= Change of WAR, WAW generation: =
- `buildFlow(Sink, MustSource, MaySource, Sink)` treates any flow of the form
`sink <- may source <- must source` as a *may* dependence.
- we used to call:
```lang=cpp, name=old-flow-call.cpp
Flow = buildFlow(MustWrite, MustWrite, Read, Schedule);
WAW = isl_union_flow_get_must_dependence(Flow);
WAR = isl_union_flow_get_may_dependence(Flow);
```
- This caused some WAW dependences to be treated as WAR dependences.
- Incorrect semantics.
- Now, we call WAR and WAW correctly.
== Correct WAW: ==
```lang=cpp, name=new-waw-call.cpp
Flow = buildFlow(Write, MustWrite, MayWrite, Schedule);
WAW = isl_union_flow_get_may_dependence(Flow);
isl_union_flow_free(Flow);
```
== Correct WAR: ==
```lang=cpp, name=new-war-call.cpp
Flow = buildFlow(Write, Read, MustaWrite, Schedule);
WAR = isl_union_flow_get_must_dependence(Flow);
isl_union_flow_free(Flow);
```
- We want the "shortest" WAR possible (exact dependences).
- We mark all the *must-writes* as may-source, reads as must-souce.
- Then, we ask for *must* dependence.
- This removes all the reads that flow through a *must-write*
before reaching a sink.
- Note that we only block ealier writes with *must-writes*. This is
intuitively correct, as we do not want may-writes to block
must-writes.
- Leaves us with direct (R -> W).
- This affects reduction generation since RED is built using WAW and WAR.
= New StrictWAW for Reductions: =
- We used to call:
```lang=cpp,name=old-waw-war-call.cpp
Flow = buildFlow(MustWrite, MustWrite, Read, Schedule);
WAW = isl_union_flow_get_must_dependence(Flow);
WAR = isl_union_flow_get_may_dependence(Flow);
```
- This *is* the right model of WAW we need for reductions, just not in general.
- Reductions need to track only *strict* WAW, without any interfering reductions.
= Explanation: Why the new WAR dependences in tests are correct: =
- We no longer set WAR = WAR - WAW
- Hence, we will have WAR dependences that were originally removed.
- These may look incorrect, but in fact make sense.
== Code: ==
```lang=llvm, name=new-war-dependence.ll
; void manyreductions(long *A) {
; for (long i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
; for (long j = 0; j < 1024; j++)
; S0: *A += 42;
;
; for (long i = 0; i < 1024; i++)
; for (long j = 0; j < 1024; j++)
; S1: *A += 42;
;
```
=== WAR dependence: ===
{ S0[1023, 1023] -> S1[0, 0] }
- Between `S0[1023, 1023]` and `S1[0, 0]`, we will have the dependences:
```lang=cpp, name=dependence-incorrect, counterexample
S0[1023, 1023]:
*-- tmp = *A (load0)--*
WAR 2 add = tmp + 42 |
*-> *A = add (store0) |
WAR 1
S1[0, 0]: |
tmp = *A (load1) |
add = tmp + 42 |
A = add (store1)<-*
```
- One may assume that WAR2 *hides* WAR1 (since store0 happens before
store1). However, within a statement, Polly has no idea about the
ordering of loads and stores.
- Hence, according to Polly, the code may have looked like this:
```lang=cpp, name=dependence-correct
S0[1023, 1023]:
A = add (store0)
tmp = A (load0) ---*
add = A + 42 |
WAR 1
S1[0, 0]: |
tmp = A (load1) |
add = A + 42 |
A = add (store1) <-*
```
- So, Polly generates (correct) WAR dependences. It does not make sense
to remove these dependences, since they are correct with respect to
Polly's model.
Reviewers: grosser, Meinersbur
tags: #polly
Differential revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D31386
llvm-svn: 299429
This test case is a mini performance test case that shows the time needed for a
couple of simple reductions. It takes today about 325ms on my machine to run
this test case through 'opt' with scop construction and reduction detection. It
can be used as mini-proxy for further tuning of the reduction code.
Generally we do not commit performance test cases, but as this is very
small and also very fast it seems OK to keep it in the lit test suite.
This test case will also help to verify that future changes to the reduction
code will not affect the ordering of the reduction sets and will consequently
not cause spurious performance changes that only result from reordering of
dependences in the reduction set.
llvm-svn: 295549
Siddharth Bhat