On Thu, May 11, 2023 at 5:20 PM Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com> wrote:
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 11, 2023 6:53 PM
> > To: Cui, Lili <lili....@intel.com>
> > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org
> > Subject: Re: [PATCH 1/2] PR gcc/98350:Add a param to control the length of
> > the chain with FMA in reassoc pass
>
> Hi Richard,
> Thanks for helping to review the patch.
>
> >
> > As you are not changing the number of ops you should be able to use
> > quick_push here and below. You should be able to do
> >
> > ops->splice (ops_mult);
> > ops->splice (ops_others);
> >
> > as well.
> >
> Done.
>
> > > + /* When enabling param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma
> > to
> > > + keep the chain with fma, rank_ops_for_fma will
> > > detect if
> > > + the chain has fmas and if so it will rearrange the
> > > ops. */
> > > + if (param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma > 1
> > > + && direct_internal_fn_supported_p (IFN_FMA,
> > > + TREE_TYPE (lhs),
> > > + opt_type)
> > > + && (rhs_code == PLUS_EXPR || rhs_code ==
> > > MINUS_EXPR))
> > > + {
> > > + keep_fma_chain = rank_ops_for_fma(&ops);
> > > + }
> > > +
> > > + int len = ops.length ();
> > > /* Only rewrite the expression tree to parallel in the
> > > last reassoc pass to avoid useless work
> > > back-and-forth
> > > with initial linearization. */
> >
> > we are doing the parallel rewrite only in the last reassoc pass, i think it
> > makes
> > sense to do the same for reassoc-for-fma.
>
> I rearranged the order of ops in reassoc1 without break the chain, it
> generated more vectorize during vector pass( seen in benchmark 503). So I
> rewrite the ssa tree and keep the chain with function "rewrite_expr_tree" in
> reassoc1, break the chain with "rewrite_expr_tree_parallel_for_fma" in
> reassoc2.
>
> >
> > Why do the existing expr rewrites not work after re-sorting the ops?
>
> For case https://godbolt.org/z/3x9PWE9Kb: we put "j" at first.
>
> j + l * m + a * b + c * d + e * f + g * h;
>
> GCC trunk: width = 2, ops_num = 6, old function " rewrite_expr_tree_parallel
> " generates 3 FMAs.
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _1 = l_10(D) * m_11(D);
> _3 = a_13(D) * b_14(D);
> _4 = j_12(D) + _3; --------> Here is one FMA.
> _5 = c_15(D) * d_16(D);
> _8 = _1 + _5; --------> Here is one FMA and lost one.
> _7 = e_17(D) * f_18(D);
> _9 = g_19(D) * h_20(D);
> _2 = _7 + _9; --------> Here is one FMA and lost one.
> _6 = _2 + _4;
> _21 = _6 + _8;
> # VUSE <.MEM_22(D)>
> return _21;
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> width = 2, ops_num = 6, new function " rewrite_expr_tree_parallel_for_fma "
> generates 4 FMAs.
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _1 = a_10(D) * b_11(D);
> _3 = c_13(D) * d_14(D);
> _5 = e_15(D) * f_16(D);
> _7 = g_17(D) * h_18(D);
> _4 = _5 + _7; --------> Here is one FMA and lost one.
> _8 = _4 + _1; --------> Here is one FMA.
> _9 = l_19(D) * m_20(D);
> _2 = _9 + j_12(D); --------> Here is one FMA.
> _6 = _2 + _3; --------> Here is one FMA.
> _21 = _8 + _6;
> return _21;
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ISTR there were no sufficient comments in the code explaining why
rewrite_expr_tree_parallel_for_fma is better by design. In fact ...
>
> >
> > > if (!reassoc_insert_powi_p
> > > - && ops.length () > 3
> > > + && len > 3
> > > + && (!keep_fma_chain
> > > + || (keep_fma_chain
> > > + && len >
> > > + param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma))
> >
> > in the case len < param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma we have the
> > chain re-sorted but fall through to non-parallel rewrite. I wonder if we do
> > not want to instead adjust the reassociation width? I'd say it depends on
> > the
> > number of mult cases in the chain (sth the re-sorting could have computed).
> > Why do we have two completely independent --params here? Can you give
> > an example --param value combination that makes "sense" and show how it
> > is beneficial?
>
> For this small case https://godbolt.org/z/Pxczrre8P
> a * b + c * d + e * f + j
>
> GCC trunk: ops_num = 4, targetm.sched.reassociation_width is 4 (scalar fp
> cost is 4). Calculated: Width = 2. we can get 2 FMAs.
> ----------------------------------
> _1 = a_6(D) * b_7(D);
> _2 = c_8(D) * d_9(D);
> _5 = _1 + _2;
> _4 = e_10(D) * f_11(D);
> _3 = _4 + j_12(D);
> _13 = _3 + _5;
> --------------------------------------------------------
> _2 = c_8(D) * d_9(D);
> _5 = .FMA (a_6(D), b_7(D), _2);
> _3 = .FMA (e_10(D), f_11(D), j_12(D));
> _13 = _3 + _5;
> --------------------------------------------------------
> New patch: If just rearrange ops and fall through to parallel rewrite to
> break the chain with width = 2.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------
> _1 = a_6(D) * b_7(D);
> _2 = j + _1; -----> put j at the first.
> _3 = c_8(D) * d_9(D);
> _4 = e_10(D) * f_11(D);
> _5 = _3 + _4; -----> break chain with width = 2. we lost a FMA here.
> _13 = _2 + 5;
>
> -------------------------------------------------------
> _3 = c_8(D) * d_9(D);
> _2 = .FMA (a_6(D), b_7(D), j);
> _5 = .FMA (e_10(D), f_11(D), _3);
> _13 = _2 + _5;
> --------------------------------------------------------
> Sometimes break chain will lose FMA( break chain needs put two mult-ops
> together, which will lose one FMA ), we can only get 2 FMAs here, if we want
> to get 3 FMAs, we need to keep the chain and not break it. So I added a param
> to control chain length "param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma = 4" (For
> the small case in Bugzilla 98350, we need to keep the chain to generate 6
> FMAs.)
> -------------------------------------------------------
> _1 = a_6(D) * b_7(D);
> _2 = c_8(D) * d_9(D);
> _4 = e_10(D) * f_11(D);
> _15 = _4 + j_12(D);
> _16 = _15 + _2;
> _13 = _16 + _1;
> -------------------------------------------------------
> _15 = .FMA (e_10(D), f_11(D), j_12(D));
> _16 = .FMA (c_8(D), d_9(D), _15);
> _13 = .FMA (a_6(D), b_7(D), _16);
> -------------------------------------------------------
> In some case we want to break the chain with width, we can set
> "param_reassoc_max_chain_length_with_fma = 2", it will rearrange ops and
> break the chain with width.
... it sounds like the problem could be fully addressed by sorting the
chain with reassoc-width in mind?
Wouldn't it be preferable if rewrite_expr_tree_parallel would get a
vector of mul and a vector of
non-mul ops so it can pick from the optimal candidate?
That said, I think rewrite_expr_tree_parallel_for_fma at least needs
more comments.
> >
> > > && (width = get_reassociation_width (ops_num,
> > > rhs_code,
> > > - mode)) > 1)
> > > + mode)) >
> > > + 1)
> > > {
> > > - if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
> > > - fprintf (dump_file,
> > > - "Width = %d was chosen for
> > > reassociation\n",
> > > - width);
> > > - rewrite_expr_tree_parallel (as_a <gassign *> (stmt),
> > > - width, ops);
> > > + if (keep_fma_chain)
> > > + {
> > > + if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
> > > + fprintf (dump_file,
> > > + "Break chain len = %d into width for
> > > FMA\n",
> > > + len);
> > > + rewrite_expr_tree_parallel_for_fma
> > > + (as_a <gassign *> (stmt), width, ops);
> > > + }
> > > + else
> > > + {
> > > + if (dump_file && (dump_flags & TDF_DETAILS))
> > > + fprintf (dump_file,
> > > + "Width = %d was chosen for
> > > reassociation\n",
> > > + width);
> > > + rewrite_expr_tree_parallel (as_a <gassign *>
> > > (stmt),
> > > + width, ops);
> > > + }
> > > }
> > > else
> > > - {
> > > - /* When there are three operands left, we want
> > > - to make sure the ones that get the double
> > > - binary op are chosen wisely. */
> > > - int len = ops.length ();
> > > - if (len >= 3)
> > > + {
> > > + /* When there are three operands left, we want
> > > + to make sure the ones that get the double
> > > + binary op are chosen wisely. */
> > > + if (len >= 3 && !keep_fma_chain)
> > > swap_ops_for_binary_stmt (ops, len - 3);
> > >
> > > new_lhs = rewrite_expr_tree (stmt, rhs_code, 0, ops,
> > > powi_result != NULL
> > > || negate_result,
> > > len != orig_len);
> > > - }
> > > -
> > > + }
> > > /* If we combined some repeated factors into a
> > > __builtin_powi call, multiply that result by the
> > > reassociated operands. */
> > > --
> > > 2.25.1
> > >
