On Tue, 9 Jun 2026 10:37:09 GMT, Emanuel Peter <[email protected]> wrote:

>>> @fg1417 Nice progress, I had some responses and new comments above. Main 
>>> new idea: what about Vector API vectors that create these patterns, do they 
>>> also get optimized by your changes now?
>> 
>> Hi @eme64, thanks for your patience.
>> 
>> I’ve pushed the Vector API microbenchmarks in 
>> `test/micro/org/openjdk/bench/jdk/incubator/vector/LongVectorReduction.java` 
>> that mirror the auto-vectorization patterns, along with the corresponding IR 
>> test cases. The change also benefits these Vector API microbenchmarks.
>> 
>> On an `Arm Neoverse V2` platform, I observed the following results:
>> 
>> 
>> Benchmark                                 (size)    Mode   Cnt   Units       
>>  uplift          
>> LongVectorReduction.addBig                 512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   2.97%
>> LongVectorReduction.addBig                 2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   0.37%
>> LongVectorReduction.addDotProduct          512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   50.99%
>> LongVectorReduction.addDotProduct          2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   49.95%
>> LongVectorReduction.addDotProductShared    512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   0.29%
>> LongVectorReduction.addDotProductShared    2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   -0.01%
>> LongVectorReduction.ifElsePhiAdd           512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   8.50%
>> LongVectorReduction.ifElsePhiAdd           2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   16.04%
>> LongVectorReduction.ifElsePhiSub           512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   10.55%
>> LongVectorReduction.ifElsePhiSub           2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   11.78%
>> LongVectorReduction.subDotProduct          512     thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   50.74%
>> LongVectorReduction.subDotProduct          2048    thrpt    5    ops/ms      
>>   50.49%
>> 
>> 
>> Thanks!
>
> @fg1417 Thanks for the updates and benchmarks! I think the code is 
> reasonable. I gave the PR another scan :)

Hi @eme64, do you have any other comments or feedback on this PR? Thanks!

-------------

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/30237#issuecomment-4890908884

Reply via email to