On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 04:55:37 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Ah, I see what you mean now. I think this makes extending IGVN more
>> appealing because we could continue to do Ideal on lowered nodes, as you
>> mentioned. We could override `PhaseGVN::apply_ideal` to return `nullptr`
>> when processin
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> shared code, while also making it easier to develop more in-depth
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 01:26:10 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
>> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
>> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 23:48:48 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Generic vector operand resolution cocretizes generic operands based on type
>> agnostic node size, its a post matcher pass, and its job is to replace
>> generic MachOper operand nodes with cocrete ones (vec[SDXYZ]) which holds
>> precis
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 22:46:55 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>>> @jatin-bhateja @iwanowww The application of lowering is very broad as it
>>> can help us perform arbitrary transformation as well as take advantages of
>>> GVN in the ideal world:
>>>
>>> 1, Any expansion that can benefit from GVN ca
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:22:13 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> I believe the matcher only needs the exact type of the node but not its
>> inputs. E.g. it should not be an issue if we `AddVB` a `vector` and a
>> `vector` into a `vector`.
>
> Generic vector operand resolution cocretizes generic operan
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 07:10:59 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
> The application of lowering is very broad as it can help us perform arbitrary
> transformation as well as take advantages of GVN
@merykitty thanks for the examples. The idea of gradual IR lowering is not new
in C2. There are precedents
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:54:06 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> @jaskarth thanks for exploring platform-specific lowering!
>>
>> I briefly looked through the changes, but I didn't get a good understanding
>> of its design goals. It's hard to see what use cases it is targeted for when
>> only
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:55:41 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
>> removes the extra newline in the makefiles and adds newlines to the ends of
>> files that were missing them.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look as well, @meryki
On Mon, 28 Oct 2024 03:55:57 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> I mean we might want to run another kind of `Ideal` that will replace the
>> normal `Ideal` on a node after its lowering. For example, consider this:
>>
>> vector v;
>> u = v.withLane(0, a).withLane(1, b);
>>
>> This will
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:30:52 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
>> removes the extra newline in the makefiles and adds newlines to the ends of
>> files that were missing them.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look as well, @mery
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 11:51:23 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Ah, do you mean having a method in `Node` that holds the lowering code? I
>> was originally planning on doing it this way, but I think it would pose some
>> problems where certain nodes' `Lower()` methods would only be overridden on
>> c
On Sun, 27 Oct 2024 01:55:41 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
>> removes the extra newline in the makefiles and adds newlines to the ends of
>> files that were missing them.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look as well, @meryki
On Sat, 26 Oct 2024 02:34:44 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>>> By allowing lowering to look through VectorReinterpret and break the
>>> invariant of Extract nodes that the element types of their inputs and
>>> outputs must be the same, we can gvn v1 and v, v2 and v0.
>>
>> I'd warn against breaking
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:14:46 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> Build changes look good (but would be slightly better without the extra
>> blank line). I have not reviewed the actual hotspot changes.
>
> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
> removes the
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 23:30:52 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
>> removes the extra newline in the makefiles and adds newlines to the ends of
>> files that were missing them.
>>
>> Thanks for taking a look as well, @mery
On Fri, 25 Oct 2024 22:20:00 GMT, Vladimir Ivanov wrote:
>>> Because lowering is a transformation that increases the complexity of the
>>> graph.
>>>
>>> * A `d = ExtractD(z, 4)` expanded into `x = VectorExtract(z, 2); d =
>>> ExtractD(x, 0)` increases the number of nodes by 1.
>>> * A logic
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:14:46 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> Build changes look good (but would be slightly better without the extra
>> blank line). I have not reviewed the actual hotspot changes.
>
> Thanks for looking at the build changes, @magicus! I've pushed a commit that
> removes the
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:05:58 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Another reason is that lowering being done late allows us to have more
>> freedom to break some invariants of the nodes, such as looking through
>> `VectorReinterpret`. An example is this (really crafted) case:
>>
>> Int256Vector v;
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:08:14 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/phaseX.cpp line 2277:
>>
>>> 2275:
>>> 2276: // Try to find an existing version of the same node
>>> 2277: Node* existing = _igvn->hash_find_insert(n);
>>
>> I think it would be easier if you have a swi
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 06:12:01 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Jasmine Karthikeyan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address some changes from code review
>
> src/hotspot/share/opto/compile.cpp line 2464:
>
>> 2462: {
>> 2463:
On Thu, 24 Oct 2024 02:13:20 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
> I think we shouldn't run `Ideal` on the graph, because there is a chance that
> it could undo the lowering changes that we just did. This gives lowering more
> freedom to change the graph in different ways that would otherwise be u
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 12:55:39 GMT, Magnus Ihse Bursie wrote:
>> Jasmine Karthikeyan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address some changes from code review
>
> Build changes look good (but would be slightly better without th
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 07:57:05 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Jasmine Karthikeyan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address some changes from code review
>
> src/hotspot/share/opto/phaseX.cpp line 2301:
>
>> 2299: while(_igv
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 06:11:26 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Jasmine Karthikeyan has updated the pull request incrementally with one
>> additional commit since the last revision:
>>
>> Address some changes from code review
>
> src/hotspot/share/opto/phaseX.cpp line 2277:
>
>> 2275:
>> 2276: /
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:39:22 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> Because lowering is a transformation that increases the complexity of the
>> graph.
>>
>> - A `d = ExtractD(z, 4)` expanded into `x = VectorExtract(z, 2); d =
>> ExtractD(x, 0)` increases the number of nodes by 1.
>> - A logic cone tran
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> shared code, while also making it easier to develop more in-depth
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 17:28:25 GMT, Quan Anh Mai wrote:
>> src/hotspot/share/opto/compile.cpp line 2466:
>>
>>> 2464: print_method(PHASE_BEFORE_LOWERING, 3);
>>> 2465:
>>> 2466: PhaseLowering lower(&igvn);
>>
>> Any specific reason to have lowering after loop optimizations ?
>> Lowered n
On Wed, 23 Oct 2024 08:10:38 GMT, Jatin Bhateja wrote:
>> Hi all,
>> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
>> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
>> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
>> sha
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 04:11:03 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> s
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 04:11:03 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> s
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 04:11:03 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> s
On Mon, 21 Oct 2024 04:11:03 GMT, Jasmine Karthikeyan
wrote:
> Hi all,
> This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex
> backend-specific code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization
> proposed by #21244. Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify
> s
Hi all,
This patch adds a new pass to consolidate lowering of complex backend-specific
code patterns, such as `MacroLogicV` and the optimization proposed by #21244.
Moving these optimizations to backend code can simplify shared code, while also
making it easier to develop more in-depth optimizat
34 matches
Mail list logo
