On Mon, Oct 29, 2018 at 2:06 AM Kugan Vivekanandarajah
<kugan.vivekanandara...@linaro.org> wrote:
>
> Hi Richard and Jeff,
>
> Thanks for your comments.
>
> On Fri, 26 Oct 2018 at 19:40, Richard Biener <richard.guent...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
> >
> > On Fri, Oct 26, 2018 at 4:55 AM Jeff Law <l...@redhat.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > On 10/25/18 4:33 PM, Kugan Vivekanandarajah wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > PR87528 showed a case where libgcc generated popcount is causing
> > > > regression for Skylake.
> > > > We also have PR86677 where kernel build is failing because the kernel
> > > > does not use the libgcc (when backend is not defining popcount
> > > > pattern). While I agree that the kernel should implement its own
> > > > functionality when it is not using the libgcc, I am afraid that the
> > > > implementation can have the same performance issues reported for
> > > > Skylake in PR87528.
> > > >
> > > > Therefore, I would like to propose that we disable popcount detection
> > > > when we don't have a pattern for that. The attached patch (based on
> > > > previous discussions) does this.
> > > >
> > > > Bootstrapped and regression tested on x86_64-linux-gnu with no new
> > > > regressions. We need to disable the popcount* testcases. I will have
> > > > to define a effective_target_with_popcount in
> > > > gcc/testsuite/lib/target-supports.exp if this patch is OK?
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Kugan
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > 2018-10-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > * tree-scalar-evolution.c (expression_expensive_p): Make BUILTIN
> > > > POPCOUNT
> > > > as expensive when backend does not define it.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > gcc/testsuite/ChangeLog:
> > > >
> > > > 2018-10-25 Kugan Vivekanandarajah <kug...@linaro.org>
> > > >
> > > > * gcc.target/aarch64/popcount4.c: New test.
> > > >
> > > FWIW, I've been disabling by checking direct_optab_handler elsewhere
> > > (number_of_iterations_popcount) in my tester. It may in fact be an old
> > > patch from you.
> > >
> > > Richi argued that it's the kernel team's responsibility to provide a
> > > popcount since they don't link with libgcc. And I'm generally in
> > > agreement with that position, though it does tend to generate some
> > > friction with the kernel developers. We also run the real risk of GCC 9
> > > not being able to build the kernel which, IMHO, would be a disaster from
> > > a PR standpoint.
> > >
> > > I'd like to hear from others here. I fully realize we're beyond the
> > > realm of what is strictly technically correct here from a review
> > > standpoint.
> >
> > As said final value replacement to a library call is probably not wanted
> > for optimization purpose, so adjusting expression_expensive_p is OK with
> > me. It might not fully solve the (non-)issue in case another optimization
> > pass
> > chooses to materialize niter computation result.
> >
> > Few comments on the patch:
> >
> > + tree fndecl = get_callee_fndecl (expr);
> > +
> > + if (fndecl && DECL_BUILT_IN_CLASS (fndecl) == BUILT_IN_NORMAL)
> > + {
> > + combined_fn cfn = as_combined_fn (DECL_FUNCTION_CODE (fndecl));
> >
> > combined_fn cfn = gimple_call_combined_fn (expr);
> > switch (cfn)
> > {
>
> Did you mean:
> combined_fn cfn = get_call_combined_fn (expr);
Yes.
> > ...
> >
> > cfn will be CFN_LAST for a non-builtin/internal call. I know Richard is
> > mostly
> > offline but eventually he knows whether there is a better way to query
> >
> > + CASE_CFN_POPCOUNT:
> > + /* Check if opcode for popcount is available. */
> > + if (optab_handler (popcount_optab,
> > + TYPE_MODE (TREE_TYPE (CALL_EXPR_ARG
> > (expr, 0))))
> > + == CODE_FOR_nothing)
> > + return true;
> >
> > note that we currently generate builtin calls rather than IFN calls
> > (when a direct
> > optab is supported).
> >
> > Another comment on the patch is that you probably have to adjust existing
> > popcount testcases to add architecture specific flags enabling suport for
> > the instructions, otherwise you won't see loop replacement.
> Indeed.
> In lib/target-supports.exp, I will try to add support for
> check_effective_target_popcount_long.
> When I grep for the popcount pattern in md files, I see it is defined for:
>
> tilegx
> tilepro
> alpha
> aarch64 when TARGET_SIMD
> ia64
> rs6000
> i386 when TARGET_POPCOUNT
> popwerpcspce when TARGET_POPCNTB || TARGET_POPCNTD
> s390 when TARGET_Z916 && TARGET_64BIT
> sparc when TARGET_POPC
> arm when TARGET_NEON
> mips when ISA_HAS_POP
> spu
> avr
>
> I can check these targets with the condition.
> Another possibility is to check with a sample code and see if we are
> getting a libcall in the asm. Not sure if that is straightforward. Are
> there any example for such.
You could try linking w/o libgcc ...
> We could also move these test to a primary target that is tested often
> tested which also defines popcount pattern. I dont think these tests
> change for targets and if we can test in one target that could be
> enough,
>
> I am happy to implement what is appropriate.
How about the -Os idea?
Richard.
> Thanks,
> Kugan
>
>
>
> >
> > Also I think that the expression is only expensive (for final value
> > replacement!)
> > if you consider optimizing for speed. When optimizing for size getting rid
> > of
> > the loop is probably beneificial unconditionally. That would leave the
> > possibility to switch said testcases to -Os. It would require adding a
> > bool size_p flag to expression_expensive and passing down
> > optimize_loop_for_size_p ().
> >
> > _NOTE_ that expression_expensive_p is also used by IVOPTs and there
> > replacing sth with an expression based on the niter analysis result doesn't
> > mean we get rid of the loop (but only of an IV), so maybe that reasoning
> > doesn't apply there.
> >
> > Richard.
> >
> > > Jeff
> > >
