On Mon, Jun 19, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 2:54 PM, Richard Biener > <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote: >> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:03 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote: >>> Hi, >>> Current primitive cost model merges partitions with data references sharing >>> the same >>> base address. I believe it's designed to maximize data reuse in >>> distribution, but >>> that should be done by dedicated data reusing algorithm. At this stage of >>> merging, >>> we should be conservative and only merge partitions with the same >>> references. >>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK? >> >> Well, I'd say "conservative" is merging more, not less. For example >> splitting a[i+1] from a[i] >> would be bad(?), so I'd see to allow unequal DR_INIT as "equal" for >> merging. Maybe >> DR_INIT within a cacheline or so. >> >> How many extra distributions in say SPEC do you get from this change alone? > Hi, > I collected data for spec2006 only with/without this patch. I am a > bit surprised that it doesn't change the number of distributed loops. >> >> It shows also that having partition->reads_and_writes would be nice >> ... the code duplication > Yeah, I merged read/write data references in previous patch, now this > duplication is gone. Update patch attached. Is it OK?
+ gcc_assert (i < datarefs_vec.length ()); + dr1 = datarefs_vec[i]; these asserts are superfluous -- vec::operator[] does them as well. Ok if you remove them. Richard. > Thanks. > bin > 2017-06-07 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> > > * tree-loop-distribution.c (ref_base_address): Delete. > (similar_memory_accesses): Rename ... > (share_memory_accesses): ... to this. Check if partitions access > the same memory reference. > (distribute_loop): Call share_memory_accesses.
