Xianmiao Qu <cooper...@linux.alibaba.com> writes:
> With the increase in the number of modes and patterns for some
> backend architectures, the place_operands function becomes a
> bottleneck in the speed of genoutput, and may even become a
> bottleneck in the overall speed of building the GCC project.
> This patch aims to accelerate the place_operands function,
> the optimizations it includes are:
> 1. Use a hash table to store operand information,
>    improving the lookup time for the first operand.
> 2. Move mode comparison to the beginning to avoid the scenarios of most 
> strcmp.
>
> I tested the speed improvements for the following backends,
>       Improvement Ratio
> x86_64        197.9%
> aarch64       954.5%
> riscv 2578.6%
> If the build machine is slow, then this improvement can save a lot of time.
>
> I tested the genoutput output for x86_64/aarch64/riscv backends,
> and there was no difference compared to before the optimization,
> so this shouldn't introduce any functional issues.

Looks like a nice speed-up thanks.

A couple of general points:

* Could you try using the more type-safe hash-table.h, instead of hashtab.h?
  Similarly inchash.h for the hashing.

* Although this wasn't always the style in older code, the preference now
  is to put new functions before their first use where possible, to avoid
  forward declarations.

A couple of very minor comments below.

> ---
>  gcc/genoutput.cc | 101 ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---
>  1 file changed, 95 insertions(+), 6 deletions(-)
>
> diff --git a/gcc/genoutput.cc b/gcc/genoutput.cc
> index efd81766bb5b..456d96112cfb 100644
> --- a/gcc/genoutput.cc
> +++ b/gcc/genoutput.cc
> @@ -112,6 +112,8 @@ static int next_operand_number = 1;
>  struct operand_data
>  {
>    struct operand_data *next;
> +  /* Point to the next member with the same hash value in the hash table.  */
> +  struct operand_data *eq_next;
>    int index;
>    const char *predicate;
>    const char *constraint;
> @@ -127,11 +129,12 @@ struct operand_data
>  
>  static struct operand_data null_operand =
>  {
> -  0, 0, "", "", E_VOIDmode, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
> +  0, 0, 0, "", "", E_VOIDmode, 0, 0, 0, 0, 0
>  };
>  
>  static struct operand_data *odata = &null_operand;
>  static struct operand_data **odata_end = &null_operand.next;
> +static htab_t operand_data_table;
>  
>  /* Must match the constants in recog.h.  */
>  
> @@ -180,6 +183,11 @@ static void place_operands (class data *);
>  static void process_template (class data *, const char *);
>  static void validate_insn_alternatives (class data *);
>  static void validate_insn_operands (class data *);
> +static hashval_t hash_struct_operand_data (const void *);
> +static int eq_struct_operand_data (const void *, const void *);
> +static void insert_operand_data (struct operand_data *);
> +static struct operand_data *lookup_operand_data (struct operand_data *);
> +static void init_operand_data_table (void);
>  
>  class constraint_data
>  {
> @@ -532,6 +540,13 @@ compare_operands (struct operand_data *d0, struct 
> operand_data *d1)
>  {
>    const char *p0, *p1;
>  
> +  /* On one hand, comparing strings for predicate and constraint
> +     is time-consuming, and on the other hand, the probability of
> +     different modes is relatively high. Therefore, checking the mode
> +     first can speed up the execution of the program.  */
> +  if (d0->mode != d1->mode)
> +    return 0;
> +
>    p0 = d0->predicate;
>    if (!p0)
>      p0 = "";
> @@ -550,9 +565,6 @@ compare_operands (struct operand_data *d0, struct 
> operand_data *d1)
>    if (strcmp (p0, p1) != 0)
>      return 0;
>  
> -  if (d0->mode != d1->mode)
> -    return 0;
> -
>    if (d0->strict_low != d1->strict_low)
>      return 0;
>  
> @@ -577,9 +589,9 @@ place_operands (class data *d)
>        return;
>      }
>  
> +  od = lookup_operand_data (&d->operand[0]);
>    /* Brute force substring search.  */
> -  for (od = odata, i = 0; od; od = od->next, i = 0)
> -    if (compare_operands (od, &d->operand[0]))
> +  for (i = 0; od; od = od->eq_next, i = 0)

I think we should move the i = 0 to after the loop, for the "no match" case.
As it stands, each iteration immediate sets i to 1.

The loop body should be moved 2 columns to the left, to account for the
removed if condition.

Richard

>        {
>       od2 = od->next;
>       i = 1;
> @@ -605,6 +617,7 @@ place_operands (class data *d)
>        *odata_end = od2;
>        odata_end = &od2->next;
>        od2->index = next_operand_number++;
> +      insert_operand_data (od2);
>      }
>    *odata_end = NULL;
>    return;
> @@ -1049,6 +1062,7 @@ main (int argc, const char **argv)
>    progname = "genoutput";
>  
>    init_insn_for_nothing ();
> +  init_operand_data_table ();
>  
>    if (!init_rtx_reader_args (argc, argv))
>      return (FATAL_EXIT_CODE);
> @@ -1224,3 +1238,78 @@ mdep_constraint_len (const char *s, file_location loc, 
> int opno)
>    message_at (loc, "note:  in operand %d", opno);
>    return 1; /* safe */
>  }
> +
> +/* Helper to Hash a struct operand_data.  */
> +
> +static hashval_t
> +hash_struct_operand_data (const void *ptr)
> +{
> +  const struct operand_data *d = (const struct operand_data *) ptr;
> +  const char *pred, *cons;
> +  hashval_t hash;
> +
> +  pred = d->predicate;
> +  if (!pred)
> +    pred = "";
> +  hash = htab_hash_string (pred);
> +
> +  cons = d->constraint;
> +  if (!cons)
> +    cons = "";
> +  hash = iterative_hash (cons, strlen (cons), hash);
> +
> +  hash = iterative_hash_object (d->mode, hash);
> +  hash = iterative_hash_object (d->strict_low, hash);
> +  hash = iterative_hash_object (d->eliminable, hash);
> +  return hash;
> +}
> +
> +/* Equality function of the operand_data hash table.  */
> +
> +static int
> +eq_struct_operand_data (const void *p1, const void *p2)
> +{
> +  const struct operand_data *d1 = (const struct operand_data *) p1;
> +  const struct operand_data *d2 = (const struct operand_data *) p2;
> +
> +  return compare_operands (const_cast<operand_data *>(d1),
> +                        const_cast<operand_data *>(d2));
> +}
> +
> +/* Insert the operand_data variable D into the hash table.
> +   If an variable with the same hash value already exists in the hash table,
> +   insert the element at the end of the linked list connected
> +   through the eq_next member.  */
> +
> +static void
> +insert_operand_data (struct operand_data *d)
> +{
> +  void **slot = htab_find_slot (operand_data_table, d, INSERT);
> +  if (*slot)
> +    {
> +      struct operand_data *last = (struct operand_data *) *slot;
> +      while (last->eq_next)
> +     last = last->eq_next;
> +      last->eq_next = d;
> +    }
> +  else
> +    *slot = d;
> +}
> +
> +/* Look up the operand_data D in the hash table.  */
> +
> +static struct operand_data *
> +lookup_operand_data (struct operand_data *d)
> +{
> +  return (struct operand_data *) htab_find (operand_data_table, d);
> +}
> +
> +/* Initializes the operand_data hash table.  */
> +
> +static void
> +init_operand_data_table (void)
> +{
> +  operand_data_table = htab_create_alloc (64, hash_struct_operand_data,
> +                                       eq_struct_operand_data, 0,
> +                                       xcalloc, free);
> +}

Reply via email to