On 18/07/23 4:38 pm, Prathamesh Kulkarni wrote:
> On Tue, 18 Jul 2023 at 13:26, Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches
> <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
>>
>>
>> Ping!
>>
>> please review.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Ajit
>>
>>
>> This patch improves code sinking pass to sink statements before call to
>> reduce
>> register pressure.
>> Review comments are incorporated.
>>
>> For example :
>>
>> void bar();
>> int j;
>> void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
>> {
>> int l;
>> l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
>> if (a != 5)
>> {
>> bar();
>> j = l;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Code Sinking does the following:
>>
>> void bar();
>> int j;
>> void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
>> {
>> int l;
>>
>> if (a != 5)
>> {
>> l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
>> bar();
>> j = l;
>> }
>> }
>>
>> Bootstrapped regtested on powerpc64-linux-gnu.
>>
>> Thanks & Regards
>> Ajit
>>
>>
>> tree-ssa-sink: Improve code sinking pass
>>
>> Currently, code sinking will sink code after function calls. This increases
>> register pressure for callee-saved registers. The following patch improves
>> code sinking by placing the sunk code before calls in the use block or in
>> the immediate dominator of the use blocks.
>>
>> 2023-06-01 Ajit Kumar Agarwal <aagar...@linux.ibm.com>
>>
>> gcc/ChangeLog:
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/81953
>> * tree-ssa-sink.cc (statement_sink_location): Move statements before
>> calls.
>> (def_use_same_block): New function.
>> (select_best_block): Add heuristics to select the best blocks in the
>> immediate post dominator.
>>
>> gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
>>
>> PR tree-optimization/81953
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c: New testcase.
>> * gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c: New testcase.
>> ---
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c | 15 ++++
>> gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c | 19 +++++
>> gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc | 79 ++++++++++++++-------
>> 3 files changed, 87 insertions(+), 26 deletions(-)
>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
>> create mode 100644 gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..d3b79ca5803
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-20.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,15 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
>> +void bar();
>> +int j;
>> +void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
>> +{
>> + int l;
>> + l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
>> + if (a != 5)
>> + {
>> + bar();
>> + j = l;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump
>> {l_12\s+=\s+_4\s+\+\s+f_11\(D\);\n\s+bar\s+\(\)} sink1 } } */
>> diff --git a/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
>> b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
>> new file mode 100644
>> index 00000000000..84e7938c54f
>> --- /dev/null
>> +++ b/gcc/testsuite/gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ssa-sink-21.c
>> @@ -0,0 +1,19 @@
>> +/* { dg-do compile } */
>> +/* { dg-options "-O2 -fdump-tree-sink-stats" } */
>> +void bar();
>> +int j, x;
>> +void foo(int a, int b, int c, int d, int e, int f)
>> +{
>> + int l;
>> + l = a + b + c + d +e + f;
>> + if (a != 5)
>> + {
>> + bar();
>> + if (b != 3)
>> + x = 3;
>> + else
>> + x = 5;
>> + j = l;
>> + }
>> +}
>> +/* { dg-final { scan-tree-dump
>> {l_13\s+=\s+_4\s+\+\s+f_12\(D\);\n\s+bar\s+\(\)} sink1 } } */
>> diff --git a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
>> index b1ba7a2ad6c..113c89d0967 100644
>> --- a/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
>> +++ b/gcc/tree-ssa-sink.cc
>> @@ -171,9 +171,28 @@ nearest_common_dominator_of_uses (def_operand_p def_p,
>> bool *debug_stmts)
>> return commondom;
>> }
>>
>> +/* Return TRUE if immediate defs of STMT and STMT are in same
>> + * block, FALSE otherwise. */
>> +
>> +static bool
>> +def_use_same_block (gimple *stmt)
>> +{
>> + def_operand_p def;
>> + ssa_op_iter iter;
>> +
>> + FOR_EACH_SSA_DEF_OPERAND (def, stmt, iter, SSA_OP_DEF)
>> + {
>> + gimple *def_stmt = SSA_NAME_DEF_STMT (DEF_FROM_PTR (def));
>> + if ((gimple_bb (def_stmt) == gimple_bb (stmt)))
>> + return true;
> Hi Ajit,
> Just wondering, won't this always return true since you're iterating over
> defs,
> and def_stmt == stmt ? Sorry, if I misunderstood.
Hello Prathamesh:
In this passing we are passing use and in this function we are iterating over
defs
for the use and we are checking block of use (which is stmt) and def are in the
same
block or not. I dont think its always true.
Thanks & Regards
Ajit
>
> Thanks,
> Prathamesh
>> + }
>> + return false;
>> +}
>> +
>> /* Given EARLY_BB and LATE_BB, two blocks in a path through the dominator
>> tree, return the best basic block between them (inclusive) to place
>> - statements.
>> + statements. The best basic block should be an immediate dominator of
>> + best basic block if the use stmt is after the call.
>>
>> We want the most control dependent block in the shallowest loop nest.
>>
>> @@ -190,11 +209,22 @@ nearest_common_dominator_of_uses (def_operand_p def_p,
>> bool *debug_stmts)
>> static basic_block
>> select_best_block (basic_block early_bb,
>> basic_block late_bb,
>> - gimple *stmt)
>> + gimple *stmt,
>> + gimple *use)
>> {
>> basic_block best_bb = late_bb;
>> basic_block temp_bb = late_bb;
>> int threshold;
>> + /* Get the sinking threshold. If the statement to be moved has memory
>> + operands, then increase the threshold by 7% as those are even more
>> + profitable to avoid, clamping at 100%. */
>> + threshold = param_sink_frequency_threshold;
>> + if (gimple_vuse (stmt) || gimple_vdef (stmt))
>> + {
>> + threshold += 7;
>> + if (threshold > 100)
>> + threshold = 100;
>> + }
>>
>> while (temp_bb != early_bb)
>> {
>> @@ -203,34 +233,33 @@ select_best_block (basic_block early_bb,
>> if (bb_loop_depth (temp_bb) < bb_loop_depth (best_bb))
>> best_bb = temp_bb;
>>
>> + /* Placing a statement before a setjmp-like function would be invalid
>> + (it cannot be reevaluated when execution follows an abnormal edge).
>> + If we selected a block with abnormal predecessors, just punt. */
>> + if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (temp_bb))
>> + return early_bb;
>> +
>> + /* if we have temp_bb post dominated by use block and def
>> + and use are not in same block then immediate dominator
>> + would be our best block. */
>> + if (use
>> + && bb_loop_depth(temp_bb) == bb_loop_depth (early_bb)
>> + && !(temp_bb->count * 100 >= early_bb->count * threshold)
>> + && dominated_by_p (CDI_POST_DOMINATORS, temp_bb, gimple_bb (use))
>> + && !def_use_same_block (use))
>> + best_bb = temp_bb;
>> +
>> /* Walk up the dominator tree, hopefully we'll find a shallower
>> loop nest. */
>> temp_bb = get_immediate_dominator (CDI_DOMINATORS, temp_bb);
>> }
>>
>> - /* Placing a statement before a setjmp-like function would be invalid
>> - (it cannot be reevaluated when execution follows an abnormal edge).
>> - If we selected a block with abnormal predecessors, just punt. */
>> - if (bb_has_abnormal_pred (best_bb))
>> - return early_bb;
>> -
>> /* If we found a shallower loop nest, then we always consider that
>> a win. This will always give us the most control dependent block
>> within that loop nest. */
>> if (bb_loop_depth (best_bb) < bb_loop_depth (early_bb))
>> return best_bb;
>>
>> - /* Get the sinking threshold. If the statement to be moved has memory
>> - operands, then increase the threshold by 7% as those are even more
>> - profitable to avoid, clamping at 100%. */
>> - threshold = param_sink_frequency_threshold;
>> - if (gimple_vuse (stmt) || gimple_vdef (stmt))
>> - {
>> - threshold += 7;
>> - if (threshold > 100)
>> - threshold = 100;
>> - }
>> -
>> /* If BEST_BB is at the same nesting level, then require it to have
>> significantly lower execution frequency to avoid gratuitous movement.
>> */
>> if (bb_loop_depth (best_bb) == bb_loop_depth (early_bb)
>> @@ -439,7 +468,7 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block
>> frombb,
>> if (!dominated_by_p (CDI_DOMINATORS, commondom, frombb))
>> return false;
>>
>> - commondom = select_best_block (frombb, commondom, stmt);
>> + commondom = select_best_block (frombb, commondom, stmt, NULL);
>>
>> if (commondom == frombb)
>> return false;
>> @@ -456,19 +485,17 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block
>> frombb,
>> continue;
>> break;
>> }
>> +
>> use = USE_STMT (one_use);
>>
>> if (gimple_code (use) != GIMPLE_PHI)
>> {
>> - sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, gimple_bb (use), stmt);
>> + sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, gimple_bb (use), stmt, use);
>>
>> if (sinkbb == frombb)
>> return false;
>>
>> - if (sinkbb == gimple_bb (use))
>> - *togsi = gsi_for_stmt (use);
>> - else
>> - *togsi = gsi_after_labels (sinkbb);
>> + *togsi = gsi_after_labels (sinkbb);
>>
>> return true;
>> }
>> @@ -480,7 +507,7 @@ statement_sink_location (gimple *stmt, basic_block
>> frombb,
>> if (!sinkbb)
>> return false;
>>
>> - sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, sinkbb, stmt);
>> + sinkbb = select_best_block (frombb, sinkbb, stmt, NULL);
>> if (!sinkbb || sinkbb == frombb)
>> return false;
>>
>> --
>> 2.39.3
>>
Re: PING^1 [PATCH v7] tree-ssa-sink: Improve code sinking pass
Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches Tue, 18 Jul 2023 04:17:18 -0700
- [PATCH v7] tree-ssa-sink: Improve code... Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches
- PING^1 [PATCH v7] tree-ssa-sink: ... Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING^1 [PATCH v7] tree-ss... Prathamesh Kulkarni via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING^1 [PATCH v7] tre... Ajit Agarwal via Gcc-patches
- Re: PING^1 [PATCH v7]... Richard Biener via Gcc-patches
