Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Recent LLVM trunk builds seem to have broken predicated_store_load #3534

Closed
steven-johnson opened this issue Dec 26, 2018 · 9 comments
Closed

Comments

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor

Haven't investigated yet, just opening an issue for tracking.

@abadams
Copy link
Member

abadams commented Dec 26, 2018

I noticed massive performance issues with masked vector store instructions on x86. It's not supposed to be non-temporal anymore, but subsequent loads of an address that you do a masked store to take forever, so it seems like it has left cache. I just turned them off entirely in the autoscheduler branch and was going to propose turning them off in master for x86 for now.

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

propose turning them off in master for x86 for now

+1, make it so

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

I just turned them off entirely in the autoscheduler branch

Did you do that locally? I don't see it in the branch.

@abadams
Copy link
Member

abadams commented Dec 27, 2018

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

With that in place, the branch is still failing; e.g. #3535 which is up to date with standalone_autoscheduler still fails predicated_load_store

@abadams
Copy link
Member

abadams commented Dec 27, 2018

It fails it because it's not generating any predicated stores, and the test asserts that it does.

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

d'oh

steven-johnson added a commit that referenced this issue Dec 27, 2018
Disable predicated store/load on x86 (Issue #3534)
@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

Looks like we never followed up on this -- probably worth revisiting to see if the 'recent LLVM trunk breakage' is still a thing.

@steven-johnson
Copy link
Contributor Author

I'm going to assume this is long-since-stale

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

No branches or pull requests

2 participants