Details
Diff Detail
- Build Status
Buildable 4709 Build 4709: arc lint + arc unit
Event Timeline
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1264 | Can't we modify the existing placeholder instead of creating a temporary object and then use the copy constructor? |
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1264 | I think we should be able to use ChangeToImmediate(), but I haven't tried it yet. The bit that worried me about doing that was having stale values in members that aren't affected by the ChangeTo*() functions. Most of them look ok (since they only matter for registers and ChangeToRegister() does reset them) but I'm not sure about MachineOperand::ParentMI. |
One remark: I can see how a placeholder operand can help detecting errors (like we forgot to update one of the operand), however, I think it gets in the way of efficiency.
Indeed, I imagine that each time a complex pattern will fail half way through, we will have to reset all the operands to placeholder instead of just keeping them in the state they are.
What I am saying is that we may not introduce a placeholder operand at all. We should have a placeholder opcode though that reset the operands array to 0 (without freeing memory).
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1264 | That should be easy to check/fix :). |
Sorry for the slow reply on this one.
It's not really aimed at detecting errors but rather at constructing the MachineOperand without creating fake data to put in it. Each successful ComplexPattern predicate will fully overwrite the placeholder (using the default copy constructor) so I don't think we need to reset it between rules. I can see how it would be useful to reset it to the placeholder data to ensure the predicate is behaving correctly though since if a predicate returns true but the placeholder data is still there then there's a bug in the predicate.
One other thing to mention is that I'd like to skip the constructor call completely and leave it uninitialized until the first successful ComplexPattern predicate overwrites it. Initializing the operands to a placeholder is just unnecessary overhead.
What I am saying is that we may not introduce a placeholder operand at all. We should have a placeholder opcode though that reset the operands array to 0 (without freeing memory).
What would be the benefit of a placeholder instruction over placeholder operands? I think it might be slightly higher cost since if we reset the operand list between rules then it increases the number of MachineOperand constructor calls (but not allocations since it uses the placement new operator). A placeholder instruction also means the instruction and operands are heap allocated instead of stack allocated and will therefore cause a memory leak unless additional overhead to free the instruction is added.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1264 | When we create new operands, the ChangeTo*() family are ok so long as you also call clearParent() afterwards to clear and parents left over from previous predicates. |
What would be the benefit of a placeholder instruction over placeholder operands?
I expect the placeholder reset to be something just a single assignment of the style size of array operand = 0. The operands remain as they are, they are just not accessed. In other words, no constructor call.
The constructor call comes from the need to call addOperand(). If we reset the operand list for the placeholder instruction on each call to selectImpl() then we would need something like:
PlaceholderInsn.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreatePlaceholder()); PlaceholderInsn.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreatePlaceholder()); if (matches && selectComplexPattern(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(0), PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(1))) { BuildMI(...).add(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(0)).add(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(1)); ... } PlaceholderInsn.resetOperands();
Each call to addOperand() involves a placement new operator which uses the copy-constructor and therefore pays the same overhead as the current local variable approach.
I think your main concern is that the overhead is unnecessarily paid on each call to selectImpl(). I've updated the patch with a version that only pays the constructor overhead once (during <Target>InstructionSelection's constructor). Does that resolve your concerns?
The constructor call comes from the need to call addOperand(). If we reset the operand list for the placeholder instruction on each call to selectImpl() then we would need something like:
PlaceholderInsn.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreatePlaceholder());
PlaceholderInsn.addOperand(MachineOperand::CreatePlaceholder());
if (matches && selectComplexPattern(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(0), PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(1))) {
BuildMI(...).add(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(0)).add(PlaceholderInsn.getOperand(1));
...
}
PlaceholderInsn.resetOperands();
Each call to addOperand() involves a placement new operator which uses the copy-constructor and therefore pays the same overhead as the current local variable approach.
I was actually expecting more something like:
PlaceHolderInst.setNumOperand(NbOp);
With that call just allocating/resizing the operand array accordingly. The operands created could be left uninitialized as they are supposed to be all properly set by the matching.
I think your main concern is that the overhead is unnecessarily paid on each call to selectImpl(). I've updated the patch with a version that only pays the constructor overhead once (during <Target>InstructionSelection's constructor). Does that resolve your concerns?
Yes, partly. I believe we don't need the OperandHolder all together, but this is an optimization that we definitely don't need to do now.
All in all, the patch looks sensible to me.
lib/Target/AArch64/AArch64InstructionSelector.cpp | ||
---|---|---|
1264 | I would have expected this to be handled by the ChangeTo* APIs. |
Ah ok, I see how that would avoid the redundant initializations. Wouldn't it be more efficient to call setNumOperands(MaxNumOperands) in advance though to save on re-allocating and copying the array?
I think your main concern is that the overhead is unnecessarily paid on each call to selectImpl(). I've updated the patch with a version that only pays the constructor overhead once (during <Target>InstructionSelection's constructor). Does that resolve your concerns?
Yes, partly. I believe we don't need the OperandHolder all together, but this is an optimization that we definitely don't need to do now.
I'm not sure we can eliminate the placeholders since storing directly to the output instruction requires us to build that instruction before we've finished matching but I'll have a think on how we can do it.
All in all, the patch looks sensible to me.
Thanks.
Can't we modify the existing placeholder instead of creating a temporary object and then use the copy constructor?