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: [google] Patch to support calling multi-versioned functions via new GCC builtin. (issue4440078)


On Mon, May 2, 2011 at 2:11 AM, Richard Guenther
<richard.guenther@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 29, 2011 at 6:23 PM, Xinliang David Li <davidxl@google.com> wrote:
>> Here is the background for this feature:
>>
>> 1) People relies on function multi-version to explore hw features and
>> squeeze performance, but there is no standard ways of doing so, either
>> a) using indirect function calls with function pointers set at program
>> initialization; b) using manual dispatch at each callsite; b) using
>> features like IFUNC. ?The dispatch mechanism needs to be promoted to
>> the language level and becomes the first class citizen;
>
> You are not doing that, you are inventing a new (crude) GCC extension.

To capture the high level semantics and prevent user from lowering the
dispatch calls into forms compiler can not recognize, language
extension is the way to go.

>

>> See above. Multi-way dispatch can be added similarly.
>
> Not with the specified syntax. ?So you'd end up with _two_
> language extensions. ?That's bad (and unacceptable, IMHO).

This part can be improved.

>
>>
>>>
>>> That's a nice idea, but why not simply process all functions with
>>> a const attribute and no arguments this way? ?IMHO
>>>
>>> int testsse (void) __attribute__((const));
>>>
>>> is as good and avoids the new attribute completely. ?The pass would
>>> also benefit other uses of this idiom (giving a way to have global
>>> dynamic initializers in C). ?The functions may not be strictly 'const'
>>> in a way the compiler autodetects this attribute but it presents
>>> exactly the promises to the compiler that allow this optimization.
>>>
>>> Thus, please split this piece out into a separate patch and use
>>> the const attribute.
>>
>>
>> Sounds good.
>>

>>
>> 1) the function selection may happen in a different function;
>
> Well, sure. ?I propose to have the above as lowered form. ?If people
> deliberately obfuscate code it's their fault. ?Your scheme simply
> makes that obfuscation impossible (or less likely possible). ?So
> 1) is not a valid argument.

Lowering too early may defeat the purpose because

1) the desired optimization may not happen subject to many compiler
heuristic changes;
2) it has other side effects such as wrong estimation of function size
which may impact inlining
3) it limits the lowering into one form which may not be ideal  --
with builtin_dispatch, after hoisting optimization, the lowering can
use more efficient IFUNC scheme, for instance.

>
>
> My point is that such optimization is completely independent of
> that dispatch thing. ?The above could as well be a selection to
> use different input arrays, one causing alias analysis issues
> and one not.
>
> Thus, a __builtin_dispatch centric optimization pass is the wrong
> way to go.

I agree that many things can implemented in different ways, but a high
level standard builtin_dispatch mechanism doing hoisting
interprocedcurally is cleaner and simpler and targeted for function
multi-versioning -- it does not depend on/rely on later phase's
heuristic tunings to make the right things to happen. Function MV
deserves this level of treatment as it will become more and more
important for some users (e.g., Google).

>
> Now, with FDO I'd expect the foo is inlined into bar (because foo
> is deemed hot),

That is a myth -- the truth is that there are other heuristics which
can prevent this from happening.

> then you only need to deal with loop unswitching,
> which should be easy to drive from FDO.

Same here -- the loop body may not be well formed/recognized. The loop
nests may not be perfectly nested, or other unswitching heuristics may
block it from happening.  This is the common problem form many other
things that get lowered too early. It is cleaner to make the high
level transformation first in IPA, and let unswitching dealing with
intra-procedural optimization.

Thanks,

David

>
> Richard.
>
>>
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> David
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Note that we already have special FDO support for indirect to direct
>>> call promotion, so that might work already.
>>>
>>> Thus, with all this, __builtin_dispatch would be more like syntactic
>>> sugar to avoid writing above switch statement yourself. ?If you restrict
>>> that sugar to a constant number of candidates it can be replaced by
>>> a macro (or several ones, specialized for the number of candidates).
>>>
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>> ?For the call graph that looks like this before cloning :
>>>>
>>>> func_cold ----> func_hot ----> findOnes ----> IsPopCntSupported ----> popcnt
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?-----> no_popcnt
>>>>
>>>> ?where popcnt and no_popcnt are the multi-versioned functions, then after cloning :
>>>>
>>>> func_cold ---->IsPopCntSupported ----> func_hot_clone0 ----> findOnes_clone0 ----> popcnt
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ?|
>>>> ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ----> func_hot_clone1 ----> findOnes_clone1 ----> no_popcnt
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ?Flags : -fclone-hot-version-paths does function unswitching via cloning.
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?--param=num-mversn-clones=<num> allows to specify the number of
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?functions that should be cloned.
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?--param=mversn-clone-depth=<num> allows to specify the length of
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?the call graph path that should be cloned. ?num = 0 implies only
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?leaf node that contains the __builtin_dispatch statement must be
>>>> ? ? ? ? ?cloned.
>>>> ============================================================================================
>>>>
>>>> Google ref 45947, 45986
>>>>
>>>> 2011-04-28 ?Sriraman Tallam ?<tmsriram@google.com>
>>>>
>>>> ? ? ? ?* c-family/c-common.c ? (revision 173122) (handle_version_selector_attribute): New function.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(c_common_attribute_table): New attribute "version_selector".
>>>> ? ? ? ?* tree-pass.h ? (revision 173122) (pass_tree_convert_builtin_dispatch): New pass.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(pass_ipa_multiversion_dispatch): New pass.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn7.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn4.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn4.h ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn4a.c ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/torture/mversn1.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn2.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn6.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/gcc.dg/mversn3.c ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn8.C ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn10a.C ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn14a.C ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/mversn13.C (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/mversn15.C (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/tree-prof/mversn15a.C ? ? ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn9.C ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn10.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn12.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn14.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/mversn16.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/torture/mversn11.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/torture/mversn5.C ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/torture/mversn5.h ? ?(revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* testsuite/g++.dg/torture/mversn5a.C ? (revision 0): New test case.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* builtin-types.def ? ? (revision 173122) (BT_PTR_FN_INT): New pointer type.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(BT_FN_INT_PTR_FN_INT_PTR_PTR_VAR): New function type for __builtin_dispatch.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* builtins.def ?(revision 173122) (BUILT_IN_DISPATCH): New builtin to
>>>> ? ? ? ?support multi-version calls.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* mversn-dispatch.c ? ? (revision 0): New file.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* timevar.def ? (revision 173122) (TV_MVERSN_DISPATCH): New time var.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* common.opt ? ?(revision 173122) (fclone-hot-version-paths): New flag.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* Makefile.in ? (revision 173122) (mversn-dispatch.o): New rule.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* passes.c ? ? ?(revision 173122) (init_optimization_passes): Add the new
>>>> ? ? ? ?multi-version and dispatch passes to the pass list.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* params.def ? ?(revision 173122) (PARAM_NUMBER_OF_MVERSN_CLONES): Define.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(PARAM_MVERSN_CLONE_CGRAPH_DEPTH): Define.
>>>> ? ? ? ?* doc/invoke.texi ? ? ? (revision 173122) (mversn-clone-depth): Document.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(num-mversn-clones): Document.
>>>> ? ? ? ?(fclone-hot-version-paths): Document.
>>>
>>
>


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