cmd/compile: handle 64-bit masks better on 32-bit systems #32781
Comments
|
Emmm. I'm pretty sure it decomposes 64-bit mask to two 32-bit masks when I wrote the code a few years ago. https://go.googlesource.com/go/+/6d1aaf143c879ae7acbd20a1e60bf74681bf6055/src/cmd/compile/internal/ssa/gen/dec64.rules#88 This particular case is interesting, as the generic opt pass (runs before decompose pass) changes the AND to a pair of shifts (x<<4>>4), and the decomposing shifts is more complex. If it is a different mask, which cannot be rewritten to shifts, it works as expected. Maybe we should either not do the mask-to-shift rewriting for 64-bit ops on 32-bit architectures, or somehow recognizes this pattern and do better in decomposing. |
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/183957 mentions this issue: |
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/191780 mentions this issue: |
gopherbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 9, 2019
On modern 64bit CPUs a SHR, SHL or AND instruction take 1 cycle to execute.
A pair of shifts that operate on the same register will take 2 cycles
and needs to wait for the input register value to be available.
Large constants used to mask the high bits of a register with an AND
instruction can not be encoded as an immediate in the AND instruction
on amd64 and therefore need to be loaded into a register with a MOV
instruction.
However that MOV instruction is not dependent on the output register and
on many CPUs does not compete with the AND or shift instructions for
execution ports.
Using a pair of shifts to mask high bits instead of an AND to mask high
bits of a register has a shorter encoding and uses one less general
purpose register but is slower due to taking one clock cycle longer
if there is no register pressure that would make the AND variant need to
generate a spill.
For example the instructions emitted for (x & 1 << 63) before this CL are:
48c1ea3f SHRQ $0x3f, DX
48c1e23f SHLQ $0x3f, DX
after this CL the instructions are the same as GCC and LLVM use:
48b80000000000000080 MOVQ $0x8000000000000000, AX
4821d0 ANDQ DX, AX
Some platforms such as arm64 already have SSA optimization rules to fuse
two shift instructions back into an AND.
Removing the general rule to rewrite AND to SHR+SHL speeds up this benchmark:
var GlobalU uint
func BenchmarkAndHighBits(b *testing.B) {
x := uint(0)
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
x &= 1 << 63
}
GlobalU = x
}
amd64/darwin on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz:
name old time/op new time/op delta
AndHighBits-4 0.61ns ± 6% 0.42ns ± 6% -31.42% (p=0.000 n=25+25):
Updates #33826
Updates #32781
Change-Id: I862d3587446410c447b9a7265196b57f85358633
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/191780
Run-TryBot: Martin Möhrmann <moehrmann@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Keith Randall <khr@golang.org>
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/194297 mentions this issue: |
gopherbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 21, 2019
On modern 64bit CPUs a SHR, SHL or AND instruction take 1 cycle to execute.
A pair of shifts that operate on the same register will take 2 cycles
and needs to wait for the input register value to be available.
Large constants used to mask the high bits of a register with an AND
instruction can not be encoded as an immediate in the AND instruction
on amd64 and therefore need to be loaded into a register with a MOV
instruction.
However that MOV instruction is not dependent on the output register and
on many CPUs does not compete with the AND or shift instructions for
execution ports.
Using a pair of shifts to mask high bits instead of an AND to mask high
bits of a register has a shorter encoding and uses one less general
purpose register but is slower due to taking one clock cycle longer
if there is no register pressure that would make the AND variant need to
generate a spill.
For example the instructions emitted for (x & 1 << 63) before this CL are:
48c1ea3f SHRQ $0x3f, DX
48c1e23f SHLQ $0x3f, DX
after this CL the instructions are the same as GCC and LLVM use:
48b80000000000000080 MOVQ $0x8000000000000000, AX
4821d0 ANDQ DX, AX
Some platforms such as arm64 already have SSA optimization rules to fuse
two shift instructions back into an AND.
Removing the general rule to rewrite AND to SHR+SHL speeds up this benchmark:
var GlobalU uint
func BenchmarkAndHighBits(b *testing.B) {
x := uint(0)
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
x &= 1 << 63
}
GlobalU = x
}
amd64/darwin on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz:
name old time/op new time/op delta
AndHighBits-4 0.61ns ± 6% 0.42ns ± 6% -31.42% (p=0.000 n=25+25):
'go run run.go -all_codegen -v codegen' passes with following adjustments:
ARM64: The BFXIL pattern ((x << lc) >> rc | y & ac) needed adjustment
since ORshiftRL generation fusing '>> rc' and '|' interferes
with matching ((x << lc) >> rc) to generate UBFX. Previously
ORshiftLL was created first using the shifts generated for (y & ac).
S390X: Add rules for abs and copysign to match use of AND instead of SHIFTs.
Updates #33826
Updates #32781
Change-Id: I43227da76b625de03fbc51117162b23b9c678cdb
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/194297
Run-TryBot: Martin Möhrmann <martisch@uos.de>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/196957 mentions this issue: |
gopherbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 23, 2019
This reverts CL 194297. Reason for revert: introduced register allocation failures on PPC64LE builders. Updates #33826 Updates #32781 Updates #34468 Change-Id: I7d0b55df8cdf8e7d2277f1814299b083c2692e48 Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/196957 Run-TryBot: Bryan C. Mills <bcmills@google.com> TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Dmitri Shuralyov <dmitshur@golang.org> Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com> Reviewed-by: Martin Möhrmann <moehrmann@google.com>
|
Change https://golang.org/cl/196810 mentions this issue: |
gopherbot
pushed a commit
that referenced
this issue
Sep 24, 2019
On modern 64bit CPUs a SHR, SHL or AND instruction take 1 cycle to execute.
A pair of shifts that operate on the same register will take 2 cycles
and needs to wait for the input register value to be available.
Large constants used to mask the high bits of a register with an AND
instruction can not be encoded as an immediate in the AND instruction
on amd64 and therefore need to be loaded into a register with a MOV
instruction.
However that MOV instruction is not dependent on the output register and
on many CPUs does not compete with the AND or shift instructions for
execution ports.
Using a pair of shifts to mask high bits instead of an AND to mask high
bits of a register has a shorter encoding and uses one less general
purpose register but is slower due to taking one clock cycle longer
if there is no register pressure that would make the AND variant need to
generate a spill.
For example the instructions emitted for (x & 1 << 63) before this CL are:
48c1ea3f SHRQ $0x3f, DX
48c1e23f SHLQ $0x3f, DX
after this CL the instructions are the same as GCC and LLVM use:
48b80000000000000080 MOVQ $0x8000000000000000, AX
4821d0 ANDQ DX, AX
Some platforms such as arm64 already have SSA optimization rules to fuse
two shift instructions back into an AND.
Removing the general rule to rewrite AND to SHR+SHL speeds up this benchmark:
var GlobalU uint
func BenchmarkAndHighBits(b *testing.B) {
x := uint(0)
for i := 0; i < b.N; i++ {
x &= 1 << 63
}
GlobalU = x
}
amd64/darwin on Intel(R) Core(TM) i7-3520M CPU @ 2.90GHz:
name old time/op new time/op delta
AndHighBits-4 0.61ns ± 6% 0.42ns ± 6% -31.42% (p=0.000 n=25+25):
'go run run.go -all_codegen -v codegen' passes with following adjustments:
ARM64: The BFXIL pattern ((x << lc) >> rc | y & ac) needed adjustment
since ORshiftRL generation fusing '>> rc' and '|' interferes
with matching ((x << lc) >> rc) to generate UBFX. Previously
ORshiftLL was created first using the shifts generated for (y & ac).
S390X: Add rules for abs and copysign to match use of AND instead of SHIFTs.
Updates #33826
Updates #32781
Change-Id: I5a59f6239660d53c029cd22dfb44ddf39f93a56c
Reviewed-on: https://go-review.googlesource.com/c/go/+/196810
Run-TryBot: Martin Möhrmann <moehrmann@google.com>
Reviewed-by: Cherry Zhang <cherryyz@google.com>
TryBot-Result: Gobot Gobot <gobot@golang.org>
Sign up for free
to join this conversation on GitHub.
Already have an account?
Sign in to comment
On a 32-bit system, an expression like
uint64value & constantUint64Maskcould easily be decomposed two 32-bit mask operations. That does not seem to happen (see below, especially the OR instructions). It seems like probably it should.The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: