On Fri, 8 Nov 2024 08:15:32 GMT, Jatin Bhateja <jbhat...@openjdk.org> wrote:

>> This patch optimizes LongVector multiplication by inferring VPMUL[U]DQ 
>> instruction for following IR pallets.
>>   
>> 
>>        MulVL   ( AndV  SRC1,  0xFFFFFFFF)   ( AndV  SRC2,  0xFFFFFFFF) 
>>        MulVL   (URShiftVL SRC1 , 32) (URShiftVL SRC2, 32)
>>        MulVL   (URShiftVL SRC1 , 32)  ( AndV  SRC2,  0xFFFFFFFF)
>>        MulVL   ( AndV  SRC1,  0xFFFFFFFF) (URShiftVL SRC2 , 32)
>>        MulVL   (VectorCastI2X SRC1) (VectorCastI2X SRC2)
>>        MulVL   (RShiftVL SRC1 , 32) (RShiftVL SRC2, 32)
>> 
>> 
>> 
>>  A  64x64 bit multiplication produces 128 bit result, and can be performed 
>> by individually multiplying upper and lower double word of multiplier with 
>> multiplicand and assembling the partial products to compute full width 
>> result. Targets supporting vector quadword multiplication have separate 
>> instructions to compute upper and lower quadwords for 128 bit result. 
>> Therefore existing VectorAPI multiplication operator expects shape 
>> conformance between source and result vectors.
>> 
>> If upper 32 bits of quadword multiplier and multiplicand is always set to 
>> zero then result of multiplication is only dependent on the partial product 
>> of their lower double words and can be performed using unsigned 32 bit 
>> multiplication instruction with quadword saturation. Patch matches this 
>> pattern in a target dependent manner without introducing new IR node.
>>  
>> VPMUL[U]DQ instruction performs [unsigned] multiplication between even 
>> numbered doubleword lanes of two long vectors and produces 64 bit result.  
>> It has much lower latency compared to full 64 bit multiplication instruction 
>> "VPMULLQ", in addition non-AVX512DQ targets does not support direct quadword 
>> multiplication, thus we can save redundant partial product for zeroed out 
>> upper 32 bits. This results into throughput improvements on both P and E 
>> core Xeons.
>> 
>> Please find below the performance of [XXH3 hashing benchmark 
>> ](https://mail.openjdk.org/pipermail/panama-dev/2024-July/020557.html)included
>>  with the patch:-
>>  
>> 
>> Sierra Forest :-
>> ============
>> Baseline:-
>> Benchmark                                 (SIZE)   Mode  Cnt    Score   
>> Error   Units
>> VectorXXH3HashingBenchmark.hashingKernel    1024  thrpt    2  806.228        
>>   ops/ms
>> VectorXXH3HashingBenchmark.hashingKernel    2048  thrpt    2  403.044        
>>   ops/ms
>> VectorXXH3HashingBenchmark.hashingKernel    4096  thrpt    2  200.641        
>>   ops/ms
>> VectorXXH3HashingBenchmark.hashingKernel    8192  thrpt    2  100.664        
>>   ops/ms
>> 
>> With Optimizati...
>
> Jatin Bhateja has updated the pull request incrementally with one additional 
> commit since the last revision:
> 
>   Creating specialized IR to shield pattern from subsequent transforms in 
> optimization pipeline

In the latest version you added new Ideal nodes (`MulIVL` and `MulUIVL`). I 
don't see a compelling reason to do so. IMO matcher functionality is more than 
enough to cover `VPMULDQ` case. `MulIVL` is equivalent to `MulVL` + 
`has_int_inputs()` predicate. For `MulUIVL` you additionally do input rewiring 
(using `forward_masked_input`), but (1)  `AndV src (Replicate 0xFFFFFFFF))` 
operands can be easily detected on matcher side (with an extra AD instruction); 
and (2) such optimization is limited because it is valid only for `0xFFFFFFFF` 
case while `has_uint_inputs() == true` for `C <=  0xFFFFFFFF`.

So, IMO `MulIVL` and `MulUIVL` nodes just add noise in Ideal graph without 
improving situation during matching.

src/hotspot/share/opto/vectornode.cpp line 2132:

> 2130:   // Directly forward masked inputs if
> 2131:   if (n->Opcode() == Op_AndV) {
> 2132:      return n->in(1)->Opcode() == Op_Replicate ? n->in(2) : n->in(1);

This particular check should ensure that Replicate constant is `0xFFFFFFFF`.

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

PR Review: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21244#pullrequestreview-2424864897
PR Review Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/21244#discussion_r1835023354

Reply via email to