Paths
| Differential D96517
[AMDGPU] Optimize SGPR to scratch spilling AbandonedPublic Authored by sebastian-ne on Feb 11 2021, 8:33 AM.
Details Summary Refactor and optimize spilling SGPRs to scratch. Remove unnecessary Follow-up to D96336.
Diff Detail
Unit TestsFailed Event TimelineHerald added subscribers: kerbowa, hiraditya, t-tye and 7 others. · View Herald TranscriptFeb 11 2021, 8:33 AM sebastian-ne added a parent revision: D96336: [AMDGPU] Save VGPR of whole wave when spilling.Feb 16 2021, 7:09 AM
sebastian-ne marked 2 inline comments as done. Comment ActionsRebase and add ST.hasSaveexecB32() instead of checking architecture. This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Feb 18 2021, 5:21 AM Comment Actions Shall we optimize the cases where only 1 or 2 SGPRs are to be spilled or reloaded when there's a VGPR scavenged? In this case, we only need one or two loads/stores to spill/reload that SGPR. From the number of LD/ST, that original one (based on broadcast and v_readfirstlane) is still OK but we need less code. Also, there's no latency due to the restore of that restore of that tmp VGPR. This revision now requires changes to proceed.Feb 18 2021, 4:30 PM Comment Actions
The “v_mov and readfirstlane”-approach doesn’t work when exec=0. However, you sparked an idea: For example, we want to spill s0 to scratch and s5 is currently unused: v_readlane_b32 s5, v0, 0 ; Save v0 v_writelane_b32 v0, s0, 0 ; Save s0 to v0 and to memory s_mov_b32 s0, exec s_mov_b32 exec, 1 buffer_store_dword_offset v0, … s_mov_b32 exec, s0 v_writelane_b32 v0, s5, 0 ; Restore v0 Restoring: v_readlane_b32 s5, v0, 0 ; Save v0 v_writelane_b32 v0, s0, 0 s_mov_b32 s0, exec s_mov_b32 exec, 1 buffer_load_dword_offset v0, … ; Read v0 from memory and into s0 s_mov_b32 exec, s0 v_readlane_b32 s0, v0, 0 v_writelane_b32 v0, s5, 0 ; Restore v0 The downside is, it will make the code even more complicated. Especially restoring, as we need to ensure that exec is exactly 1, so we do not clobber other lanes. The above code would therefore only work in wave32 mode, not in wave64 mode. Except in the case where v0 is a scavenged register, i.e. it is unused in the currently active lanes, in which case we are allowed to clobber currently active lanes of v0, so the above code would also work in wave64 mode. Comment Actions I think once we're spilling SGPRs to memory with these tricks, you've given up on performance. We just need *anything* that works, and put effort into guaranteeing we never need to do this (aside from the degenerate inline-asm case using all VGPRs). I'm not worried about getting the ideal SGPR-to-memory sequence Comment Actions why exec mask = 0 case is a valid one, won't we already branch away once exec mask goes to zero? Comment Actions
spill doesn't mean we give up performance, specially for large workload, spill is inevitable. the spill performance still matters. Comment Actions
That is the question it comes down to. If it is guaranteed that exec is never 0, i.e. at least one bit is always set, I’m in favor of your patch. To have some numbers, I saw some functions spilling 30 SGPRs to scratch, so it can be more than just a one or two. Comment Actions
The question is that do we have 30 SGPR spills or we have a spill of SGPR register sequence up to 30 SGPR. For there former, we cannot coalesce them together as the spill/reload points would differ quite a lot. Only on the latter one, we benefit from packing that sequence of SGPR into VGPR. For that case, I suggest we do that spill of SGPR sequence with 1 or 2 SGPR with this approach and the pack approach otherwise. Back to the exec mask 0 concern, my point is that the change on exec mask follow the user-code semantic. If exec mask goes to 0, the user code should expect no code for that BB to be executed. If we translate that correctly, we should not have code executed when exec mask is 0. The case that code is still executed when mask is 0 is that we may optimize away branch if the branch is too short. For that case, we should check whether that branch has unwanted side effect or check whether there are instructions not honoring exec mask. If we found them, we should not remove that branch. Following that, we should not have code executed when exec mask goes to 0. Comment Actions
I had updated D96980 to mark SI_SPILL_<n>_RESTORE having unwanted effect so that the optimization won't generate code with SGPR reload with 0 exec mask. Comment Actions
It is 30 separate SGPR spill that happen directly after each other. They are not coalesced currently, but they could be. The function looks roughly like this: 100 instructions of saving VGPRs and SGPRs 30 real instructions 100 instructions of restoring VGPRs and SGPRs Performance is – as one would expect – not exactly thrilling. There are probably several issues there. Comment Actions
I don't mean general spilling. I mean spilling SGPRs to memory. This is a path that only exists due to a compiler machinery issue, and should not legitimately happen. SGPRs should only spill to VGPRs Comment Actions
We see the same problem when we have large frame offsets - we end up separately scavenging a register and doing an add for every spill in the sequence to handle the offset. We would probably benefit from adding some kind of spill coalescing before these are lowered This revision is now accepted and ready to land.Apr 5 2021, 8:02 AM
Revision Contents
Diff 324321 llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/GCNSubtarget.h
llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/SIRegisterInfo.h
llvm/lib/Target/AMDGPU/SIRegisterInfo.cpp
llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/frame-setup-without-sgpr-to-vgpr-spills.ll
llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/partial-sgpr-to-vgpr-spills.ll
llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/sgpr-spill.mir
llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/si-spill-sgpr-stack.ll
llvm/test/CodeGen/AMDGPU/spill-special-sgpr.mir
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Capitalize Exec?