-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 14.3k
[AMDGPU][SIInsertWaitcnts] Do not add s_waitcnt when the counters are known to be 0 already #72830
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
Merged
Merged
Changes from all commits
Commits
File filter
Filter by extension
Conversations
Failed to load comments.
Loading
Jump to
Jump to file
Failed to load files.
Loading
Diff view
Diff view
There are no files selected for viewing
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
This file contains hidden or bidirectional Unicode text that may be interpreted or compiled differently than what appears below. To review, open the file in an editor that reveals hidden Unicode characters.
Learn more about bidirectional Unicode characters
Oops, something went wrong.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
This suggestion is invalid because no changes were made to the code.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is closed.
Suggestions cannot be applied while viewing a subset of changes.
Only one suggestion per line can be applied in a batch.
Add this suggestion to a batch that can be applied as a single commit.
Applying suggestions on deleted lines is not supported.
You must change the existing code in this line in order to create a valid suggestion.
Outdated suggestions cannot be applied.
This suggestion has been applied or marked resolved.
Suggestions cannot be applied from pending reviews.
Suggestions cannot be applied on multi-line comments.
Suggestions cannot be applied while the pull request is queued to merge.
Suggestion cannot be applied right now. Please check back later.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
Why do we need this here as well as in
pseudoToMCOpcode
?Note that SIInsertWaitcnts is iterative, so it may process the same block several times. If that happens then by the time the it runs the second time on a block, all remaining soft waitcnts will have been converted to hard ones by the first pass. Is that desirable for some reason?
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So soft waitcnts can be lowered into MCInsts
When I picked up this patch, IIRC, I tried to remove the one in
pseudoToMCOpcode
(and make soft waitcnts illegal to lower to MCInst) but it didn't work. I can try again if you wantNot sure, I'll think about it
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
So my assumption is that it's a normal process. The first iteration will either eliminate the unneeded waitcnts, or make them non-soft. Further iterations on the block should act like they did before when there were no soft waitcnts.
I've renamed this function to also make it clearer because I think its current name was confusing. It's only called when we update a waitcnt (so when we know the waitcnt is needed) in order to "promote" the soft waitcnt into a normal one.
There was a problem hiding this comment.
Choose a reason for hiding this comment
The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.
I guess it's OK, but it still seems odd to me that we promote soft waitcnts both here and in
pseudoToMCOpcode
.SIInsertWaitcnts
is required for correctness (it is not just an optimization) so why is thepseudoToMCOpcode
part required?Alternatively, could we stop promoting soft waitcnts here? Or would that somehow change the behaviour of the second (or subsequent) visit to a basic block?