[Migrated] We should override `thir_body` to inject loop merge points for structurization.
Nadie ha tomado este issue todavía.
- Lenguaje dominante
- Rust
- Estrellas
- 3.4k
- Forks
- 126
- Métricas de merge de PR
- Sin PR fusionados en 30 d
Descripción
Issue automatically imported from old repo: https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu/issues/944
Originally creatd by eddyb on 2022-11-24T08:17:49Z 👍: 1
I was writing up this SPIR-T issue when I realized we can do much better than I ever thought we can:
The "subgroup reconvergence"/"loop merges" problem statement
the fundamental ambiguity here (wrt reconvergence), that explicit merges solve, looks like this:
loop { // ... if cond { // the "then" edge *leaves the loop* A(); // !!! it might be important that this STAYS INSIDE the loop! break; // this is just a linear A -> B edge in the CFG (outside the loop's cycle) } } B(); // !!! it might be important that this STAYS OUTSIDE the loop!because the
A()->B()edge just looks like a redundant fusable edge (isomorphic to a singleA(); B();basic block), structurizers will very likely either produce:
loop { ... if cond { break; } } A(); B();(movingA()out of theloop)
A()no longer called for "early finishers" (losing a desired side-effect)loop { ... if cond { A(); B(); break; } }(movingB()into theloop)
B()now being called for "early finishers" (gaining an undesired side-effect)and they're both bad because a non-uniform
break(i.e. an "early finisher") will block on subgroup neighbors (semantically, at least, in hardware the now-inactive lanes will likely stick around while loop instructions continue being executed for remaining lanes, until they all eventuallybreak)
An actual reasonable solution for once (what prompted me to open this issue)
A better approach might be to "just" make up a SPIR-T instruction that acts as "loop merge barrier", i.e.:
loop { // ... if cond { A(); // !!! definitely INSIDE the loop break; // just an edge to the `LoopMerge`, in the CFG } } asm!("spirt.ControlInst.LoopMerge"); B(); // !!! definitely OUTSIDE the loopEach
LoopMergewould be consumed by one loop structurization - if you have nested loops, you'd need to be careful not to forget to add them to each loop.But wait, even if we make this ergonomic with macros... we'd still want to check that you don't use any instructions that "care" about e.g. subgroups, right? That could be e.g. a MIR check pass, right? Which we can inject... just like...
Yes, that's right,
rustc_codegen_spirvhas enough query overriding power that it could overridethir_body, which MIR construction uses as the source of truth, to introduce additional nodes around loops, allowing Rust to be on par with GLSL wrt structured control-flow guarantees.
Additionally, this could be used to replace #[spirv(unroll_loops)] (once that's removed, see https://github.com/EmbarkStudios/rust-gpu/pull/940#issuecomment-1320004784 for more context), as it would allow us to check for a (new) #[spirv(unroll)] attribute on the loop expression, and then store that in the injected merge point.
That would be much nicer than fn-level catch-alls, and generally a good fit for SPIR-V expressivity.
Guía de contribución
Primeros pasos
- Lee el issue completo y luego la guía de contribución del proyecto.
- Comenta en el issue que vas a ocuparte — evita que dos personas hagan lo mismo.
- Haz un fork del repositorio y trabaja en una rama.
- Abre un pull request que haga referencia al número del issue.
Línea de trabajo
Comienza con la referencia enlazada a la construcción de MIR de rustc y la sobrescritura de la consulta thir_body en rustc_codegen_spirv. Investiga cómo los nodos de bucle podrían incluir LoopMerge e información de unrolling a nivel de bucle, incluidos los bucles anidados y las instrucciones sensibles a subgrupos. Se considera terminado cuando los puntos de unión de los bucles y el atributo de unroll propuesto se inyectan y validan sin perder la semántica de control de flujo prevista.
Escrito por el modelo de indexación a partir del texto del issue.
Evaluación
- Stack tecnológico
- rust
- Área
- compilers
- Tipo de issue
- Nueva funcionalidad
- Dificultad
- 5/5
- Tiempo estimado
- Más de una semana
- Estado de actividad
- Estancado
- Claridad
- Bastante claro
- Aptitud para principiantes
- 25/100