On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 1:10 PM Aldy Hernandez <al...@redhat.com> wrote:
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 12:57 PM Richard Biener
> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2021 at 11:55 AM Aldy Hernandez via Gcc-patches
> > <gcc-patches@gcc.gnu.org> wrote:
> > >
> > > Andrew's patch for this PR103254 papered over some underlying
> > > performance issues in the path solver that I'd like to address.
> > >
> > > We are currently solving the SSA's defined in the current block in
> > > bitmap order, which amounts to random order for all purposes. This is
> > > causing unnecessary recursion in gori. This patch changes the order
> > > to gimple order, thus solving dependencies before uses.
> > >
> > > There is no change in threadable paths with this change.
> > >
> > > Tested on x86-64 & ppc64le Linux.
> > >
> > > gcc/ChangeLog:
> > >
> > > PR tree-optimization/103254
> > > * gimple-range-path.cc
> > > (path_range_query::compute_ranges_defined): New
> > > (path_range_query::compute_ranges_in_block): Move to
> > > compute_ranges_defined.
> > > * gimple-range-path.h (compute_ranges_defined): New.
> > > ---
> > > gcc/gimple-range-path.cc | 33 ++++++++++++++++++++++-----------
> > > gcc/gimple-range-path.h | 1 +
> > > 2 files changed, 23 insertions(+), 11 deletions(-)
> > >
> > > diff --git a/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc b/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc
> > > index 4aa666d2c8b..e24086691c4 100644
> > > --- a/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc
> > > +++ b/gcc/gimple-range-path.cc
> > > @@ -401,6 +401,27 @@ path_range_query::compute_ranges_in_phis
> > > (basic_block bb)
> > > }
> > > }
> > >
> > > +// Compute ranges defined in block.
> > > +
> > > +void
> > > +path_range_query::compute_ranges_defined (basic_block bb)
> > > +{
> > > + int_range_max r;
> > > +
> > > + compute_ranges_in_phis (bb);
> > > +
> > > + // Iterate in gimple order to minimize recursion.
> > > + for (auto gsi = gsi_start_nondebug_bb (bb); !gsi_end_p (gsi); gsi_next
> > > (&gsi))
> >
> > gsi_next_nondebug (&gsi)?
> >
> > Of course this all has the extra cost of iterating over a possibly very
> > large
> > BB for just a few bits in m_imports? How often does m_imports have
> > exactly one bit set?
>
> Hmmm, good point.
>
> Perhaps this isn't worth it then. I mean, the underlying bug I'm
> tackling is an excess of outgoing edge ranges, not the excess
> recursion this patch attacks.
>
> If you think the cost would be high for large ILs, I can revert the patch.
I think so. If ordering is important then that should be achieved in some
other ways (always a bit difficult for on-demand infrastructure).
Richard.
>
> Aldy
>
