patches for increased performance of matmul, dotprod, transpose

[Tim Prince]

Tobias Schlüter wrote:

>Hi Tim,
>
>Tim Prince wrote:
>  
>
>>I ran the complete build and test on i686-pc-cygwin gcc 4.0.2, also 
>>tested with 4.1.0 and on ia64- and x86-64 linux.  As the other work 
>>mentioned on this list no doubt will have to be completed, followed by 
>>determining whether any of these are still relevant, I expect any 
>>changelog entries would be obsolete before these could be considered.  I 
>>haven't heard of any checks on status of my paperwork for several years.
>>Additional unrolling is intended only to be enough to approach full 
>>pipeline on the simpler x86 CPUs, which can issue more than 1 floating 
>>point multiply instruction within the latency of addition.  This 
>>reasoning doesn't apply to integer add.  For matmul, memory accesses 
>>should be cut nearly by 2.   Problems which are large with respect to 
>>cache size aren't addressed, except that the boundary of "large" is 
>>pushed up somewhat.  Likewise, with transpose taken in an order more 
>>favorable to machines with write combine buffering.
>>    
>>
>
>If the manual loop unrolling is really helpful, I think an optimizer bug
>should be filed.  On IRC our optimizer guys told me that at least the
>modification to matmul should already be done automatically, so I'm wondering,
>  if you have any benchmark numbers supporting this modification?  Can't the
>same effect be obtained by building libgfortran with -funroll-loops?
>  
>
-funroll-loops unrolls the inner loop.  It doesn't look for 
opportunities to unroll multiple levels of loops, combined with loop 
interchanges.    I assumed there is no plan for gcc to perform multiple 
level loop unrolling and related optimization. 

For library code such as this, it seems much more direct to write in 
such optimizations, if they apply to most architectures of interest.  I 
already mentioned the concern that they may not be desired for complex 
arithmetic on 32-bit platforms.

Another question is whether the build process provides a way to turn on 
-funroll-loops for specific library builds, such as libgfortran.  It 
does have some value.   I agree, there is no point in doing manual 
unroll which duplicates the style of unrolling which unroll-loops 
performs automatically.

>A procedural point: your patch doesn't conform to the GNU coding style
>(comments should begin with a capital letter and end in "punctuation + two
>spaces + */", always put blanks before and after operators, indent comments to
>code); also if you find you really need to hand-optimize code, please add a
>comment explaining why, adding "FIXME" and a PR number if you think you're
>working around an optimizer bug.
>  
>

I will fix up the comments. I tried to fix the style to conform with 
what was already in use. The existing code seems short of useful comments.

>WRT your mail:  paragraphs make reading and also responding to emails much
>easier.  ChangeLogs are also useful for referencing parts when discussing the
>patch.
>
>  
>
As my past experience is that gcc patches don't get considered for many 
months, and we are already on notice of intended changes which will 
require further adjustments, I thought changelogs might be premature.

I haven't been able to locate specific versions of benchmarks mentioned 
on the mailing list.  I am going in part by performance on Livermore 
Fortran Kernel, but others have chosen a different f90 translation of 
LFK, which I don't find publicly available.

Thanks.