Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Hello,
>>> * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function.
>
> You could check first thing if (from->cuid == to->cuid), for code clarity.
Attached is the new version of the patch which addresses this.
The patch was re-tested as follows:
On ppc64-redhat-linux regtest as well as bootstrap with SMS flags
enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1. Regtested on SPU.
On arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap c language with SMS
flags enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1
and currently regression testing on c,c++.
OK for mainline once regtest on arm-linux-gnueabi completes?
Thanks,
Revital
gcc/
* ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function.
(build_intra_loop_deps): Call it.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/sms-9.c: New file.
Index: ddg.c
===
--- ddg.c (revision 174906)
+++ ddg.c (working copy)
@@ -390,6 +390,38 @@ insns_may_alias_p (rtx insn1, rtx insn2)
&PATTERN (insn2));
}
+/* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add intra-loop mem deps
+ to ddg G. */
+static void
+add_intra_loop_mem_dep (ddg_ptr g, ddg_node_ptr from, ddg_node_ptr to)
+{
+
+ if ((from->cuid == to->cuid)
+ || !insns_may_alias_p (from->insn, to->insn))
+/* Do not create edge if memory references have disjoint alias sets
+ or 'to' and 'from' are the same instruction. */
+return;
+
+ if (mem_write_insn_p (from->insn))
+{
+ if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to,
+ DEBUG_INSN_P (to->insn)
+ ? ANTI_DEP : TRUE_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+ else
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to,
+ DEBUG_INSN_P (to->insn)
+ ? ANTI_DEP : OUTPUT_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+}
+ else
+{
+ if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ return;
+ else
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to, ANTI_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+}
+}
+
/* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add inter-loop mem deps
to ddg G. */
static void
@@ -477,10 +509,22 @@ build_intra_loop_deps (ddg_ptr g)
if (DEBUG_INSN_P (j_node->insn))
continue;
if (mem_access_insn_p (j_node->insn))
- /* Don't bother calculating inter-loop dep if an intra-loop dep
- already exists. */
+ {
+ /* Don't bother calculating inter-loop dep if an intra-loop
dep
+already exists. */
if (! TEST_BIT (dest_node->successors, j))
add_inter_loop_mem_dep (g, dest_node, j_node);
+ /* If -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves
+is set certain anti-dep edges are not created.
+It might be that these anti-dep edges are on the
+path from one memory instruction to another such that
+removing these edges could cause a violation of the
+memory dependencies. Thus we add intra edges between
+every two memory instructions in this case. */
+ if (flag_modulo_sched_allow_regmoves
+ && !TEST_BIT (dest_node->predecessors, j))
+ add_intra_loop_mem_dep (g, j_node, dest_node);
+ }
}
}
}
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c
===
--- testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fmodulo-sched -fno-auto-inc-dec -O2
-fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves" } */
+
+#include
+#include
+
+struct df_ref_info
+{
+ unsigned int *begin;
+ unsigned int *count;
+};
+
+extern void *memset (void *s, int c, __SIZE_TYPE__ n);
+
+
+__attribute__ ((noinline))
+int
+df_reorganize_refs_by_reg_by_insn (struct df_ref_info *ref_info,
+ int num, unsigned int start)
+{
+ unsigned int m = num;
+ unsigned int offset = 77;
+ unsigned int r;
+
+ for (r = start; r < m; r++)
+{
+ ref_info->begin[r] = offset;
+ offset += ref_info->count[r];
+ ref_info->count[r] = 0;
+}
+
+ return offset;
+}
+
+int
+main ()
+{
+ struct df_ref_info temp;
+ int num = 100;
+ unsigned int start = 5;
+ int i, offset;
+
+ temp.begin = malloc (100 * sizeof (unsigned int));
+ temp.count = malloc (100 * sizeof (unsigned int));
+
+ memset (temp.begin, 0, sizeof (unsigned int) * num);
+ memset (temp.count, 0, sizeof (unsigned int) * num);
+
+ for (i = 0; i < num; i++)
+temp.count[i] = i + 1;
+
+ offset = df_reorganize_refs_by_reg_by_insn (&temp, num, start);
+
+ if (offset != 5112)
+abort ();
+
+ free (temp.begin);
+ free (temp.count);
+ return 0;
+}
Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Hello, > better do > else if (!mem_read_insn_p (to->insn)) > > + create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to, ANTI_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0); > + } Done. Committed to -r175090. Thanks, Revital
Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
> OK for mainline once regtest on arm-linux-gnueabi completes?
ok.
+ else
+{
+ if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ return;
+ else
better do
else if (!mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to, ANTI_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+}
Ayal.
Revital Eres wrote on 15/06/2011 11:45:15 AM:
> From: Revital Eres
> To: Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL
> Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Patch Tracking
> Date: 15/06/2011 11:45 AM
> Subject: Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
>
> Hello,
>
> >>> * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function.
> >
> > You could check first thing if (from->cuid == to->cuid), for code
clarity.
>
> Attached is the new version of the patch which addresses this.
>
> The patch was re-tested as follows:
> On ppc64-redhat-linux regtest as well as bootstrap with SMS flags
> enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1. Regtested on SPU.
> On arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap c language with SMS
> flags enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1
> and currently regression testing on c,c++.
>
> OK for mainline once regtest on arm-linux-gnueabi completes?
>
> Thanks,
> Revital
>
> gcc/
> * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function.
> (build_intra_loop_deps): Call it.
>
> testsuite/
> * gcc.dg/sms-9.c: New file.
> [attachment "patch_sms_14_6.txt" deleted by Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM]
Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Hello, >> You could check first thing if (from->cuid == to->cuid), for code clarity. > > I will address this point separately and commit the current version of > the patch as is if that's OK. Re-thinking about that, I'll prepare a new version of the patch which addresses this and re-send it. Sorry for the confusion, Revital
Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Hello, > Yes, this is a straightforward fix to a wrong-code bug, as discussed > offline. Other alternatives that might introduce less edges: > o connect predecessors of u with v, and u with successors of v, when > removing edge (u,v). Maybe there are other cases which rely on transitivity > (?). Right. as discussed off-line I will further think if we are currently cover all the cases. > >>> * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function. > > You could check first thing if (from->cuid == to->cuid), for code clarity. I will address this point separately and commit the current version of the patch as is if that's OK. Thanks, Revital
Re: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Revital Eres wrote on 13/06/2011 10:29:06 AM: > From: Revital Eres > To: Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM@IBMIL > Cc: gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org, Patch Tracking > Date: 13/06/2011 10:29 AM > Subject: [PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence > > Hello, > > The attached patch fixes violation of memory dependencies. The > problematic scenario happens when -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves flag > is set and certain anti-dep edges are not created. > > For example, consider the following three instructions and the edges > between them. When -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves is set the edge (63 - > Anti, 0 -> 64) is not created. (probably due to transitivity) > > Insn 63) r168 = MEM[176] > Out edges: (63 - Anti, 0 -> 64) > In edges: (64 - True, 1 -> 63), (68 - True, 1 -> 63) > > insn 64) 176 = 176 + 4 > Out edges: (64 - True, 1 -> 63), (64 - True, 0-> 68) > In edges: (63 - Anti, 0 -> 64) > > insn 68) MEM[176 – 4] = 193 > Out edges: (68 - True, 1 -> 63) > In edges: (64 - True, 0-> 68) > > This anti-dep edge is on the path from one memory instruction to another > --- from 63 to 68; such that removing the edge caused a violation of > the memory dependencies as insn 63 was scheduled after insn 68. > > This patch adds intra edges between every two memory instructions in > this case. It fixes recent bootstrap failure on ARM. (with SMS flags) > > The patch was tested as follows: > On ppc64-redhat-linux regtest as well as bootstrap with SMS flags > enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1. Regtested on SPU. > On arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap c language with SMS > flags enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1 > and currently regression testing on c,c++. > > OK for mainline once regtest on arm-linux-gnueabi completes? > Yes, this is a straightforward fix to a wrong-code bug, as discussed offline. Other alternatives that might introduce less edges: o connect predecessors of u with v, and u with successors of v, when removing edge (u,v). Maybe there are other cases which rely on transitivity (?). o have a version of sched_analyze that avoids creating register anti-deps to begin with, and thus will create memory-deps in the absence of transitivity. >> * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function. You could check first thing if (from->cuid == to->cuid), for code clarity. Nice catch, Ayal. > Thanks, > Revital > > Changelog: > > gcc/ > * ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function. > (build_intra_loop_deps): Call it. > > testsuite/ > * gcc.dg/sms-9.c: New file. > [attachment "patch_fix_regmoves_12_6.txt" deleted by Ayal Zaks/Haifa/IBM]
[PATCH, SMS] Fix violation of memory dependence
Hello,
The attached patch fixes violation of memory dependencies. The
problematic scenario happens when -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves flag
is set and certain anti-dep edges are not created.
For example, consider the following three instructions and the edges
between them. When -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves is set the edge (63 -
Anti, 0 -> 64) is not created. (probably due to transitivity)
Insn 63) r168 = MEM[176]
Out edges: (63 - Anti, 0 -> 64)
In edges: (64 - True, 1 -> 63), (68 - True, 1 -> 63)
insn 64) 176 = 176 + 4
Out edges: (64 - True, 1 -> 63), (64 - True, 0-> 68)
In edges: (63 - Anti, 0 -> 64)
insn 68) MEM[176 – 4] = 193
Out edges: (68 - True, 1 -> 63)
In edges: (64 - True, 0-> 68)
This anti-dep edge is on the path from one memory instruction to another
--- from 63 to 68; such that removing the edge caused a violation of
the memory dependencies as insn 63 was scheduled after insn 68.
This patch adds intra edges between every two memory instructions in
this case. It fixes recent bootstrap failure on ARM. (with SMS flags)
The patch was tested as follows:
On ppc64-redhat-linux regtest as well as bootstrap with SMS flags
enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1. Regtested on SPU.
On arm-linux-gnueabi bootstrap c language with SMS
flags enabling SMS also on loops with stage count 1
and currently regression testing on c,c++.
OK for mainline once regtest on arm-linux-gnueabi completes?
Thanks,
Revital
Changelog:
gcc/
* ddg.c (add_intra_loop_mem_dep): New function.
(build_intra_loop_deps): Call it.
testsuite/
* gcc.dg/sms-9.c: New file.
Index: ddg.c
===
--- ddg.c (revision 174906)
+++ ddg.c (working copy)
@@ -390,6 +390,36 @@ insns_may_alias_p (rtx insn1, rtx insn2)
&PATTERN (insn2));
}
+/* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add intra-loop mem deps
+ to ddg G. */
+static void
+add_intra_loop_mem_dep (ddg_ptr g, ddg_node_ptr from, ddg_node_ptr to)
+{
+
+ if (!insns_may_alias_p (from->insn, to->insn))
+/* Do not create edge if memory references have disjoint alias sets. */
+return;
+
+ if (mem_write_insn_p (from->insn))
+{
+ if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to,
+ DEBUG_INSN_P (to->insn)
+ ? ANTI_DEP : TRUE_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+ else if (from->cuid != to->cuid)
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to,
+ DEBUG_INSN_P (to->insn)
+ ? ANTI_DEP : OUTPUT_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+}
+ else
+{
+ if (mem_read_insn_p (to->insn))
+ return;
+ else if (from->cuid != to->cuid)
+ create_ddg_dep_no_link (g, from, to, ANTI_DEP, MEM_DEP, 0);
+}
+}
+
/* Given two nodes, analyze their RTL insns and add inter-loop mem deps
to ddg G. */
static void
@@ -477,10 +507,22 @@ build_intra_loop_deps (ddg_ptr g)
if (DEBUG_INSN_P (j_node->insn))
continue;
if (mem_access_insn_p (j_node->insn))
- /* Don't bother calculating inter-loop dep if an intra-loop dep
- already exists. */
+ {
+ /* Don't bother calculating inter-loop dep if an intra-loop
dep
+already exists. */
if (! TEST_BIT (dest_node->successors, j))
add_inter_loop_mem_dep (g, dest_node, j_node);
+ /* If -fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves
+is set certain anti-dep edges are not created.
+It might be that these anti-dep edges are on the
+path from one memory instruction to another such that
+removing these edges could cause a violation of the
+memory dependencies. Thus we add intra edges between
+every two memory instructions in this case. */
+ if (flag_modulo_sched_allow_regmoves
+ && !TEST_BIT (dest_node->predecessors, j))
+ add_intra_loop_mem_dep (g, j_node, dest_node);
+ }
}
}
}
Index: testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c
===
--- testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c(revision 0)
+++ testsuite/gcc.dg/sms-9.c(revision 0)
@@ -0,0 +1,60 @@
+/* { dg-do run } */
+/* { dg-options "-O2 -fmodulo-sched -fno-auto-inc-dec -O2
-fmodulo-sched-allow-regmoves" } */
+
+#include
+#include
+
+struct df_ref_info
+{
+ unsigned int *begin;
+ unsigned int *count;
+};
+
+extern void *memset (void *s, int c, __SIZE_TYPE__ n);
+
+
+__attribute__ ((noinline))
+int
+df_reorganize_refs_by_reg_by_insn (struct df_ref_info *ref_info,
+ int num, unsigned int start)
+{
+ unsigned int m = num;
+ unsigned int offset = 77;
+ unsigned int r;
+
+ for (r = start; r
