RFR: 8330274: C2 SuperWord: VPointer invar: same sum with different addition order should be equal [v3]
Emanuel Peter
epeter at openjdk.org
Wed Apr 24 10:50:54 UTC 2024
> This is an enhancement for AutoVectorization.
>
> I want to improve the detection of `invar`s that are equivalent (guaranteed to compute the same value), but don't have the identical node (the computation is in a different order).
>
> Note: only about 100 lines are real changes, the rest is tests. These are the first tests that check vectorization for MemorySegments.
>
> **Solution Sketch: "canonicalize" the invar**
>
> - Extract all summands of the `invar`: make a list.
> - Parse through `AddL`, `SubL`, `AddI`, `SubI`, to get summands.
> - Bypass `CastLL` and `CastII`
> - Recursively treat `ConvI2L`, `LShiftI` and `LShiftL`: i.e. canonicalize their input.
>
> - Sort all extracted summands by node idx.
> - Add up all summands in new order.
>
> If two `invar`s use the same summands, then we know that after canonicalization the new nodes representing the `invar`s must be the same.
>
> **Example**
>
>
> invar1 = b + c + d + a
> invar2 = d + b + a + c
>
> -> equivalent but not identical nodes
>
> Sort, and add up again:
>
> invar1 = a + b + c + d
> invar2 = a + b + c + d
>
> -> now the nodes are identical
>
> **Motivation: MemorySegment with invar**
>
> One might think that this is a big of a special case: why would anybody write indices to an Array or MemorySegment where the invar has a different addition order for its summands?
>
> This example did not vectorize, even though it should:
> https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/blob/78e42d6e311c33548d16c6c74493388d9850238e/test/hotspot/jtreg/compiler/loopopts/superword/TestEquivalentInvariants.java#L425-L441
>
> Both the `get` and the `set` look like they have the same address, and the address increases by a byte in each iteration.
>
> Upon inspection, I saw that the `invar` that `VPointer` produces for the two operations are not identical: the order of addition of the `invar`'s summands is different, and thus the `invar` nodes are different.
>
> The consequence: Only if we can prove that the two `invar` are identical can we know that the addresses are identical, and that there is no aliasing for loop carried dependencies. Since we have different `invar`, we don't know how the two addresses alias, and that prevents vectorization.
>
> Why does this happen? After parsing, the graph looks like this:
> ![image](https://github.com/openjdk/jdk/assets/32593061/f768d0b0-0b2f-48f0-bfdc-61e93e62bb4f)
>
> We already see that the two addresses are different only by a `CastLL`, with type `long:>=0`. Somehow, that was only deduced for the load, and not the store.
>
> load_adr = base + memory_segment_offs...
Emanuel Peter has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The incremental webrev excludes the unrelated changes brought in by the merge/rebase. The pull request contains 17 additional commits since the last revision:
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330274-invar-sum-equality
- Merge branch 'master' into JDK-8330274-invar-sum-equality
- IR rules for test only on 64 bit
- more tests, more comments, rm trace code
- more int/long tests: where offsetPlain moves away
- add long tests
- verify cfg case
- test: handle AlignVector
- some int tests
- allow LShift for scaling
- ... and 7 more: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/compare/a361d943...50706c5f
-------------
Changes:
- all: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18795/files
- new: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18795/files/fdfd7ca2..50706c5f
Webrevs:
- full: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=18795&range=02
- incr: https://webrevs.openjdk.org/?repo=jdk&pr=18795&range=01-02
Stats: 139 lines in 11 files changed: 21 ins; 101 del; 17 mod
Patch: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18795.diff
Fetch: git fetch https://git.openjdk.org/jdk.git pull/18795/head:pull/18795
PR: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/18795
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list