Re: Static Data Re: llvm

good point. Hrm, i'll have to think about that. I've some rough thoughts i'll try to jot out enroute to icfp, and hopefully sometime during the first half of this week i can get some feedback from you and/or others? -Carter On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 11:01 PM, Simon Peyton-Jones wrote:

If there are any technical objections to adding support for static data, i'm all ears.****

** **

There can’t be any technical objections until there is a proposal on the table that has enough detail that someone could technically object to it! A good place to start is with the intermediate language. How would that change?****

** **

Simon****

** **

*From:* ghc-devs [mailto:ghc-devs-bounces@haskell.org] *On Behalf Of *Carter Schonwald *Sent:* 22 September 2013 03:55 *To:* John Lato *Cc:* Simon Marlow; ghc-devs@haskell.org; Geoffrey Mainland *Subject:* Static Data Re: llvm****

** **

agreed on most of those points****

** **

** **

@john, no, that would be deeply wrong and dangerous (i think), the way to have a global IORef is using unsafePerformIO, which is actually quite safe if you have a good reason for introducing a globally visible shared reference. ****

** **

theres probably a bunch of sublties, but the notion of compile time data that the code generator can safely use has a number of awesome applications. One other one would be the ability to have static lookup arrays baked into the binary, rather than generated at runtime.****

** **

I'll be at icfp tomorrow mid afternoon through at least the first half of the week, i'll pester the relevant folks for feedback and thoughts about this (sub)topic. ****

** **

having static data would tie into a number of features i want in ghc and associated code gen, and I'm quite willing to pester and do the associated engineering to make sure static data, or some more systematic feature thats more general. Good thing i'm decent at pestering and ok at engineering.*** *

** **

If there are any technical objections to adding support for static data, i'm all ears.****

I'm quite willing to do the leg work to make it happen, but its something that will touch enough pieces of GHC's entire pipeline (lightly, but it will), that some collaborative thought on making this feature work nicely would be great!****

** **

cheers,****

-Carter****

****

** **

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 6:05 PM, John Lato wrote:****

@carter you're completely correct, typed template haskell would be very nice for this. ****

I think something like asStatic would be fine. It would be slightly annoying to not be able to use numeric literals, but it seems like a good first step at any rate. ****

It would probably be possible to generate a Static value at runtime via the ghc api. But perhaps not, I haven't played with the typed template haskell enough to know. ****

As to constructions like Static (IORef Int), that seems to capture the semantics of a global IORef, maybe it could be useful for that sort of application? ****

On Sep 20, 2013 3:19 PM, "Carter Schonwald" wrote:****

@John, thats actually close to the sort of near term proposal i've been thinking of too!****

** **

We could probably make it nicer by using the new typed template haskell (which geoff was/is also working on!). http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/blog/Template%20Haskell%20Proposal****

** **

With typed template haskell, couldn't we have something like ****

** **

asStatic :: alpha -> TExp (Static alpha),****

** **

where asStatic is the only way to introduce terms with a type (Static alpha)? (ie: we could only introduce static values that are closed, at Th time, which would also prevent us from construction a value of type (Static alpha) at runtime?)****

** **

I think that would be enough to introduce the right compile time Static Data property. That would also probably capture the right notion of static for a number of other uses cases (I think. Probably would need a type class constraint on alpha, to rule out crazy things like Static (IORef Int) or the like ). ****

** **

we'd probably need to also have a fromStatic :: Static a -> a, too.****

** **

But you're absolutely right, with a teeny bit of work, we could have at least a near term work around like that. Theres probably some subtlties i'm overlooking though****

** **

** **

** **

** **

** **

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:09 PM, John Lato wrote:****

I think Geoffrey's suggestion is workable, but I wouldn't like it so much. The difficulty is that if you aren't aware of it, it's possible to build up a large system that you discover is unworkable the first time you try to compile it. ****

In that sense it's not too different from Template Haskell staging restrictions, which IIRC exist to deal with exactly this problem. ****

As the necessity of compile-time constants has shown up at least twice, a more principled solution is worth investigating. ****

In the meantime, a horrible hack would be something like:****

newtype CStatic v = CStatic ExpQ instance Num a => Num ( CStatic a) where fromInteger x = [| x |]****

and then the value could be spliced at the call site. Staging restrictions would ensure it's available at compile time. I guess the instance decl needs Lift too. ****

Downsides are general hideous-ness, misleading error messages, and the necessity for compiling with template haskell. But you'd get an error if s value isn't a compile-time constant. (Please don't put this in ghc, but it's not so bad as a separate lib).****

John L.****

On Sep 19, 2013 3:44 PM, "Geoffrey Mainland" wrote: ****

If you pass a constant, unboxed value to a primop, I assume GHC won't ever bind the argument to a value. So although we have no way to enforce "static const argument" in the type system, if this is a valuable (and experts-only?) operation, I'm not sure it matters that much if the user gets an error at code-generation time complaining about non-const arguments.

Another way to look at it: if we wait until someone enhances the type system to support the notion of static arguments, we will likely never have a bit shuffle primitive.

The other option would be to fall back on a different implementation if we saw a non-constant argument. I think that would actually be worse than erroring out, but I'm sure others would disagree.

Geoff

...

tldr; we can't express / expose the LLVM shuffleVector intrinsic in a type safe way that will correctly interact with the static argument requirement for associated code generation.

On Thu, Sep 19, 2013 at 12:40 AM, Carter Schonwald mailto:carter.schonwald@gmail.com> wrote:

yup, i hit a gap in what we can currently express in haskell types. We don't have a way of expressing static data! I actually put ticket on trac noting this. http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8107 (note that when i was initially writing the ticket, i incorrectly thought the int# arg to ghc's prefetch was the locality level rather than a byte offset)

Currently GHC has no way of expressing "this argument needs to be a static compile/codegen time constant" in surface haskell or core! This means we could at best provide a suite of special cased operations. (eg: we could provide the inter-lane shuffle for swapping halves of YMM registers, and the miniature analogue for XMM), but that would really be missing the point: being able to write complex algorithms that can work completely in registers!

the vast majority of the simd shuffle operations have certain arguments that need to be compile time static values that are used in the actual code generation. The llvm data model doesn't express this constraint. This invariant failure was also hit internally recently via a bug in how GHC generated code for llvm's memcopy! http://ghc.haskell.org/trac/ghc/ticket/8131

If we could express llvm'sshuffleVector http://llvm.org/docs/LangRef.html#shufflevector-instruction intrinsic in a type safe way, then we could express any of them. I would be over the moon if we could expose an operation like shuffleVector, but I dont' think GHC currently can express it in a type safe way that won't make LLVM vomit.

I want simd shuffle, but i don't see how to give the fully general shuffle operations in type safe ways with ghc currently. We need to add support for some notion of static data first! If theres a way, i'm all for it, but I don't see such a way.

I hope that answers your question. that seems to be a deep enough issue that theres no way to resolve it with simple engineering in the next few weeks.

-Carter

On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 9:41 PM, Geoffrey Mainland mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> wrote:

On 09/18/2013 04:49 PM, Carter Schonwald wrote: > I've some thoughts on how to have a better solution, but they are > feasible only on a time scale suitable for 7.10, and not for 7.8. > > a hacky solution we could do for 7.8 perhaps is have a warning that > works as follows: > > either > a) > throw a warning on functions that use the SIMD primops, if that > function is being exported by a module, and that function isn't marked > NOINLINE ? Theres probably a few subtleties to it, and this is just a > naive idea That wouldn't inform the consumers of a module. And for a library like vector, we definitely want to export unfoldings for code that contains SIMD primops. That's the only way to get good code out of the library! > b) somehow put both the -fllvm and -fasm core for inlineable functions > in the .hi file? (this one prevents the most problems, but is probably > the most complex work around we could do). The problem being that there *is* no -fasm code...because the NCG doesn't support SIMD operations. Unless we added a mechanism to have two completely different, but simultaneous, definitions for a function, one for -fasm and one for -fllvm. But that would be a lot of work and couldn't be done for 7.8. > > > its worth noting that the LLVM simd in 7.8, either way, won't support > simd shuffles, which will seriously curtail its general utility, > either way.

You told me you would send me example use cases, type signatures, etc. Did I miss an email? If this is very important to you, was there a particular difficulty you had implementing these primops?

> On Wed, Sep 18, 2013 at 4:22 PM, Simon Marlow mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com > mailto:marlowsd@gmail.com>> wrote: > > On 18/09/13 20:01, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: > > We did discuss this, but you may not have been present. > > If LLVM-only primops show up in a non-LLVM codegen, a "sorry" > error is > reported telling the user that they need to compile with > "-fllvm". Yes, > this is not a fantastic solution. Options I see: > > 1) Live with the error message. > 2) Remove all SIMD support until the NCG catches up. > 3) Figure out a mechanism that avoids inlining any code containing > LLVM-only primops when we're not using the LLVM back end. > > Maybe you can think of another solution? > > > Those are the three unsatisfactory solutions that I know of. Even > if we did (3), the user still wants to know when that is happening > because they're getting less good code, so you'd want a warning. > > One thing we might try to do is automatically enable -fllvm when > the compilation would otherwise fail. If LLVM isn't installed and > the compilation still fails, it's no worse than failing to compile > the module with the sorry error. > > Simon > > > > Geoff > > On 09/18/2013 02:54 PM, Simon Marlow wrote: > > This is slightly problematic. What if we have a wonderful > SIMD-enabled vector library that we compile with -fllvm, > and then use > it in a program that isn't compiled with -fllvm, and some > of the > wonderful SIMD-enabled functions get inlined? Presumably > we get a > panic in the NCG. > > Did we discuss this before? I have vague memories, but > don't remember > what the outcome was. > > Cheers, > Simon > > On 12/09/13 03:10, Geoffrey Mainland wrote: > > We support compiling some code with -fllvm and some > not in the same > executable. Otherwise how could users of the Haskell > Platform link their > -fllvm-compiled code with native-codegen-compiled > libraries like > base, etc.? > > In other words, the LLVM and native back ends use the > same calling > convention. With my SIMD work, they still use the same > calling > conventions, but the native codegen can never generate > code that uses > SIMD instructions. > > Geoff > > On 09/11/2013 10:03 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > > OK. But that doesn't create a problem for the code > we output with the > LLVM backend, no? Or do we support compiling some > code with -fllvm and > some not in the same executable? > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 6:56 PM, Geoffrey Mainland > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net>>> wrote: > > We definitely have interop between

On 09/19/2013 11:42 AM, Carter Schonwald wrote: the

...

> native codegen and the LLVM > back > end now. Otherwise anyone who wanted to use > the LLVM back end > would have > to build GHC themselves. Interop means that > users can install the > Haskell Platform and still use -fllvm when > it makes a performance > difference. > > Geoff > > On 09/11/2013 07:59 PM, Johan Tibell wrote: > > Do nothing different than you're doing for > 7.8, we can sort > it out > > later. Just put a comment on the primops > saying they're > LLVM-only. See > > e.g. > > > > > > > >

https://github.com/ghc/ghc/blob/master/compiler/prelude/primops.txt.pp#L181

...

> > > > for an example how to add docs to primops. > > > > I don't think we need interop between the > native and the LLVM > > backends. We don't have that now do we > (i.e. they use different > > calling conventions). > > > > > > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:51 PM, Geoffrey > Mainland > > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net>> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net>>>> > wrote: > > > > On 09/11/2013 07:44 PM, Johan Tibell > wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 11, 2013 at 4:40 PM, > Geoffrey Mainland > > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net>> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net> > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net > mailto:mainland@apeiron.net>>>> > wrote: > > > > Do you mean we need a reasonable > emulation of the SIMD > primops for > > > > the native codegen? > > > > > > Yes. Reasonable in the sense that it > computes the right > result. > > I can > > > see that some code might still want > to #ifdef (if the > fallback isn't > > > fast enough). > > > > Two implications of this requirement: > > > > 1) There will not be SIMD in 7.8. I > just don't have the > time. In fact, > > what SIMD support is there already > will have to be > removed if we > > cannot > > live with LLVM-only SIMD primops. > > > > 2) If we also require interop between > the LLVM back-end and > the native > > codegen, then we cannot pass any SIMD > vectors in > registers---they all > > must be passed on the stack. > > > > My plan, as discussed with Simon PJ, > is to not support SIMD > primops at > > all with the native codegen. If there > is a strong feeling > that > > this *is > > not* the way to go, the I need to know > ASAP. > > > > Geoff > > > > > > > > > > > > >

****

_______________________________________________ ghc-devs mailing list ghc-devs@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/ghc-devs****

** **

** **