[RFC, Patch]: Optimized changes in the register used inside loop for LICM and IVOPTS.

[Bin.Cheng]

On Fri, Nov 13, 2015 at 2:13 PM, Jeff Law <law@redhat.com> wrote:
> On 10/07/2015 10:32 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal wrote:
>
>>
>> 0001-RFC-Patch-Optimized-changes-in-the-register-used-ins.patch
>>
>>
>>  From f164fd80953f3cffd96a492c8424c83290cd43cc Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001
>> From: Ajit Kumar Agarwal<ajitkum@xilix.com>
>> Date: Wed, 7 Oct 2015 20:50:40 +0200
>> Subject: [PATCH] [RFC, Patch]: Optimized changes in the register used
>> inside
>>   loop for LICM and IVOPTS.
>>
>> Changes are done in the Loop Invariant(LICM) at RTL level and also the
>> Induction variable optimization based on SSA representation. The current
>> logic used in LICM for register used inside the loops is changed. The
>> Live Out of the loop latch node and the Live in of the destination of
>> the exit nodes is used to set the Loops Liveness at the exit of the Loop.
>> The register used is the number of live variables at the exit of the
>> Loop calculated above.
>>
>> For Induction variable optimization on tree SSA representation, the
>> register
>> used logic is based on the number of phi nodes at the loop header to
>> represent
>> the liveness at the loop.  Current Logic used only the number of phi nodes
>> at
>> the loop header.  Changes are made to represent the phi operands also live
>> at
>> the loop. Thus number of phi operands also gets incremented in the number
>> of
>> registers used.
>>
>> ChangeLog:
>> 2015-10-09  Ajit Agarwal<ajitkum@xilinx.com>
>>
>>         * loop-invariant.c (compute_loop_liveness): New.
>>         (determine_regs_used): New.
>>         (find_invariants_to_move): Use of determine_regs_used.
>>         * tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c (determine_set_costs): Consider the phi
>>         arguments for register used.
>
> I think Bin rejected the tree-ssa-loop-ivopts change.  However, the
> loop-invariant change is still pending, right?
Ah, reject is a strong word, I am just being dumb and don't understand
why it's a general better estimation yet.
Maybe Richard have some inputs here?

Thanks,
bin
>
>
>>
>> Signed-off-by:Ajit Agarwalajitkum@xilinx.com
>> ---
>>   gcc/loop-invariant.c       | 72
>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++---------
>>   gcc/tree-ssa-loop-ivopts.c |  4 +--
>>   2 files changed, 60 insertions(+), 16 deletions(-)
>>
>> diff --git a/gcc/loop-invariant.c b/gcc/loop-invariant.c
>> index 52c8ae8..e4291c9 100644
>> --- a/gcc/loop-invariant.c
>> +++ b/gcc/loop-invariant.c
>> @@ -1413,6 +1413,19 @@ set_move_mark (unsigned invno, int gain)
>>       }
>>   }
>>
>> +static int
>> +determine_regs_used()
>> +{
>> +  unsigned int j;
>> +  unsigned int reg_used = 2;
>> +  bitmap_iterator bi;
>> +
>> +  EXECUTE_IF_SET_IN_BITMAP (&LOOP_DATA (curr_loop)->regs_live, 0, j, bi)
>> +    (reg_used) ++;
>> +
>> +  return reg_used;
>> +}
>
> Isn't this just bitmap_count_bits (regs_live) + 2?
>
>
>> @@ -2055,9 +2057,43 @@ calculate_loop_reg_pressure (void)
>>       }
>>   }
>>
>> -
>> +static void
>> +calculate_loop_liveness (void)
>
> Needs a function comment.
>
>
>> +{
>> +  basic_block bb;
>> +  struct loop *loop;
>>
>> -/* Move the invariants out of the loops.  */
>> +  FOR_EACH_LOOP (loop, 0)
>> +    if (loop->aux == NULL)
>> +      {
>> +        loop->aux = xcalloc (1, sizeof (struct loop_data));
>> +        bitmap_initialize (&LOOP_DATA (loop)->regs_live, &reg_obstack);
>> +     }
>> +
>> +  FOR_EACH_BB_FN (bb, cfun)
>
> Why loop over blocks here?  Why not just iterate through all the loops in
> the loop structure.  Order isn't particularly important AFAICT for this
> code.
>
>
>
>> +       {
>> +         int  i;
>> +         edge e;
>> +         vec<edge> edges;
>> +         edges = get_loop_exit_edges (loop);
>> +         FOR_EACH_VEC_ELT (edges, i, e)
>> +         {
>> +           bitmap_ior_into (&LOOP_DATA (loop)->regs_live,
>> DF_LR_OUT(e->src));
>> +           bitmap_ior_into (&LOOP_DATA (loop)->regs_live,
>> DF_LR_IN(e->dest));
>
> Space before the open-paren in the previous two lines
> DF_LR_OUT (e->src) and FD_LR_INT (e->dest))
>
>
>> +         }
>> +      }
>> +  }
>> +}
>> +
>> +/* Move the invariants  ut of the loops.  */
>
> Looks like you introduced a typo.
>
> I'd like to see testcases which show the change in # regs used computation
> helping generate better code.
>
> And  I'd also like to see some background information on why you think this
> is a more accurate measure for the number of registers used in the loop.
> regs_used AFAICT is supposed to be an estimate of the registers live around
> the loop.  So ISTM that you get that value by live-out set on the backedge
> of the loop.  I guess you get somethign similar by looking at the exit
> edge's source block's live-out set.  But I don't see any value  in including
> stuff live at the block outside the loop.
>
> It also seems fairly non-intuitive.  Get the block's latch and use its
> live-out set.  That seems more intuitive.
>