This is the mail archive of the gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org mailing list for the GCC project.


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]
Other format: [Raw text]

Re: [PATCH] Restrict LOOP_ALIGN to loop headers only.


On Tue, Jul 9, 2019 at 11:56 AM Jan Hubicka <hubicka@ucw.cz> wrote:
>
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm suggesting to restrict LOOP_ALIGN to only loop headers. That are the
> > basic blocks for which it makes the biggest sense. I quite some binary
> > size reductions on SPEC2006 and SPEC2017. Speed numbers are also slightly
> > positive.
> >
> > Patch can bootstrap on x86_64-linux-gnu and survives regression tests.
> >
> > Ready to be installed?
> The original idea of distinction between jump alignment and loop
> alignment was that they have two basic meanings:
>  1) jump alignment is there to avoid jumping just to the end of decode
>  window (if the window is aligned) so CPU will get stuck after reaching
>  the jump and also to possibly reduce code cache polution by populating
>  by code that is not executed
>  2) loop alignment aims to fit loop in as few cache windows as possible
>
> Now if you have loop laid in a way that header of loop is not first
> basic block, 2) IMO still apply.  I.e.
>
>                 jump loop
> :loopback
>                 loop body
> :loop
>                 if cond jump to loopback
>
> So dropping loop alignment for those does not seem to make much sense
> from high level.  We may want to have differnt alignment for loops
> starting by header and loops starting in the middle, but I still liked
> more your patch which did bundles for loops.
>
> modern x86 chips are not very good testing targets on it.  I guess
> generic changes to alignment needs to be tested on other chips too.
>
> Honza
> > Thanks,
> > Martin
> >
> > gcc/ChangeLog:
> >
> > 2019-07-09  Martin Liska  <mliska@suse.cz>
> >
> >       * final.c (compute_alignments): Apply the LOOP_ALIGN only
> >       to basic blocks that all loop headers.
> > ---
> >  gcc/final.c | 1 +
> >  1 file changed, 1 insertion(+)
> >
> >
>
> > diff --git a/gcc/final.c b/gcc/final.c
> > index fefc4874b24..ce2678da988 100644
> > --- a/gcc/final.c
> > +++ b/gcc/final.c
> > @@ -739,6 +739,7 @@ compute_alignments (void)
> >        if (has_fallthru
> >         && !(single_succ_p (bb)
> >              && single_succ (bb) == EXIT_BLOCK_PTR_FOR_FN (cfun))
> > +       && bb->loop_father->header == bb

I agree that the above is the wrong condition - but I'm not sure we
only end up using LOOP_ALIGN for blocks reached by a DFS_BACK
edge.  Note that DFS_BACK would have to be applied considering
the current CFG layout, simply doing mark_dfs_back_edges doesn't
work (we're in CFG layout mode here, no?).  Eventually the code
counting brances effectively already does this though.

The odd thing is that we apply LOOP_ALIGN only to blocks that
have a fallthru incoming edge.  I don't see Honzas example
above having one.

> >         && optimize_bb_for_speed_p (bb)
> >         && branch_count + fallthru_count > count_threshold
> >         && (branch_count
> >
>
>
>


Index Nav: [Date Index] [Subject Index] [Author Index] [Thread Index]
Message Nav: [Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]