ARM64-SVE: Add `AddSequentialAcross` #104640

amanasifkhalid · 2024-07-09T20:25:36Z

Follow-up to #104258, part of #99957. I'll do AddRotateComplex in a separate PR, since I think we might need to change the signature of that API if we want the user to pass the rotation constant in degrees: The type of the constant is currently byte, which is too small to handle a rotation amount of 270.

Test output:

Starting test: .\Core_Root\corerun.exe .\HardwareIntrinsics_Arm_r\HardwareIntrinsics_Arm_r.dll Sve_AddSequentialAcross
===================Running default===================
------------------- {} -------------------
Passed test: _Sve_r::JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.Arm._Sve.Program.Sve_AddSequentialAcross_float() : 31
Passed test: _Sve_r::JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.Arm._Sve.Program.Sve_AddSequentialAcross_double() : 31
===================Running jitstress===================
------------------- {'JitMinOpts': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '1', 'TieredCompilation': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'TieredCompilation': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'TailcallStress': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'ReadyToRun': '0'} -------------------
===================Running jitstressregs===================
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '3'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '4'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '8'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x10'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x80'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x1000'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x2000'} -------------------
===================Running jitstress2-jitstressregs===================
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '3'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '4'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '8'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x10'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x80'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x1000'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x2000'} -------------------

Starting test: .\Core_Root\corerun.exe .\HardwareIntrinsics_Arm_ro\HardwareIntrinsics_Arm_ro.dll Sve_AddSequentialAcross
===================Running default===================
------------------- {} -------------------
Passed test: _Sve_ro::JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.Arm._Sve.Program.Sve_AddSequentialAcross_float() : 31
Passed test: _Sve_ro::JIT.HardwareIntrinsics.Arm._Sve.Program.Sve_AddSequentialAcross_double() : 31
===================Running jitstress===================
------------------- {'JitMinOpts': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '1', 'TieredCompilation': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'TieredCompilation': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'TailcallStress': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'ReadyToRun': '0'} -------------------
===================Running jitstressregs===================
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '3'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '4'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '8'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x10'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x80'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x1000'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStressRegs': '0x2000'} -------------------
===================Running jitstress2-jitstressregs===================
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '1'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '2'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '3'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '4'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '8'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x10'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x80'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x1000'} -------------------
------------------- {'JitStress': '2', 'JitStressRegs': '0x2000'} -------------------

@dotnet/arm64-contrib PTAL, thanks!

dotnet-issue-labeler · 2024-07-09T20:25:41Z

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

dotnet-issue-labeler · 2024-07-09T20:25:42Z

Note regarding the new-api-needs-documentation label:

This serves as a reminder for when your PR is modifying a ref *.cs file and adding/modifying public APIs, please make sure the API implementation in the src *.cs file is documented with triple slash comments, so the PR reviewers can sign off that change.

dotnet-policy-service · 2024-07-09T20:26:06Z

Tagging subscribers to this area: @dotnet/area-system-runtime-intrinsics
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

kunalspathak · 2024-07-10T04:00:45Z

I'll do AddRotateComplex in a separate PR, since I think we might need to change the signature of that API if we want the user to pass the rotation constant in degrees: The type of the constant is currently byte, which is too small to handle a rotation amount of 270.

Please take up this discussion in the original APi review issue and tag the reviewers. @tannergooding

kunalspathak · 2024-07-10T04:04:24Z

src/tests/JIT/HardwareIntrinsics/Arm/Shared/Helpers.cs

+            double[] result = new double[op1.Length];
+            result[0] = op1[0];
+
+            foreach (double num in op2)


This only calculates the sum for active lanes, so you need to check that as well.

Got it, fixed.

kunalspathak · 2024-07-10T04:05:19Z

src/tests/Common/GenerateHWIntrinsicTests/GenerateHWIntrinsicTests_Arm.cs

@@ -3121,6 +3121,9 @@
    ("SveVecBinOpTest.template",          new Dictionary<string, string> { ["TestName"] = "Sve_AddSaturate_uint",                                                                                  ["Isa"] = "Sve",           ["LoadIsa"] = "Sve",     ["Method"] = "AddSaturate",                                                                  ["RetVectorType"] = "Vector",    ["RetBaseType"] = "UInt32",  ["Op1VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op1BaseType"] = "UInt32", ["Op2VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op2BaseType"] = "UInt32",                                                              ["LargestVectorSize"] = "64",  ["NextValueOp1"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetUInt32()",       ["NextValueOp2"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetUInt32()",                                                                                        ["ValidateIterResult"] = "Helpers.AddSaturate(left[i], right[i]) != result[i]",        ["GetIterResult"] = "Helpers.AddSaturate(left[i], right[i])"}),
    ("SveVecBinOpTest.template",          new Dictionary<string, string> { ["TestName"] = "Sve_AddSaturate_ulong",                                                                                 ["Isa"] = "Sve",           ["LoadIsa"] = "Sve",     ["Method"] = "AddSaturate",                                                                  ["RetVectorType"] = "Vector",    ["RetBaseType"] = "UInt64",  ["Op1VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op1BaseType"] = "UInt64", ["Op2VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op2BaseType"] = "UInt64",                                                              ["LargestVectorSize"] = "64",  ["NextValueOp1"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetUInt64()",       ["NextValueOp2"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetUInt64()",                                                                                        ["ValidateIterResult"] = "Helpers.AddSaturate(left[i], right[i]) != result[i]",        ["GetIterResult"] = "Helpers.AddSaturate(left[i], right[i])"}),

+    ("SveVecBinOpVecTest.template",       new Dictionary<string, string> { ["TestName"] = "Sve_AddSequentialAcross_float",                                                                         ["Isa"] = "Sve",           ["LoadIsa"] = "Sve",     ["Method"] = "AddSequentialAcross",                                                  ["RetVectorType"] = "Vector",    ["RetBaseType"] = "Single",  ["Op1VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op1BaseType"] = "Single", ["Op2VectorType"] = "Vector",    ["Op2BaseType"] = "Single",                                                              ["LargestVectorSize"] = "64", ["NextValueOp1"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetSingle()",        ["NextValueOp2"] = "TestLibrary.Generator.GetSingle()",                                                                                        ["ValidateVectorResult"] = "!result.SequenceEqual(Helpers.AddSequentialAcross(left, right))",   ["GetVectorResult"] = "Helpers.AddSequentialAcross(left, right)"}),


does this test the operation with ConditionalSelect as well?

It does, using SimpleVecOpTest_VectorValidationLogicForCndSel and SimpleVecOpTest_VectorValidationLogicForCndSel_FalseValue. I guess I've been getting lucky with mask[0] being 0 for the CndSel scenarios that skip lanes in the second op.

We should use Helpers.getMask*() to produce the mask input.

Got it, I tweaked the test definitions to use getMask* for NextValueOp1. The only odd thing about this approach is the template for SveVecBinOpVecTest uses NextValueOp1 for generating the mask input, and for op1's input, so the test values for op1 are artificially constrained by this approach. I can tweak the test template to use separate template variables for these two, but lots of existing tests would need to be updated, and I don't think the value gained from doing this is all that much.

I am fine with not doing it in this PR, but can you please open an issue to update the templates to have them separate?

Sure thing: #104804

amanasifkhalid · 2024-07-10T14:34:14Z

@kunalspathak thanks for the review -- I've fixed the helpers to skip inactive lanes. Stress tests are still passing.

kunalspathak · 2024-07-11T05:06:46Z

I've fixed the helpers to skip inactive lanes. Stress tests are still passing.

If the tests were passing without fixing for inactive lanes, that means the mask input given was always making all lanes active. Can you please double check if the mask input produced is generating 0 and 1 both? There are helpers like Helpers.getMask*() to produce them.

kunalspathak

LGTM. Thanks!

kunalspathak · 2024-07-12T15:40:41Z

It occured to me that this instruction produces scalar results, so if you combine it with ConditionalSelect, which produces results in scalable register, you might be testing the results in all lanes, which will be wrong. You might just need to verify the results in lane 0.

fadda v9, p0, v1, z2.d
sel z8, p0, z9, z7

Above, the results are only present in lane 0 of v9 / z9. So you might want to verify just for that lane. All the other lanes will hold the value that was there before performing fadda.

amanasifkhalid · 2024-07-12T17:41:47Z

After discussing offline with @kunalspathak, we've decided to match AddAcross for now and skip the CndSel scenarios for this API, as there's some ambiguity as to what the shape of these scenarios should look like. See #101770, and #101974 for updating these APIs with explicitly-masked variants.

amanasifkhalid · 2024-07-12T17:56:12Z

I've removed the CndSel scenarios for now. Stress tests are passing.

amanasifkhalid · 2024-07-12T18:24:23Z

@kunalspathak are you ok with me merging this as-is?

kunalspathak

LGTM. Thanks!

Add AddSequentialAcross

9b24a75

dotnet-issue-labeler bot added area-System.Runtime.Intrinsics new-api-needs-documentation labels Jul 9, 2024

amanasifkhalid added the arm-sve Work related to arm64 SVE/SVE2 support label Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-policy-service bot assigned amanasifkhalid Jul 9, 2024

This was referenced Jul 9, 2024

(WIP) Arm64/SVE: Implemented AddRotateComplex and AddSequentialAcross #104258

Closed

Arm64: Implement SVE APIs #99957

Closed

kunalspathak reviewed Jul 10, 2024

View reviewed changes

Skip inactive lanes

ae18317

Generate mask data

d1ad2ca

amanasifkhalid mentioned this pull request Jul 12, 2024

ARM64-SVE: Separate operand and mask generation in test templates #104804

Open

kunalspathak approved these changes Jul 12, 2024

View reviewed changes

kunalspathak self-requested a review July 12, 2024 15:36

Tweak test validation

c6bb59f

Remove CndSel scenarios

c3430c7

Merge from main

063c142

kunalspathak approved these changes Jul 13, 2024

View reviewed changes

kunalspathak merged commit 5336e18 into dotnet:main Jul 13, 2024
149 of 167 checks passed

kunalspathak mentioned this pull request Jul 13, 2024

ARM64-SVE: Detect mask usage for Across functions #101973

Open

amanasifkhalid deleted the sve-add-sequential branch July 15, 2024 14:03

github-actions bot locked and limited conversation to collaborators Aug 15, 2024

Provide feedback

Saved searches

Use saved searches to filter your results more quickly

ARM64-SVE: Add `AddSequentialAcross` #104640

ARM64-SVE: Add `AddSequentialAcross` #104640

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-policy-service bot commented Jul 9, 2024

kunalspathak commented Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak Jul 10, 2024

amanasifkhalid Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak Jul 10, 2024

amanasifkhalid Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak Jul 11, 2024

amanasifkhalid Jul 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading

kunalspathak Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2024

kunalspathak left a comment

kunalspathak commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

kunalspathak left a comment

ARM64-SVE: Add AddSequentialAcross #104640

ARM64-SVE: Add AddSequentialAcross #104640

Conversation

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-issue-labeler bot commented Jul 9, 2024

dotnet-policy-service bot commented Jul 9, 2024

kunalspathak commented Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amanasifkhalid Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kunalspathak Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amanasifkhalid Jul 10, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kunalspathak Jul 11, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amanasifkhalid Jul 11, 2024 • edited Loading

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kunalspathak Jul 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amanasifkhalid Jul 12, 2024

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 10, 2024

kunalspathak commented Jul 11, 2024

kunalspathak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

kunalspathak commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

amanasifkhalid commented Jul 12, 2024

kunalspathak left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

ARM64-SVE: Add `AddSequentialAcross` #104640

ARM64-SVE: Add `AddSequentialAcross` #104640

amanasifkhalid Jul 11, 2024 •

edited

Loading