[RFC] ldist: Recognize rawmemchr loop patterns
Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
stefansf@linux.ibm.com
Mon Oct 11 16:02:53 GMT 2021
On Fri, Sep 17, 2021 at 10:08:27AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> On Mon, Sep 13, 2021 at 4:53 PM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
> <stefansf@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Mon, Sep 06, 2021 at 11:56:21AM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > On Fri, Sep 3, 2021 at 10:01 AM Stefan Schulze Frielinghaus
> > > <stefansf@linux.ibm.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > On Fri, Aug 20, 2021 at 12:35:58PM +0200, Richard Biener wrote:
> > > > [...]
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + /* Handle strlen like loops. */
> > > > > > > + if (store_dr == NULL
> > > > > > > + && integer_zerop (pattern)
> > > > > > > + && TREE_CODE (reduction_iv.base) == INTEGER_CST
> > > > > > > + && TREE_CODE (reduction_iv.step) == INTEGER_CST
> > > > > > > + && integer_onep (reduction_iv.step)
> > > > > > > + && (types_compatible_p (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var), size_type_node)
> > > > > > > + || TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var))))
> > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I wonder what goes wrong with a larger or smaller wrapping IV type?
> > > > > > > The iteration
> > > > > > > only stops when you load a NUL and the increments just wrap along (you're
> > > > > > > using the pointer IVs to compute the strlen result). Can't you simply truncate?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I think truncation is enough as long as no overflow occurs in strlen or
> > > > > > strlen_using_rawmemchr.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > For larger than size_type_node (actually larger than ptr_type_node would matter
> > > > > > > I guess), the argument is that since pointer wrapping would be undefined anyway
> > > > > > > the IV cannot wrap either. Now, the correct check here would IMHO be
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var)) < TYPE_PRECISION
> > > > > > > (ptr_type_node)
> > > > > > > || TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (pointer-iv-var))
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > ?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the implementation which makes use of rawmemchr:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > We can count at most PTRDIFF_MAX many bytes without an overflow. Thus,
> > > > > > the maximal length we can determine of a string where each character has
> > > > > > size S is PTRDIFF_MAX / S without an overflow. Since an overflow for
> > > > > > ptrdiff type is undefined we have to make sure that if an overflow
> > > > > > occurs, then an overflow occurs for reduction variable, too, and that
> > > > > > this is undefined, too. However, I'm not sure anymore whether we want
> > > > > > to respect overflows in all cases. If TYPE_PRECISION (ptr_type_node)
> > > > > > equals TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node) and an overflow occurs, then
> > > > > > this would mean that a single string consumes more than half of the
> > > > > > virtual addressable memory. At least for architectures where
> > > > > > TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node) == 64 holds, I think it is reasonable
> > > > > > to neglect the case where computing pointer difference may overflow.
> > > > > > Otherwise we are talking about strings with lenghts of multiple
> > > > > > pebibytes. For other architectures we might have to be more precise
> > > > > > and make sure that reduction variable overflows first and that this is
> > > > > > undefined.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Thus a conservative condition would be (I assumed that the size of any
> > > > > > integral type is a power of two which I'm not sure if this really holds;
> > > > > > IIRC the C standard requires only that the alignment is a power of two
> > > > > > but not necessarily the size so I might need to change this):
> > > > > >
> > > > > > /* Compute precision (reduction_var) < (precision (ptrdiff_type) - 1 - log2 (sizeof (load_type))
> > > > > > or in other words return true if reduction variable overflows first
> > > > > > and false otherwise. */
> > > > > >
> > > > > > static bool
> > > > > > reduction_var_overflows_first (tree reduction_var, tree load_type)
> > > > > > {
> > > > > > unsigned precision_ptrdiff = TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node);
> > > > > > unsigned precision_reduction_var = TYPE_PRECISION (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var));
> > > > > > unsigned size_exponent = wi::exact_log2 (wi::to_wide (TYPE_SIZE_UNIT (load_type)));
> > > > > > return wi::ltu_p (precision_reduction_var, precision_ptrdiff - 1 - size_exponent);
> > > > > > }
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node) == 64
> > > > > > || (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var))
> > > > > > && reduction_var_overflows_first (reduction_var, load_type)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Regarding the implementation which makes use of strlen:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I'm not sure what it means if strlen is called for a string with a
> > > > > > length greater than SIZE_MAX. Therefore, similar to the implementation
> > > > > > using rawmemchr where we neglect the case of an overflow for 64bit
> > > > > > architectures, a conservative condition would be:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TYPE_PRECISION (size_type_node) == 64
> > > > > > || (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var))
> > > > > > && TYPE_PRECISION (reduction_var) <= TYPE_PRECISION (size_type_node))
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I still included the overflow undefined check for reduction variable in
> > > > > > order to rule out situations where the reduction variable is unsigned
> > > > > > and overflows as many times until strlen(,_using_rawmemchr) overflows,
> > > > > > too. Maybe this is all theoretical nonsense but I'm afraid of uncommon
> > > > > > architectures. Anyhow, while writing this down it becomes clear that
> > > > > > this deserves a comment which I will add once it becomes clear which way
> > > > > > to go.
> > > > >
> > > > > I think all the arguments about objects bigger than half of the address-space
> > > > > also are valid for 32bit targets and thus 32bit size_type_node (or
> > > > > 32bit pointer size).
> > > > > I'm not actually sure what's the canonical type to check against, whether
> > > > > it's size_type_node (Cs size_t), ptr_type_node (Cs void *) or sizetype (the
> > > > > middle-end "offset" type used for all address computations). For weird reasons
> > > > > I'd lean towards 'sizetype' (for example some embedded targets have 24bit
> > > > > pointers but 16bit 'sizetype').
> > > >
> > > > Ok, for the strlen implementation I changed from size_type_node to
> > > > sizetype and assume that no overflow occurs for string objects bigger
> > > > than half of the address space for 32-bit targets and up:
> > > >
> > > > (TYPE_PRECISION (sizetype) >= TYPE_PRECISION (ptr_type_node) - 1
> > > > && TYPE_PRECISION (ptr_type_node) >= 32)
> > > > || (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var))
> > > > && TYPE_PRECISION (reduction_var) <= TYPE_PRECISION (sizetype))
> > > >
> > > > and similarly for the rawmemchr implementation:
> > > >
> > > > (TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node) == TYPE_PRECISION (ptr_type_node)
> > > > && TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node) >= 32)
> > > > || (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var))
> > > > && reduction_var_overflows_first (reduction_var, load_type))
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > + if (TYPE_OVERFLOW_UNDEFINED (TREE_TYPE (reduction_var)))
> > > > > > > + {
> > > > > > > + const char *msg = G_("assuming signed overflow does not occur "
> > > > > > > + "when optimizing strlen like loop");
> > > > > > > + fold_overflow_warning (msg, WARN_STRICT_OVERFLOW_MISC);
> > > > > > > + }
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > no, please don't add any new strict-overflow warnings ;)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I just stumbled over code which produces such a warning and thought this
> > > > > > is a hard requirement :D The new patch doesn't contain it anymore.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The generate_*_builtin routines need some factoring - if you code-generate
> > > > > > > into a gimple_seq you could use gimple_build () which would do the fold_stmt
> > > > > > > (not sure why you do that - you should see to fold the call, not necessarily
> > > > > > > the rest). The replacement of reduction_var and the dumping could be shared.
> > > > > > > There's also GET_MODE_NAME for the printing.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I wasn't really sure which way to go. Use a gsi, as it is done by
> > > > > > existing generate_* functions, or make use of gimple_seq. Since the
> > > > > > latter uses internally also gsi I thought it is better to stick to gsi
> > > > > > in the first place. Now, after changing to gimple_seq I see the beauty
> > > > > > of it :)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I created two helper functions generate_strlen_builtin_1 and
> > > > > > generate_reduction_builtin_1 in order to reduce code duplication.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > In function generate_strlen_builtin I changed from using
> > > > > > builtin_decl_implicit (BUILT_IN_STRLEN) to builtin_decl_explicit
> > > > > > (BUILT_IN_STRLEN) since the former could return a NULL pointer. I'm not
> > > > > > sure whether my intuition about the difference between implicit and
> > > > > > explicit builtins is correct. In builtins.def there is a small example
> > > > > > given which I would paraphrase as "use builtin_decl_explicit if the
> > > > > > semantics of the builtin is defined by the C standard; otherwise use
> > > > > > builtin_decl_implicit" but probably my intuition is wrong?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Beside that I'm not sure whether I really have to call
> > > > > > build_fold_addr_expr which looks superfluous to me since
> > > > > > gimple_build_call can deal with ADDR_EXPR as well as FUNCTION_DECL:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > tree fn = build_fold_addr_expr (builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_STRLEN));
> > > > > > gimple *fn_call = gimple_build_call (fn, 1, mem);
> > > > > >
> > > > > > However, since it is also used that way in the context of
> > > > > > generate_memset_builtin I didn't remove it so far.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > I think overall the approach is sound now but the details still need work.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Once again thank you very much for your review. Really appreciated!
> > > > >
> > > > > The patch lacks a changelog entry / description. It's nice if patches sent
> > > > > out for review are basically the rev as git format-patch produces.
> > > > >
> > > > > The rawmemchr optab needs documenting in md.texi
> > > >
> > > > While writing the documentation in md.texi I realised that other
> > > > instructions expect an address to be a memory operand which is not the
> > > > case for rawmemchr currently. At the moment the address is either an
> > > > SSA_NAME or ADDR_EXPR with a tree pointer type in expand_RAWMEMCHR. As a
> > > > consequence in the backend define_expand rawmemchr<mode> expects a
> > > > register operand and not a memory operand. Would it make sense to build
> > > > a MEM_REF out of SSA_NAME/ADDR_EXPR in expand_RAWMEMCHR? Not sure if
> > > > MEM_REF is supposed to be the canonical form here.
> > >
> > > I suppose the expander could use code similar to what
> > > expand_builtin_memset_args does,
> > > using get_memory_rtx. I suppose that we're using MEM operands because those
> > > can convey things like alias info or alignment info, something which
> > > REG operands cannot
> > > (easily). I wouldn't build a MEM_REF and try to expand that.
> >
> > The new patch contains the following changes:
> >
> > - In expand_RAWMEMCHR I'm using get_memory_rtx now. This means I had to
> > change linkage of get_memory_rtx to extern.
> >
> > - In function generate_strlen_builtin_using_rawmemchr I'm not
> > reconstructing the load type anymore from the base pointer but rather
> > pass it as a parameter from function transform_reduction_loop where we
> > also ensured that it is of integral type. Reconstructing the load
> > type was error prone since e.g. I didn't distinct between
> > pointer_plus_expr or addr_expr. Thus passing the load type should be
> > more solid.
> >
> > Regtested on IBM Z and x86. Ok for mainline?
>
> OK, and sorry for all the repeated delays.
No problem at all. I'm glad to see how the patch evolved over each
iteration. That being said: Thanks for all your reviews and hints!
The patch implementing the rawmemchr expander for IBM Z was also ack'd and
I pushed both commits today.
For the xalancbmk benchmark we now recognize 1081 rawmemchr-like loops
where at least one is in the hot path. Utilising a specialised rawmemchr
implementation for 16-bit characters gives good results on IBM Z ...
just saying maybe other archs are interested, too ;-)
Thanks,
Stefan
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
> > Thanks,
> > Stefan
> >
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > +}
> > > > > +
> > > > > +static bool
> > > > > +reduction_var_overflows_first (tree reduction_var, tree load_type)
> > > > > +{
> > > > > + unsigned precision_ptrdiff = TYPE_PRECISION (ptrdiff_type_node);
> > > > >
> > > > > this function needs a comment.
> > > >
> > > > Done.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > + if (stmt_has_scalar_dependences_outside_loop (loop, phi))
> > > > > + {
> > > > > + if (reduction_stmt)
> > > > > + return false;
> > > > >
> > > > > you leak bbs here and elsewhere where you early exit the function.
> > > > > In fact you fail to free it at all.
> > > >
> > > > Whoopsy. I factored the whole loop out into static function
> > > > determine_reduction_stmt in order to deal with all early exits.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Otherwise the patch looks good - thanks for all the improvements.
> > > > >
> > > > > What I do wonder is
> > > > >
> > > > > + tree fn = build_fold_addr_expr (builtin_decl_explicit (BUILT_IN_STRLEN));
> > > > > + gimple *fn_call = gimple_build_call (fn, 1, mem);
> > > > >
> > > > > using builtin_decl_explicit means that in a TU where strlen is neither
> > > > > declared nor used we can end up emitting calls to it. For memcpy/memmove
> > > > > that's usually OK since we require those to be present even in a
> > > > > freestanding environment. But I'm not sure about strlen here so I'd
> > > > > lean towards using builtin_decl_implicit and checking that for NULL which
> > > > > IIRC should prevent emitting strlen when it's not declared and maybe even
> > > > > if it's declared but not used. All other uses that generate STRLEN
> > > > > use that at least.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks for clarification. I changed it back to builtin_decl_implicit
> > > > and check for null pointers.
> > >
> > > Thanks,
> > > Richard.
> > >
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Stefan
More information about the Gcc-patches
mailing list