On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 10:15 AM, Richard Biener
<richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 14, 2017 at 9:53 AM, Bin.Cheng <amker.ch...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jun 13, 2017 at 11:59 AM, Richard Biener
>> <richard.guent...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, Jun 12, 2017 at 7:02 PM, Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com> wrote:
>>>> Hi,
>>>> During the work I ran into a latent bug for distributing. For the moment
>>>> we sort statements
>>>> in dominance order, but that's not enough because basic blocks may be
>>>> sorted in reverse order
>>>> of execution flow. This results in wrong data dependence direction later.
>>>> This patch fixes
>>>> the issue by sorting in topological order.
>>>>
>>>> Bootstrap and test on x86_64 and AArch64. Is it OK?
>>>
>>> I suppose you are fixing
>>>
>>> static int
>>> pg_add_dependence_edges (struct graph *rdg, vec<loop_p> loops, int dir,
>>> vec<data_reference_p> drs1,
>>> vec<data_reference_p> drs2)
>>> {
>>> ...
>>> /* Re-shuffle data-refs to be in dominator order. */
>>> if (rdg_vertex_for_stmt (rdg, DR_STMT (dr1))
>>> > rdg_vertex_for_stmt (rdg, DR_STMT (dr2)))
>>> {
>>> std::swap (dr1, dr2);
>>> this_dir = -this_dir;
>>> }
>>>
>>> but then for stmts that are not "ordered" by RPO or DOM like
>>>
>>> if (flag)
>>> ... = dr1;
>>> else
>>> ... = dr2;
>>>
>>> this doesn't avoid spurious swaps? Also the code was basically
>> No, this is mainly for below case:
>> if (flag)
>> {
>> partition1: arr[i] = x;
>> }
>> partition2: arr[i] = y;
>>
>> function pg_add_dependence_edges is like:
>> /* Re-shuffle data-refs to be in dominator order. */
>> if (rdg_vertex_for_stmt (rdg, DR_STMT (dr1))
>> > rdg_vertex_for_stmt (rdg, DR_STMT (dr2)))
>> {
>> std::swap (dr1, dr2);
>> this_dir = -this_dir;
>> }
>> //...
>> else if (DDR_ARE_DEPENDENT (ddr) == NULL_TREE)
>> {
>> if (DDR_REVERSED_P (ddr))
>> {
>> std::swap (dr1, dr2);
>> this_dir = -this_dir;
>> }
>> /* Known dependences can still be unordered througout the
>> iteration space, see gcc.dg/tree-ssa/ldist-16.c. */
>> if (DDR_NUM_DIST_VECTS (ddr) != 1)
>> this_dir = 2;
>> /* If the overlap is exact preserve stmt order. */
>> else if (lambda_vector_zerop (DDR_DIST_VECT (ddr, 0), 1))
>> ;
>> else
>> {
>> /* Else as the distance vector is lexicographic positive
>> swap the dependence direction. */
>> this_dir = -this_dir;
>> }
>> }
>> For non-ZERO distance vector dependence, the second part always
>> computes src->dest dependence info correctly, as well as edge
>> direction of PG. For ZERO distance vector dependence, we rely on the
>> swap part (thus topological order) to get correct dependence
>> direction. For mentioned case, the two data references are unordered
>> in dominance relation, but ordered in RPO. This is why DOM is not
>> enough. For if-then-else case, the order actually doesn't matter, and
>> the references are unordered in either dominance relation or RPO.
>> Specifically, src->dest is always computed correctly for non-ZERO
>> distance vector cases, no matter <dr1, dr2> or <dr2, dr1> is passed to
>> data dependence analyzer. As for ZERO distance vector (exact
>> overlap), the order doesn't matter either because they control
>> dependent on the same condition. We can simply assume an arbitrary
>> order for it.
>
> Ok, if it only is an issue for zero-distance then yes, I agree.
Yeah, so for distribution, I think we can further simplify
pg_add_dependence_edge because swap is only necessary for
zero-distance cases.
>
>>> copied from tree-data-refs.c:find_data_references_in_loop which
>>> does iterate over get_loop_body_in_dom_order as well. So isn't the
>>> issue latent there as well?
>> In theory maybe. In practice, this is not a problem at all since loop
>> distribution is the only one handles control dependence so far.
>
> You mean the only one running into the bogus BB ordering case.
> I don't see how handling control dependences factor in here.
Yes, that's what I meant. The ordering issue doesn't exist if there
is no control dependence between basic blocks in loop body I think. I
didn't realize the autopar pass.
>
>>>
>>> That said, what about those "unordered" stmts? I suppose
>>> dependence analysis still happily computes a dependence
>>> distance but in reality we'd have to consider both execution
>>> orders?
>> As explained, there is no need to consider both orders. GCC doesn't
>> really support control dependence parallelization?
>
> I think autopar supports an arbitrary CFG inside the loops but as it
> will never split them it won't change stmt ordering for zero-distance.
>
> That said, if dependence info can be incorrect if applied to a loop
> we should fixup tree-data-refs.c as well. It might be useful
> to make get_loop_body_in_rpo_order available then (and eventually
> all _in_dom_order users can work with rpo order as well thus we
> can replace it entirely as a second step).
I can work on that as a followup patch. Is it OK?
Thanks,
bin
>
> Thanks,
> Richard.
>
>> Thanks,
>> bin
>>>
>>> Thanks,
>>> Richard.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Thanks,
>>>> bin
>>>> 2017-06-07 Bin Cheng <bin.ch...@arm.com>
>>>>
>>>> * tree-loop-distribution.c (bb_top_order_index): New.
>>>> (bb_top_order_index_size, bb_top_order_cmp): New.
>>>> (stmts_from_loop): Use topological order.
>>>> (pass_loop_distribution::execute): Compute topological order for.
>>>> basic blocks.
