(original) (raw)
On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 1:55 PM Johannes Doerfert <johannesdoerfert@gmail.com> wrote:
On 3/10/21 3:25 PM, Artem Belevich wrote:
\> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 12:57 PM Johannes Doerfert <
\> johannesdoerfert@gmail.com> wrote:
\>
\>> Right. We could keep the definition of \_\_nv\_cos and friends
\>> around. Right now, -ffast-math might just crash on the user,
\>> which is arguably a bad thing. I can also see us benefiting
\>> in various other ways from llvm.cos uses instead of \_\_nv\_cos
\>> (assuming precision is according to the user requirements but
\>> that is always a condition).
\>>
\>> It could be as simple as introducing \_\_nv\_cos into
\>> "llvm.used" and a backend matching/rewrite pass.
\>>
\>> If the backend knew the libdevice location it could even pick
\>> the definitions from there. Maybe we could link libdevice late
\>> instead of eager?
\>>
\> It's possible, but it would require plumbing in CUDA SDK awareness into
\> LLVM. While clang driver can deal with that, LLVM currently can't. The
\> bitcode library path would have to be provided by the user.
The PTX backend could arguably be CUDA SDK aware, IMHO, it would
even be fine if the middle-end does the remapping to get inlining
and folding benefits also after \_\_nv\_cos is used. See below.
\> The standard library as bitcode raises some questions.
Which standard library? CUDAs libdevice is a bitcode library, right?
It's whatever LLVM will need to lower libcalls to. libdevice bitcode is the closest approximation of that we have at the moment.
\> \* When do we want to do the linking? If we do it at the beginning, then the
\> question is how to make sure unused functions are not eliminated before we
\> may need them, as we don't know apriori what's going to be needed. We also
\> do want the unused functions to be gone after we're done. Linking it in
\> early would allow optimizing the code better at the expense of having to
\> optimize a lot of code we'll throw away. Linking it in late has less
\> overhead, but leaves the linked in bitcode unoptimized, though it's
\> probably in the ballpark of what would happen with a real library call.
\> I.e. no inlining, etc.
\>
\> \* It incorporates linking into LLVM, which is not LLVM's job. Arguably, the
\> line should be drawn at the lowering to libcalls as it's done for other
\> back-ends. However, we're also constrained to by the need to have the
\> linking done before we generate PTX which prevents doing it after LLVM is
\> done generating an object file.
I'm confused. Clang links in libdevice.bc early.
Yes. Because that's where it has to happen if we want to keep LLVM unaware of CUDA SDK.
It does not have to be the case if/when LLVM can do the linking itself.
If we make sure
\`\_\_nv\_cos\` is not deleted early, we can at any point "lower" \`llvm.cos\`
to \`\_\_nv\_cos\` which is available. After the lowering we can remove
the artificial uses of \`\_\_nv\_XXX\` functions that we used to keep the
definitions around in order to remove them from the final result.
This is the 'link early' approach, I should've been explicit that it's 'link early \*everything\*' as opposed to linking only what's needed at the beginning.
It would work at the expense of having to process/optimize 500KB worth of bitcode for every compilation, whether it needs it or not.
We get the benefit of having \`llvm.cos\` for some of the pipeline,
we know it does not have all the bad effects while \`\_\_nv\_cos\` is defined
with inline assembly. We also get the benefit of inlining \`\_\_nv\_cos\`
and folding the implementation based on the arguments. Finally,
this should work with the existing pipeline, the linking is the same
as before, all we do is to keep the definitions alive longer and
lower \`llvm.cos\` to \`\_\_nv\_cos\` in a middle end pass.
Again, I agree that it is doable.
This might be similar to the PTX solution you describe below but I feel
we get the inline benefit from this without actually changing the pipeline
at all.
So, to summarize:
\* link the library as bitcode early, add artificial placeholders for everything, compile, remove placeholders and DCE unused stuff away.
Pros:
- we're already doing most of it before clang hands hands off IR to LLVM, so it just pushes it a bit lower in the compilation.
Cons:
- runtime cost of optimizing libdevice bitcode,
- libdevice may be required for all NVPTX compilations?
\* link the library as bitcode late.
Pros:
- lower runtime cost than link-early approach.
Cons:
- We'll need to make sure that NVVMReflect pass processes the library.
- less optimizations on the library functions. Some of the code gets DCE'ed away after NVVMReflect and the rest could be optimized better.
- libdevice may be required for all NVPTX compilations?
\* 'link' with the library as PTX appended as text to LLVM's output and let ptxas do the 'linking'
Pros: LLVM remains agnostic of CUDA SDK installation details. All it does is allows lowering libcalls and leaves their resolution to the external tools.
Cons: Need to have the PTX library somewhere and need to integrate the 'linking' into the compilation process somehow.
Neither is particularly good. If the runtime overhead of link-early is acceptable, then it may be a winner here, by a very small margin.
link-as-PTX may be better conceptually as it keeps linking and compilation separate.
As for the practical steps, here's what we need:
- allow libcall lowering in NVPTX, possibly guarded by a flag. This is needed for all of the approaches above.
- teach LLVM how to link in bitcode (and, possibly, control early/late mode)
- teach clang driver to delegate libdevice linking to LLVM.
This will allow us to experiment with all three approaches and see what works best.
--Artem
\~ Johannes
\>
\> One thing that may work within the existing compilation model is to
\> pre-compile the standard library into PTX and then textually embed relevant
\> functions into the generated PTX, thus pushing the 'linking' phase past the
\> end of LLVM's compilation and make it look closer to the standard
\> compile/link process. This way we'd only enable libcall lowering in NVPTX,
\> assuming that the library functions will be magically available out there.
\> Injection of PTX could be done with an external script outside of LLVM and
\> it could be incorporated into clang driver. Bonus points for the fact that
\> this scheme is compatible with -fgpu-rdc out of the box -- assemble the PTX
\> with \`ptxas -rdc\` and then actually link with the library, instead of
\> injecting its PTX before invoking ptxas.
\>
\> --Artem
\>
\> Trying to figure out a good way to have the cake and eat it too.
\>> \~ Johannes
\>>
\>>
\>> On 3/10/21 2:49 PM, William Moses wrote:
\>>> Since clang (and arguably any other frontend that uses) should link in
\>>> libdevice, could we lower these intrinsics to the libdevice code?
\> The linking happens \*before\* LLVM gets to work on IR.
\> As I said, it's a workaround, not the solution. It's possible for LLVM to
\> still attempt lowering something in the IR into a libcall and we would not
\> be able to deal with that. It happens to work well enough in practice.
\>
\> Do you have an example where you see the problem with -ffast-math?
\>
\>
\>
\>>> For example, consider compiling the simple device function below:
\>>>
\>>> \`\`\`
\>>> // /mnt/sabrent/wmoses/llvm13/build/bin/clang tmp.cu -S -emit-llvm
\>>> --cuda-path=/usr/local/cuda-11.0 -L/usr/local/cuda-11.0/lib64
\>>> --cuda-gpu-arch=sm\_37
\>>> \_\_device\_\_ double f(double x) {
\>>> return cos(x);
\>>> }
\>>> \`\`\`
\>>>
\>>> The LLVM module for it is as follows:
\>>>
\>>> \`\`\`
\>>> ...
\>>> define dso\_local double @\_Z1fd(double %x) #0 {
\>>> entry:
\>>> %\_\_a.addr.i = alloca double, align 8
\>>> %x.addr = alloca double, align 8
\>>> store double %x, double\* %x.addr, align 8
\>>> %0 = load double, double\* %x.addr, align 8
\>>> store double %0, double\* %\_\_a.addr.i, align 8
\>>> %1 = load double, double\* %\_\_a.addr.i, align 8
\>>> %call.i = call contract double @\_\_nv\_cos(double %1) #7
\>>> ret double %call.i
\>>> }
\>>>
\>>> define internal double @\_\_nv\_cos(double %a) #1 {
\>>> %q.i = alloca i32, align 4
\>>> \`\`\`
\>>>
\>>> Obviously we would need to do something to ensure these functions don't
\>> get
\>>> deleted prior to their use in lowering from intrinsic to libdevice.
\>>> ...
\>>>
\>>>
\>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 3:39 PM Artem Belevich <tra@google.com> wrote:
\>>>
\>>>> On Wed, Mar 10, 2021 at 11:41 AM Johannes Doerfert <
\>>>> johannesdoerfert@gmail.com> wrote:
\>>>>
\>>>>> Artem, Justin,
\>>>>>
\>>>>> I am running into a problem and I'm curious if I'm missing something or
\>>>>> if the support is simply missing.
\>>>>> Am I correct to assume the NVPTX backend does not deal with \`llvm.sin\`
\>>>>> and friends?
\>>>>>
\>>>> Correct. It can't deal with anything that may need to lower to a
\>> standard
\>>>> library call.
\>>>>
\>>>>> This is what I see, with some variations: https://godbolt.org/z/PxsEWs
\>>>>>
\>>>>> If this is missing in the backend, is there a plan to get this working,
\>>>>> I'd really like to have the
\>>>>> intrinsics in the middle end rather than \_\_nv\_cos, not to mention that
\>>>>> -ffast-math does emit intrinsics
\>>>>> and crashes.
\>>>>>
\>>>> It all boils down to the fact that PTX does not have the standard
\>>>> libc/libm which LLVM could lower the calls to, nor does it have a
\>> 'linking'
\>>>> phase where we could link such a library in, if we had it.
\>>>>
\>>>> Libdevice bitcode does provide the implementations for some of the
\>>>> functions (though with a \_\_nv\_ prefix) and clang links it in in order to
\>>>> avoid generating IR that LLVM can't handle, but that's a workaround that
\>>>> does not help LLVM itself.
\>>>>
\>>>> --Artem
\>>>>
\>>>>
\>>>>
\>>>>> \~ Johannes
\>>>>>
\>>>>>
\>>>>> --
\>>>>> ───────────────────
\>>>>> ∽ Johannes (he/his)
\>>>>>
\>>>>>
\>>>> --
\>>>> --Artem Belevich
\>>>>
\>
--Artem Belevich