> -----Original Message-----
> From: Cui, Lili
> Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 5:04 PM
> To: H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
> Cc: ubiz...@gmail.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Liu, Hongtao
> <hongtao....@intel.com>; richard.guent...@gmail.com; Michael Matz
> <m...@suse.de>; Sam James <s...@gentoo.org>; kenjin4...@gmail.com
> Subject: RE: [PATCH V3] x86: Enable separate shrink wrapping
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: H.J. Lu <hjl.to...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Friday, June 27, 2025 4:48 PM
> > To: Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com>
> > Cc: ubiz...@gmail.com; gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org; Liu, Hongtao
> > <hongtao....@intel.com>; richard.guent...@gmail.com; Michael Matz
> > <m...@suse.de>; Sam James <s...@gentoo.org>; kenjin4...@gmail.com
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH V3] x86: Enable separate shrink wrapping
> >
> > On Tue, Jun 17, 2025 at 10:04 PM Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > From: Lili Cui <lili....@intel.com>
> > >
> > > Hi Uros,
> > >
> > > This is patch v3, the main changes are as follows.
> > >
> > > 1. Added a pro_epilogue_adjust_stack_add_nocc in i386.md to add
> > > memory
> > clobber for lea/mov.
> > > 2. Adjusted some formatting issues.
> > > 3. Added scan-rtl-dumps for ia32 in shrink_wrap_separate.C.
> > >
> > > Collected spec2017 performance on ZNVER5, EMR and ICELAKE. No
> > performance regression was observed.
> > > For O2 multi-copy :
> > > 511.povray_r improved by 2.8% on ZNVER5.
> > > 511.povray_r improved by 4.2% on EMR
> > >
> > > Bootstrapped & regtested on x86-64-pc-linux-gnu.
> > > Use this patch to build the latest Linux kernel and boot successfully.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Lili.
> > >
> > >
> > > This commit implements the target macros (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_*)
> that
> > > enable separate shrink wrapping for function prologues/epilogues in
> > > x86.
> > >
> > > When performing separate shrink wrapping, we choose to use mov
> > > instead of push/pop, because using push/pop is more complicated to
> > > handle rsp adjustment and may lose performance, so here we choose to
> > > use mov, which has a small impact on code size, but guarantees
> performance.
> > >
> > > Using mov means we need to use sub/add to maintain the stack frame.
> > > In some special cases, we need to use lea to prevent affecting EFlags.
> > >
> > > Avoid inserting sub between test-je-jle to change EFlags, lea should
> > > be used here.
> > >
> > >     foo:
> > >         xorl    %eax, %eax
> > >         testl   %edi, %edi
> > >         je      .L11
> > >         sub     $16, %rsp  ------> leaq    -16(%rsp), %rsp
> > >         movq    %r13, 8(%rsp)
> > >         movl    $1, %r13d
> > >         jle     .L4
> > >
> > > Tested against SPEC CPU 2017, this change always has a net-positive
> > > effect on the dynamic instruction count.  See the following table
> > > for the breakdown on how this reduces the number of dynamic
> > > instructions per workload on a like-for-like (with/without this commit):
> > >
> > > instruction count       base            with commit (commit-base)/commit
> > > 502.gcc_r               98666845943     96891561634     -1.80%
> > > 526.blender_r           6.21226E+11     6.12992E+11     -1.33%
> > > 520.omnetpp_r           1.1241E+11      1.11093E+11     -1.17%
> > > 500.perlbench_r         1271558717      1263268350      -0.65%
> > > 523.xalancbmk_r         2.20103E+11     2.18836E+11     -0.58%
> > > 531.deepsjeng_r         2.73591E+11     2.72114E+11     -0.54%
> > > 500.perlbench_r         64195557393     63881512409     -0.49%
> > > 541.leela_r             2.99097E+11     2.98245E+11     -0.29%
> > > 548.exchange2_r         1.27976E+11     1.27784E+11     -0.15%
> > > 527.cam4_r              88981458425     88887334679     -0.11%
> > > 554.roms_r              2.60072E+11     2.59809E+11     -0.10%
> > >
> > > Collected spec2017 performance on ZNVER5, EMR and ICELAKE. No
> > performance regression was observed.
> > >
> > > For O2 multi-copy :
> > > 511.povray_r improved by 2.8% on ZNVER5.
> > > 511.povray_r improved by 4% on EMR
> > > 511.povray_r improved by 3.3 % ~ 4.6% on ICELAKE.
> > >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >         * config/i386/i386-protos.h (ix86_get_separate_components):
> > >         New function.
> > >         (ix86_components_for_bb): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_disqualify_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_emit_prologue_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_emit_epilogue_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_set_handled_components): Likewise.
> > >         * config/i386/i386.cc (save_regs_using_push_pop):
> > >         Split from ix86_compute_frame_layout.
> > >         (ix86_compute_frame_layout):
> > >         Use save_regs_using_push_pop.
> > >         (pro_epilogue_adjust_stack):
> > >         Use gen_pro_epilogue_adjust_stack_add_nocc.
> > >         (ix86_expand_prologue): Add some assertions and adjust
> > >         the stack frame at the beginning of the prolog for shrink
> > >         wrapping separate.
> > >         (ix86_emit_save_regs_using_mov):
> > >         Skip registers that are wrapped separately.
> > >         (ix86_emit_restore_regs_using_mov): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_expand_epilogue): Add some assertions and set
> > >         restore_regs_via_mov to true for shrink wrapping separate.
> > >         (ix86_get_separate_components): New function.
> > >         (ix86_components_for_bb): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_disqualify_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_emit_prologue_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_emit_epilogue_components): Likewise.
> > >         (ix86_set_handled_components): Likewise.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_GET_SEPARATE_COMPONENTS): Define.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_COMPONENTS_FOR_BB): Likewise.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_DISQUALIFY_COMPONENTS): Likewise.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_EMIT_PROLOGUE_COMPONENTS): Likewise.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_EMIT_EPILOGUE_COMPONENTS): Likewise.
> > >         (TARGET_SHRINK_WRAP_SET_HANDLED_COMPONENTS): Likewise.
> > >         * config/i386/i386.h (struct machine_function):Add
> > >         reg_is_wrapped_separately array for register wrapping
> > >         information.
> > >         * config/i386/i386.md
> > >         (@pro_epilogue_adjust_stack_add_nocc<mode>): New.
> > >
> > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > >         * gcc.target/x86_64/abi/callabi/leaf-2.c: Adjust the test.
> > >         * gcc.target/i386/interrupt-16.c: Likewise.
> > >         * gfortran.dg/guality/arg1.f90: Likewise.
> > >         * gcc.target/i386/avx10_2-comibf-1.c: Likewise.
> > >         * g++.target/i386/shrink_wrap_separate.C: New test.
> > >         * gcc.target/i386/shrink_wrap_separate_check_lea.c: Likewise.
> > >
> > > Co-authored-by: Michael Matz <m...@suse.de>
> > > ---
> > >  gcc/config/i386/i386-protos.h                 |   7 +
> > >  gcc/config/i386/i386.cc                       | 332 +++++++++++++++---
> > >  gcc/config/i386/i386.h                        |   4 +
> > >  gcc/config/i386/i386.md                       |  22 ++
> > >  .../g++.target/i386/shrink_wrap_separate.C    |  25 ++
> > >  .../gcc.target/i386/avx10_2-comibf-1.c        |   2 +-
> > >  gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/interrupt-16.c  |   4 +-
> > >  .../i386/shrink_wrap_separate_check_lea.c     |  29 ++
> > >  .../gcc.target/x86_64/abi/callabi/leaf-2.c    |   2 +-
> > >  gcc/testsuite/gfortran.dg/guality/arg1.f90    |   2 +-
> > >  10 files changed, 379 insertions(+), 50 deletions(-)  create mode
> > > 100644 gcc/testsuite/g++.target/i386/shrink_wrap_separate.C
> > >  create mode 100644
> > > gcc/testsuite/gcc.target/i386/shrink_wrap_separate_check_lea.c
> > >
> >
> > Hi Lili,
> >
> > Your patch caused:
> >
> > https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=120840
> >

I checked the shrink wrap separate behavior and didn't see anything unusual. 
This issue can be reproduced with the following options. It is not introduced 
by my patch. I will continue investigating this issue.

"-fno-shrink-wrap-separate  -O2 -fno-stack-protector  
-mtune-ctrl=prologue_using_move,epilogue_using_move "

Lili.


> > The enclosed patch seemed to fix it.   It looks like x86 separate
> > shrink wrapping
> > doesn't properly restore all registers when function with preserve_none or
> > no_callee_saved_registers is called.   Can you find a run-time testcase and
> > fix it?
> >
> 
> Thanks H.J, I'll reproduce it and create a test case for it.
> 
> Lili.
> 
> > Thanks.
> >
> > --
> > H.J.

Reply via email to