On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 13:17:29 GMT, Emanuel Peter wrote:
>>> As for possible solutions. In all Regression 1-3 cases, it seems the issue
>>> is scalar cmove. So actually in all cases a possible solution is using
>>> branching code (i.e. `cmp+mov`). So to me, these are the follow-up RFE's:
>>>
>>>
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 06:54:30 GMT, Emanuel Peter wrote:
> As for possible solutions. In all Regression 1-3 cases, it seems the issue is
> scalar cmove. So actually in all cases a possible solution is using branching
> code (i.e. `cmp+mov`). So to me, these are the follow-up RFE's:
>
> * Detect
On Fri, 7 Mar 2025 12:25:51 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> @galderz Thanks for the summary of regressions! Yes, there are plenty of
>> speedups, I assume primarily because of `Long.min/max` vectorization, but
>> possibly also because the operation can now "float" out of a loop for
>> example.
On Thu, 6 Mar 2025 15:22:18 GMT, Emanuel Peter wrote:
>> Also, I've started a [discussion on
>> jmh-dev](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/jmh-dev/2025-February/004094.html)
>> to see if there's a way to minimise pollution of `Math.min(II)`
>> compilation. As a follow to
>> https://github.co
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:38:30 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Galder Zamarreño has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 44 additional
>> c
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 16:38:30 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Galder Zamarreño has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 44 additional
>> c
On Thu, 27 Feb 2025 06:54:30 GMT, Emanuel Peter wrote:
> Detect "extreme" probability scalar cmove, and replace them with branching
> code. This should take care of all regressions here. This one has high
> priority, as it fixes the regression caused by this patch here. But it would
> also hel
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 18:29:58 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>>> > Re: [#20098
>>> > (comment)](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/20098#issuecomment-2671144644)
>>> > - I was trying to think what could be causing this.
>>>
>>> Maybe it is an issue with probabilities? Do you know at what point (
On Wed, 26 Feb 2025 11:32:57 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> > That said: if we know that it is only in the high-probability cases, then
> > we can address those separately. I would not consider it a blocking issue,
> > as long as we file the follow-up RFE for int/max scalar case with high
> >
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 06:50:07 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> The interesting thing is intReductionSimpleMin @ 100%. We see a regression
> there but I didn't observe it with the perfasm run. So, this could be due to
> variance in the application of cmov or not?
I don't see the error / variance i
On Thu, 20 Feb 2025 06:50:07 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> There is something very intriguing happening here, which I don't know it's
> due to min itself or int vs long.
Benchmark (probability) (size) Mode Cnt
-min/-max +min/+max Units
MinMaxVector.intRed
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 19:50:50 GMT, Evgeny Astigeevich
wrote:
>> I will run a comparison next with the same batch of tests but looking at
>> `int` and see if there are any differences compared with `long` or not.
>
> Hi @galderz,
> Results from Graviton 3(Neoverse-V1).
> Without the patch:
>
> B
On Wed, 19 Feb 2025 17:43:54 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> Galder Zamarreño has updated the pull request with a new target base due to
>> a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes
>> brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 44 additional
>> c
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
On Mon, 17 Feb 2025 17:02:47 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
> This test is like a reduction test and no vectorization appears to be kicking
> in any of the percentages (I've not enabled vectorization SW rejections to
> check).
Ah, that's probably because of profitable vectorization checks.
On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 12:39:24 GMT, Galder Zamarreño wrote:
>> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
>> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>>
>> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of
>> these calls because of t
> This patch intrinsifies `Math.max(long, long)` and `Math.min(long, long)` in
> order to help improve vectorization performance.
>
> Currently vectorization does not kick in for loops containing either of these
> calls because of the following error:
>
>
> VLoop::check_preconditions: failed:
23 matches
Mail list logo
