Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Add copy buttons to all
 blocks
(function() {
function addCopyButtons() {
document.querySelectorAll('pre code').forEach(function(codeBlock) {
if (codeBlock.parentElement.hasAttribute('data-copy-added')) return;
codeBlock.parentElement.setAttribute('data-copy-added', 'true');
var btn = document.createElement('button');
btn.textContent = 'Copy';
btn.style.cssText = 'position:absolute;top:4px;right:4px;padding:2px 8px;font-size:11px;background:#4ecdc4;border:none;border-radius:4px;color:#1a1a2e;cursor:pointer;opacity:0.7;transition:opacity 0.2s;';
btn.onmouseover = function() { this.style.opacity = '1'; };
btn.onmouseout = function() { this.style.opacity = '0.7'; };
btn.onclick = function() {
navigator.clipboard.writeText(codeBlock.textContent).then(function() {
btn.textContent = 'Copied!';
setTimeout(function() { btn.textContent = 'Copy'; }, 1500);
});
};
codeBlock.parentElement.style.position = 'relative';
codeBlock.parentElement.appendChild(btn);
});
}
addCopyButtons();
// Re-run on dynamic content
var observer = new MutationObserver(addCopyButtons);
observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true });
})();
}
} catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Add Copy Buttons to Code Blocks]', __e); }
})();
(function(){
try {
var __m = "github.com";
var __re = new RegExp('^' + "github\\.com" + '
arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Force GitHub README to respect dark mode (function() { var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = ' .markdown-body { color-scheme: dark light; } .markdown-body pre { background: #161b22 !important; } .markdown-body code { background: rgba(110, 118, 129, 0.4) !important; } .markdown-body table th, .markdown-body table td { border-color: #30363d !important; } .markdown-body img { background: #0d1117; } .markdown-body blockquote { border-left-color: #8b949e; } .markdown-body hr { border-color: #30363d; } '; document.head.appendChild(style); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:GitHub Dark Mode README Fix]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Highlight search terms from Google/DuckDuckGo/Bing referrer (function() { var ref = document.referrer; var terms = []; if (ref.includes('google.com') || ref.includes('duckduckgo.com') || ref.includes('bing.com')) { var url = new URL(ref); var q = url.searchParams.get('q') || url.searchParams.get('p'); if (q) { terms = q.split(/\s+/).filter(function(t) { return t.length > 2; }); } } if (terms.length === 0) return; var style = document.createElement('style'); style.textContent = '.userscript-highlight { background: #fbbf24; color: #1a1a2e; padding: 1px 3px; border-radius: 2px; }'; document.head.appendChild(style); function highlight(node) { if (node.nodeType === 3) { // text node var text = node.textContent; var found = false; terms.forEach(function(term) { var regex = new RegExp('(' + term.replace(/[.*+?^${}()|[\]\\]/g, '\\') + ')', 'gi'); if (regex.test(text)) { found = true; var frag = document.createDocumentFragment(); var parts = text.split(regex); parts.forEach(function(part, i) { if (i % 2 === 0) { frag.appendChild(document.createTextNode(part)); } else { var span = document.createElement('span'); span.className = 'userscript-highlight'; span.textContent = part; frag.appendChild(span); } }); node.parentNode.replaceChild(frag, node); } }); } else if (node.nodeType === 1 && node.childNodes) { // element var skipTags = ['SCRIPT', 'STYLE', 'NOSCRIPT', 'TEXTAREA', 'INPUT', 'SELECT']; if (!skipTags.includes(node.tagName)) { Array.from(node.childNodes).forEach(highlight); } } } highlight(document.body); // Re-highlight on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1 || node.nodeType === 3) highlight(node); }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Highlight Search Terms]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Strip utm_, fbclid, gclid, etc. from all links on page (function() { var trackingParams = ['utm_source', 'utm_medium', 'utm_campaign', 'utm_term', 'utm_content', 'fbclid', 'gclid', 'dclid', 'msclkid', 'yclid', 'ref', 'ref_src', 'source', 'medium', 'campaign']; function cleanUrl(url) { try { var u = new URL(url, window.location.origin); var changed = false; trackingParams.forEach(function(p) { if (u.searchParams.has(p)) { u.searchParams.delete(p); changed = true; } }); return changed ? u.toString() : url; } catch (e) { return url; } } function cleanLinks() { document.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } cleanLinks(); var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { mutations.forEach(function(m) { m.addedNodes.forEach(function(node) { if (node.nodeType === 1) { if (node.tagName === 'A') cleanLinks(); node.querySelectorAll('a[href]').forEach(function(a) { var clean = cleanUrl(a.href); if (clean !== a.href) a.href = clean; }); } }); }); }); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Remove Tracking Parameters from Links]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "youtube.com"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + "youtube\\.com" + ' arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Auto-enable theater mode on YouTube (function() { function tryTheater() { var btn = document.querySelector('button[aria-label="Theater mode"], ytd-player #player button[title="Theater mode"]'); if (btn && !btn.classList.contains('activated')) { btn.click(); } } // Try immediately tryTheater(); // Try after navigation (SPA) var lastUrl = location.href; setInterval(function() { if (location.href !== lastUrl) { lastUrl = location.href; setTimeout(tryTheater, 500); } }, 1000); // Also try on player load var observer = new MutationObserver(tryTheater); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:YouTube Theater Mode Default]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Remove or un-stick sticky/fixed headers that block content (function() { function unstick() { document.querySelectorAll('header, nav, [role="banner"], .header, .navbar, .sticky, .fixed-top, [style*="position: fixed"], [style*="position:sticky"]').forEach(function(el) { if (el.style.position === 'fixed' || el.style.position === 'sticky' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'fixed' || getComputedStyle(el).position === 'sticky') { el.style.position = 'static'; el.style.top = 'auto'; el.style.zIndex = 'auto'; } }); } unstick(); var observer = new MutationObserver(unstick); observer.observe(document.body, { childList: true, subtree: true, attributes: true, attributeFilter: ['style', 'class'] }); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Kill Sticky Headers]', __e); } })(); (function(){ try { var __m = "*"; var __re = new RegExp('^' + ".*" + ' arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch
, 'i'); if (__m === '*' || __re.test(location.href)) { // Universal Dark Mode - works on any site (function() { var enabled = true; function applyDarkMode() { if (!enabled) return; // Create style element if it doesn't exist var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (!style) { style = document.createElement('style'); style.id = 'universal-dark-mode-style'; document.head.appendChild(style); } // Dark mode CSS - inverts colors but preserves images/video style.textContent = ' /* Invert everything except media */ html { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #1a1a2e !important; } /* Restore images, videos, iframes, canvas */ img, video, iframe, canvas, svg, picture, [style*="background-image"] { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; } /* Preserve specific elements that should not be inverted */ .no-dark-mode, .no-dark-mode *, [data-theme="light"], [data-theme="light"], .ace_editor, .ace_editor *, .CodeMirror, .CodeMirror *, .monaco-editor, .monaco-editor *, .markdown-body pre, .markdown-body pre *, .highlight, .highlight *, pre code, pre code * { filter: none !important; } /* Fix common UI elements */ .modal, .popup, .dropdown-menu, .tooltip, .popover { filter: invert(1) hue-rotate(180deg) !important; background: #2d2d44 !important; border-color: #444 !important; } /* Scrollbars */ ::-webkit-scrollbar { background: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb { background: #444 !important; } ::-webkit-scrollbar-thumb:hover { background: #555 !important; } /* Selection */ ::selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } ::-moz-selection { background: #4ecdc4 !important; color: #1a1a2e !important; } '; } function removeDarkMode() { var style = document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style'); if (style) style.remove(); } // Toggle with Alt+Shift+D document.addEventListener('keydown', function(e) { if (e.altKey && e.shiftKey && e.key === 'D') { e.preventDefault(); enabled = !enabled; if (enabled) { applyDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Enabled'); } else { removeDarkMode(); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Disabled'); } } }); // Apply on load applyDarkMode(); // Re-apply on dynamic content var observer = new MutationObserver(function(mutations) { if (enabled && !document.getElementById('universal-dark-mode-style')) { applyDarkMode(); } }); observer.observe(document.head, { childList: true }); console.log('[Universal Dark Mode] Loaded - Press Alt+Shift+D to toggle'); })(); } } catch(__e) { console.warn('[Userscript:Universal Dark Mode]', __e); } })(); })(); arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA by jonathandavies-arm · Pull Request #131309 · dotnet/runtime · GitHub
Skip to content

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA - #131309

Open
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse
Open

arm64: Reuse SVE mask constants in LSRA#131309
jonathandavies-arm wants to merge 8 commits into
dotnet:mainfrom
jonathandavies-arm:upstream/sve/lsra-ptrue-reuse

Conversation

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

This is the ptrue reuse work done in LSRA instead of a new pass.

@github-actionsgithub-actionsBot added the area-CodeGen-coreclr CLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMI label Jul 24, 2026
@dotnet-policy-servicedotnet-policy-serviceBot added the community-contribution Indicates that the PR has been added by a community member label Jul 24, 2026
@azure-pipelines

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Azure Pipelines:
Successfully started running 7 pipeline(s).
9 pipeline(s) were filtered out due to trigger conditions.
There may be pipelines that require an authorized user to comment /azp run to run.

@dotnet-policy-service

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Tagging subscribers to this area: @JulieLeeMSFT, @jakobbotsch
See info in area-owners.md if you want to be subscribed.

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.h Outdated
Comment on lines +2148 to +2157
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
struct SveMaskIntervalEntry
{
GenTree* tree;
Interval* interval;
SveMaskIntervalEntry* next;
};

SveMaskIntervalEntry* reusableSveMaskIntervals = nullptr;
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I was not expecting to see anything like this. What makes this needed over the existing constant reuse mechanism that LSRA already has? E.g. members like LinearScan::m_RegistersWithConstants and LinearScan::getMatchingConstants.

Did you figure out why the existing mechanism does not handle the cases this tries to handle? It would be good to understand that first.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I removed the shared-interval mechanism. The existing LSRA reuse machinery already handles GT_CNS_MSK, but SVE ptrue values are often represented as GT_HWINTRINSIC and were not marked as constants. Therefore isMatchingConstant did not consider them reusable. The updated change now uses the existing mechanism.

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Ok, that seems cleaner now.
With #127520 merged do we need to recognize HWINTRINSIC at all? My understanding is that it converts these HW intrinsics recognized in this PR into GT_CNS_MASK (and if not, that it would be possible to). cc @a74nh

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Contributor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

We import TrueMask/FalseMask as GT_CNS_MASK where possible.

If the pattern is in a variable, then we have to import the HWINTRINSIC - but that's not something we can optimise in the PR as we don't know the pattern.

Then there are all the "all ptrue" we introduce during lowering. They are also added as GT_CNS_MASK nodes now too.

So, yes, this most likely doesn't need to check for HWINTRINSIC any more.

Also, this PR might need some JitUseScalableVectorT() checks now too

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

I've done that

Comment threadsrc/coreclr/jit/lsra.cpp Outdated
Comment on lines +2720 to +2726
#if defined(TARGET_ARM64) && defined(FEATURE_MASKED_HW_INTRINSICS)
if (areMatchingSveMaskConstants(refPosition->treeNode, otherTreeNode))
{
return true;
}
#endif

Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

This should not be needed, can you please fix the code called in the GT_CNS_MSK case below if that isn't already sufficient?

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

Fixed

@jonathandavies-arm

Copy link
Copy Markdown
ContributorAuthor

An earlier implementation preserved SVE mask constants across certain basic-block boundaries:

BasicBlock* nextBlock = getNextBlock();
bool preserveMaskConstants = false;
preserveMaskConstants =
m_compiler->opts.OptimizationEnabled() &&
(nextBlock != nullptr) &&
(nextBlock->GetUniquePred(m_compiler) == currentBlock) &&
!blockInfo[nextBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryIn &&
!blockInfo[currentBlock->bbNum].hasEHBoundaryOut;
...
if (preserveMaskConstants && assignedInterval->isConstant &&
varTypeIsMask(assignedInterval->registerType))
{
setConstantReg(reg, assignedInterval->registerType);
continue;
}

Should LSRA allow constant registers to survive a block boundary when the value is not live into the successor?

Is the current behavior (clearing constant-register state at every block boundary and rematerializing constants in each basic block) the intended approach, or should LSRA support preserving these constants across eligible block boundaries?

Sign up for freeto join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

area-CodeGen-coreclrCLR JIT compiler in src/coreclr/src/jit and related components such as SuperPMIcommunity-contributionIndicates that the PR has been added by a community member

Projects

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

3 participants

@jonathandavies-arm@a74nh@jakobbotsch