On Sun, Jan 11, 2015 at 4:45 PM, Ajit Kumar Agarwal <ajit.kumar.agar...@xilinx.com> wrote: > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Richard Biener [mailto:richard.guent...@gmail.com] > Sent: Sunday, January 11, 2015 8:05 PM > To: Ajit Kumar Agarwal; vmaka...@redhat.com; l...@redhat.com; gcc@gcc.gnu.org > Cc: Vinod Kathail; Shail Aditya Gupta; Vidhumouli Hunsigida; Nagaraju Mekala > Subject: Re: Allocating some Loop allocno in memory > > On January 11, 2015 5:25:23 AM CET, Ajit Kumar Agarwal > <ajit.kumar.agar...@xilinx.com> wrote: >> >>I was thinking of some of the opportunities with respect to reducing >>spills inside the Loop. If the Live range(allocno) spans through the >>Loop and Live out at the exit of the Loop and there are no references >>or not being touched upon inside the Loop, assign the allocno to the >>memory. This increase the chances of getting the register for other >>allocno which spans through the Loop and have reference inside the Loop >>if the interference graph is not colorable. >> >>Since allocno don't have references inside the Loop there won't be any >>load instructions with respect to restore inside the loops. There will >>be a store instruction with respect to spill which will be outside the >>Loop. This will reduce the conflicting edges of some of the allocno >>increasing the chances of making colorable of the Interference graph >>and reduces the spills and restore inside the Loop. >> >>This heuristics looks reasonable. This heuristics goes side by side >>with the Live range splitting across the Loop boundary. >>On top of this heuristics, after the Live range splitting across the >>Loop boundary there interference graph is not colorable then we can >>assign some of the splitted live ranges in the memory giving chances >>of registers for the Live ranges(allocno) that spans the Loop and have >>reference inside the Loop. >> >>We can change the cost of allocno in memory based on the above >>heuristics and take the above factor into consideration for the cost >>calculation. >> >>Thoughts Please? > >>>How can this result in better allocations if you only ever spill at >>>life-range split points? The life-range covering the loop should already be >>>assigned to >>memory if required. > > If the live range covering the loop assigned to memory, and there are > references inside the Loops then there are chances > of spills inside the loop which degrades the performance. If live range > covering the loops and there are no references inside > the Loop, then assigning to memory make reasonable as there are no > references. Since there are no references or not > touched inside the Loop, there won't be load instruction to restore which are > required if there are any references. The store > which requires for the def of the Live range will be outside the Loops. This > helps in not degrading the performances as there > are no load and store required for spill and restore inside the Loops. > > The above heuristics can also be accompanied with heuristics of the number of > use points in the Live range. Considering both > the heuristics will lead to better allocation if ever spill at the live > range split points and there are chances of getting colorable > the Interference graph without degrading the performance. Also if the Live > range is splitted at the Loop boundary then the spill > at the split points of loop boundary and registers is assigned to this live > range will make it reasonable if there are no references > inside the Loops.
But if we split the life-range of not used in-loop-body pseudos at the loop boundary the allocator should do the assignment to memory. There is no need to add another heuristic here. Or do you say we don't split the life-range of such pseudos at loop boundary? Richard. > Thanks & Regards > Ajit > > Richard. > >>Thanks & Regards >>Ajit > >
