| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
to BZHI is profitable (PR43381)
Summary:
PR43381 notes that while we are good at matching `(X >> C1) & C2` as BEXTR/BEXTRI,
we only do that if we either have BEXTRI (TBM),
or if BEXTR is marked as being fast (`-mattr=+fast-bextr`).
In all other cases we don't match.
But that is mainly only true for AMD CPU's.
However, for all the CPU's for which we have sched models,
the BZHI is always fast (or the sched models are all bad.)
So if we decide that it's unprofitable to emit BEXTR/BEXTRI,
we should consider falling-back to BZHI if it is available,
and follow-up with the shift.
While it's really tempting to do something because it's cool
it is wise to first think whether it actually makes sense to do.
We shouldn't just use BZHI because we can, but only it it is beneficial.
In particular, it isn't really worth it if the input is a register,
mask is small, or we can fold a load.
But it is worth it if the mask does not fit into 32-bits.
(careful, i don't know much about intel cpu's, my choice of `-mcpu` may be bad here)
Thus we manage to fold a load:
https://godbolt.org/z/Er0OQz
Or if we'd end up using BZHI anyways because the mask is large:
https://godbolt.org/z/dBJ_5h
But this isn'r actually profitable in general case,
e.g. here we'd increase microop count
(the register renaming is free, mca does not model that there it seems)
https://godbolt.org/z/k6wFoz
Likewise, not worth it if we just get load folding:
https://godbolt.org/z/1M1deG
https://bugs.llvm.org/show_bug.cgi?id=43381
Reviewers: RKSimon, craig.topper, davezarzycki, spatel
Reviewed By: craig.topper, davezarzycki
Subscribers: andreadb, hiraditya, llvm-commits
Tags: #llvm
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D67875
llvm-svn: 372532
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
on compiling for a CPU with single uop BEXTR
Summary:
This function turns (X >> C1) & C2 into a BMI BEXTR or TBM BEXTRI instruction. For BMI BEXTR we have to materialize an immediate into a register to feed to the BEXTR instruction.
The BMI BEXTR instruction is 2 uops on Intel CPUs. It looks like on SKL its one port 0/6 uop and one port 1/5 uop. Despite what Agner's tables say. I know one of the uops is a regular shift uop so it would have to go through the port 0/6 shifter unit. So that's the same or worse execution wise than the shift+and which is one 0/6 uop and one 0/1/5/6 uop. The move immediate into register is an additional 0/1/5/6 uop.
For now I've limited this transform to AMD CPUs which have a single uop BEXTR. If may also might make sense if we can fold a load or if the and immediate is larger than 32-bits and can't be encoded as a sign extended 32-bit value or if LICM or CSE can hoist the move immediate and share it. But we'd need to look more carefully at that. In the regression I looked at it doesn't look load folding or large immediates were occurring so the regression isn't caused by the loss of those. So we could try to be smarter here if we find a compelling case.
Reviewers: RKSimon, spatel, lebedev.ri, andreadb
Reviewed By: RKSimon
Subscribers: llvm-commits, andreadb, RKSimon
Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D52570
llvm-svn: 343399
|
