RFR: 8304720: SuperWord::schedule should rebuild C2-graph from SuperWord dependency-graph

[Emanuel Peter]

On Wed, 26 Apr 2023 17:46:24 GMT, Vladimir Kozlov <kvn at openjdk.org> wrote:

>> `SuperWord:schedule`, and specifically `SuperWord::co_locate_pack` is broken.
>> The problem is with the basic approach of it, as far as I know.
>> Hence, I had to completely re-design the `schedule` algorithm, based on the `PacksetGraph` ([JDK-8304042](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8304042), https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13078).
>> 
>> **The current approach**
>> 
>> The idea is to leave the non-vectorized memory ops in their place, and find the right place for the vectorized memops to be "sandwiched" into. The logic is very complex and has already had a few bugs fixed.
>> 
>> **Why this does not work**
>> 
>> However, in some rare cases, we have to reorder non-vectorized operations. See this example that I added as a regression test:
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/a771a61005aea272cc51fa3f3e1637c217582fce/test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/loopopts/superword/TestScheduleReordersScalarMemops.java#L82-L109
>> 
>> I found this issue during work on https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/pull/13078, where I had to restrict/disable some tests that are now passing.
>> 
>> **Solution**
>> 
>> Abandon the idea of "sandwiching" memops. Rewrite `SuperWord:schedule`:
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/6bb2da3da988618803823e905f23cb106cd9d6b2/src/hotspot/share/opto/superword.cpp#L2567-L2576
>> 
>> We first schedule all memops into a linear order.
>> We do this scheduling based on the `PacksetGraph`, which gives us a `DAG` based on the `packset` and the dependency-graph (which in turn respects the data use-defs, as well as the memory dependencies, unless we can prove that they do not reference the same memory). 
>> In other words: we have a linearization that respects all dependencies that must be respected.
>> Further, we make sure that ops from the same pack are scheduled as a block (all adjacent to each other), and in order that the packset has internally.
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/6bb2da3da988618803823e905f23cb106cd9d6b2/src/hotspot/share/opto/superword.cpp#L2489-L2493
>> 
>> Now that we have this order (and we have not aborted because we found a cycle in the `PacksetGraph`), we must apply this schedule to each memory slice, and reorder the memops in the slices accordingly.
>> 
>> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/6bb2da3da988618803823e905f23cb106cd9d6b2/src/hotspot/share/opto/superword.cpp#L2617-L2619
>> 
>> This scheduling has the nice side-effect of simplifying `SuperWord::output` a little.
>> We know now that the first element in a pack is also first in the slice order, and the last element in the pack is last in the slice (because we schedule the packs as a block, i.e. in the pack order).
>> 
>> **Discussion**
>> 
>> This seems to me to be a much more straight forward approach, and it uses the code I recently added for verification of cyclic dependencies in the packset ([JDK-8304042](https://bugs.openjdk.org/browse/JDK-8304042), https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13078).
>> 
>> One potential improvement to my fix:
>> We now sometimes re-order the non-vectorized memory slices, even though it may not be necessary.
>> This is not wrong, but it makes updates to the graph that may be confusing when debugging.
>> Further, the re-ordering may have performance impacts.
>> I could use a priority-queue (min-heap, would have to implement it since it does not yet exist), and schedule the `PacksetGraph` whenever possible with the lower `bb_idx` first. This would make the new linear order the same/closer to the old one. However, I am not sure if this is worth the effort and overhead of a priority-queue.
>> 
>> **Testing**
>> Github-actions pass. tier1-6 + stress testing passes.
>> Performance testing showed no significant performance change.
>
> Nice rewrite.

@vnkozlov Thanks for the review!

@fg1417 @jatin-bhateja Would one of you be willing to review this also?

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

PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/13354#issuecomment-1532806136