On 8/5/19 6:32 AM, Uros Bizjak wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 5, 2019 at 1:50 PM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, 4 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, Aug 3, 2019 at 7:26 PM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Thu, 1 Aug 2019, Uros Bizjak wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, Aug 1, 2019 at 11:28 AM Richard Biener <rguent...@suse.de> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you unconditionally add a smaxdi3 pattern - indeed this looks
>>>>>>>> necessary even when going the STV route. The actual regression
>>>>>>>> for the testcase could also be solved by turing the smaxsi3
>>>>>>>> back into a compare and jump rather than a conditional move sequence.
>>>>>>>> So I wonder how you'd do that given that there's pass_if_after_reload
>>>>>>>> after pass_split_after_reload and I'm not sure we can split
>>>>>>>> as late as pass_split_before_sched2 (there's also a split _after_
>>>>>>>> sched2 on x86 it seems).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So how would you go implement {s,u}{min,max}{si,di}3 for the
>>>>>>>> case STV doesn't end up doing any transform?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If STV doesn't transform the insn, then a pre-reload splitter splits
>>>>>>> the insn back to compare+cmove.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> OK, that would work. But there's no way to force a jumpy sequence then
>>>>>> which we know is faster than compare+cmove because later RTL
>>>>>> if-conversion passes happily re-discover the smax (or conditional move)
>>>>>> sequence.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> However, considering the SImode move
>>>>>>> from/to int/xmm register is relatively cheap, the cost function should
>>>>>>> be tuned so that STV always converts smaxsi3 pattern.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Note that on both Zen and even more so bdverN the int/xmm transition
>>>>>> makes it no longer profitable but a _lot_ slower than the cmp/cmov
>>>>>> sequence... (for the loop in hmmer which is the only one I see
>>>>>> any effect of any of my patches). So identifying chains that
>>>>>> start/end in memory is important for cost reasons.
>>>>>
>>>>> Please note that the cost function also considers the cost of move
>>>>> from/to xmm. So, the cost of the whole chain would disable the
>>>>> transformation.
>>>>>
>>>>>> So I think the splitting has to happen after the last if-conversion
>>>>>> pass (and thus we may need to allocate a scratch register for this
>>>>>> purpose?)
>>>>>
>>>>> I really hope that the underlying issue will be solved by a machine
>>>>> dependant pass inserted somewhere after the pre-reload split. This
>>>>> way, we can split unconverted smax to the cmove, and this later pass
>>>>> would handle jcc and cmove instructions. Until then... yes your
>>>>> proposed approach is one of the ways to avoid unwanted if-conversion,
>>>>> although sometimes we would like to split to cmove instead.
>>>>
>>>> So the following makes STV also consider SImode chains, re-using the
>>>> DImode chain code. I've kept a simple incomplete smaxsi3 pattern
>>>> and also did not alter the {SI,DI}mode chain cost function - it's
>>>> quite off for TARGET_64BIT. With this I get the expected conversion
>>>> for the testcase derived from hmmer.
>>>>
>>>> No further testing sofar.
>>>>
>>>> Is it OK to re-use the DImode chain code this way? I'll clean things
>>>> up some more of course.
>>>
>>> Yes, the approach looks OK to me. It makes chain building mode
>>> agnostic, and the chain building can be used for
>>> a) DImode x86_32 (as is now), but maybe 64bit minmax operation can be added.
>>> b) SImode x86_32 and x86_64 (this will be mainly used for SImode
>>> minmax and surrounding SImode operations)
>>> c) DImode x86_64 (also, mainly used for DImode minmax and surrounding
>>> DImode operations)
>>>
>>>> Still need help with the actual patterns for minmax and how the splitters
>>>> should look like.
>>>
>>> Please look at the attached patch. Maybe we can add memory_operand as
>>> operand 1 and operand 2 predicate, but let's keep things simple for
>>> now.
>>
>> Thanks. The attached patch makes the patch cleaner and it survives
>> "some" barebone testing. It also touches the cost function to
>> avoid being too overly trigger-happy. I've also ended up using
>> ix86_cost->sse_op instead of COSTS_N_INSN-based magic. In
>> particular we estimated GPR reg-reg move as COST_N_INSNS(2) while
>> move costs shouldn't be wrapped in COST_N_INSNS.
>> IMHO we should probably disregard any reg-reg moves for costing pre-RA.
>> At least with the current code every reg-reg move biases in favor of
>> SSE...
>
> This is currently a bit mixed-up area in x86 target support. HJ is
> looking into this [1] and I hope Honza can review the patch.
Yea, Honza's input on that would be greatly appreciated.
Jeff
>
