RFR: 8351623: VectorAPI: Add SVE implementation of subword gather load operation [v6]
    Paul Sandoz 
    psandoz at openjdk.org
       
    Wed Oct 15 16:08:25 UTC 2025
    
    
  
On Wed, 17 Sep 2025 08:48:16 GMT, Xiaohong Gong <xgong at openjdk.org> wrote:
>> This is a follow-up patch of [1], which aims at implementing the subword gather load APIs for AArch64 SVE platform.
>> 
>> ### Background
>> Vector gather load APIs load values from memory addresses calculated by adding a base pointer to integer indices. SVE provides native gather load instructions for `byte`/`short` types using `int` vectors for indices. The vector size for a gather-load instruction is determined by the index vector (i.e. `int` elements). Hence, the total size is `32 * elem_num` bits, where `elem_num` is the number of loaded elements in the vector register.
>> 
>> ### Implementation
>> 
>> #### Challenges
>> Due to size differences between `int` indices (32-bit) and `byte`/`short` data (8/16-bit), operations must be split across multiple vector registers based on the target SVE vector register size constraints.
>> 
>> For a 512-bit SVE machine, loading a `byte` vector with different vector species require different approaches:
>> - SPECIES_64: Single operation with mask (8 elements, 256-bit)
>> - SPECIES_128: Single operation, full register (16 elements, 512-bit)
>> - SPECIES_256: Two operations + merge (32 elements, 1024-bit)
>> - SPECIES_512/MAX: Four operations + merge (64 elements, 2048-bit)
>> 
>> Use `ByteVector.SPECIES_512` as an example:
>> - It contains 64 elements. So the index vector size should be `64 * 32`  bits, which is 4 times of the SVE vector register size.
>> - It requires 4 times of vector gather-loads to finish the whole operation.
>> 
>> 
>> byte[] arr = [a, a, a, a, ..., a, b, b, b, b, ..., b, c, c, c, c, ..., c, d, d, d, d, ..., d, ...]
>> int[] idx = [0, 1, 2, 3, ..., 63, ...]
>> 
>> 4 gather-load:
>> idx_v1 = [15 14 13 ... 1 0]    gather_v1 = [... 0000 0000 0000 0000 aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa]
>> idx_v2 = [31 30 29 ... 17 16]  gather_v2 = [... 0000 0000 0000 0000 bbbb bbbb bbbb bbbb]
>> idx_v3 = [47 46 45 ... 33 32]  gather_v3 = [... 0000 0000 0000 0000 cccc cccc cccc cccc]
>> idx_v4 = [63 62 61 ... 49 48]  gather_v4 = [... 0000 0000 0000 0000 dddd dddd dddd dddd]
>> merge: v = [dddd dddd dddd dddd cccc cccc cccc cccc bbbb bbbb bbbb bbbb aaaa aaaa aaaa aaaa]
>> 
>> 
>> #### Solution
>> The implementation simplifies backend complexity by defining each gather load IR to handle one vector gather-load operation, with multiple IRs generated in the compiler mid-end.
>> 
>> Here is the main changes:
>> - Enhanced IR generation with architecture-specific patterns based on `gather_scatter_needs_vector_index()` matcher.
>> - Added `VectorSliceNode` for result mer...
>
> Xiaohong Gong has updated the pull request with a new target base due to a merge or a rebase. The pull request now contains eight commits:
> 
>  - Add more comments for IRs and added method
>  - Merge branch 'jdk:master' into JDK-8351623-sve
>  - Merge 'jdk:master' into JDK-8351623-sve
>  - Address review comments
>  - Refine IR pattern and clean backend rules
>  - Fix indentation issue and move the helper matcher method to header files
>  - Merge branch jdk:master into JDK-8351623-sve
>  - 8351623: VectorAPI: Add SVE implementation of subword gather load operation
I suspect it's likely more complex overall adding a slice operation to mask, that is really only needed for a specific case. (A more general operation would be compress/expand of the mask bits, but i don't believe there are hardware instructions for such operations on mask registers.)
In my view adding a part parameter is a compromise and seems less complex that requiring N index vectors, and it fits with a general pattern we have around parts of the vector. It moves the specialized operation requirements on the mask into the area where it is needed rather than trying to generalize in a manner that i don't think is appropriate in the mask API.
-------------
PR Comment: https://git.openjdk.org/jdk/pull/26236#issuecomment-3407226485
    
    
More information about the hotspot-compiler-dev
mailing list