOP_VINFO_DECREMENTING_IV_STEP (loop_info) is "S" from my
previous review.
vect_set_loop_controls_directly would then set
LOOP_VINFO_DECREMENTING_IV_STEP but would not call
vect_adjust_loop_lens_control.
But like I say, this is all based on the assumption that we should
have a single IV and scale it up for later rgroups. If you'd prefer
separate IVs then that's fine. But then I think it's less clear
why we have:
> + if (LOOP_VINFO_USING_DECREMENTING_IV_P (loop_vinfo)
> + && rgc->max_nscalars_per_iter == 1
> + && rgc != &LOOP_VINFO_LENS (loop_vinfo)[0])
> + {
> + /* Multiple rgroup (non-SLP):
> + ...
> + _38 = (unsigned long) n_12(D);
> + ...
> + # ivtmp_38 = PHI <ivtmp_39(3), 100(2)>
> + ...
> + _40 = MIN_EXPR <ivtmp_38, POLY_INT_CST [8, 8]>;
> + loop_len_21 = MIN_EXPR <_40, POLY_INT_CST [2, 2]>;
> + _41 = _40 - loop_len_21;
> + loop_len_20 = MIN_EXPR <_41, POLY_INT_CST [2, 2]>;
> + _42 = _40 - loop_len_20;
> + loop_len_19 = MIN_EXPR <_42, POLY_INT_CST [2, 2]>;
> + _43 = _40 - loop_len_19;
> + loop_len_16 = MIN_EXPR <_43, POLY_INT_CST [2, 2]>;
> + ...
> + vect__4.8_15 = .LEN_LOAD (_6, 64B, loop_len_21, 0);
> + ...
> + vect__4.9_8 = .LEN_LOAD (_13, 64B, loop_len_20, 0);
> + ...
> + vect__4.10_28 = .LEN_LOAD (_46, 64B, loop_len_19, 0);
> + ...
> + vect__4.11_30 = .LEN_LOAD (_49, 64B, loop_len_16, 0);
> + vect__7.13_31 = VEC_PACK_TRUNC_EXPR <vect__4.8_15, vect__4.9_8>;
> + vect__7.13_32 = VEC_PACK_TRUNC_EXPR <...>;
> + vect__7.12_33 = VEC_PACK_TRUNC_EXPR <...>;
> + ...
> + .LEN_STORE (_14, 16B, _40, vect__7.12_33, 0);
> + ivtmp_39 = ivtmp_38 - _40;
> + ...
> + if (ivtmp_39 != 0)
> + goto <bb 3>; [92.31%]
> + else
> + goto <bb 4>; [7.69%]
> + */
> + rgroup_controls *sub_rgc
> + = &(*controls)[nmasks / rgc->controls.length () - 1];
> + if (!sub_rgc->controls.is_empty ())
> + {
> + tree iv_type = LOOP_VINFO_RGROUP_IV_TYPE (loop_vinfo);
> + vect_adjust_loop_lens_control (iv_type, &header_seq, rgc,
> + sub_rgc, NULL_TREE);
> + continue;
> + }
> + }
In other words, why is this different from what
vect_set_loop_controls_directly would do?
Thanks,
Richard
