[rust-dev] RFC: Tuple Swizzling/Shuffling
wichard at vitalitystudios.com
Tue Jan 14 12:22:01 PST 2014
Take a look at
On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 2:14 PM, Carter Schonwald <
carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
> good points all!
> why not have the operation just be
> shuffleSimdVector(a,b,masktuple) ?
> seems a bit more human friendly than a mix of @ and <- and ->
> I'm a bit confused about the l/rvalue remark, could you explain more?
> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 3:06 PM, Richard Diamond <
> wichard at vitalitystudios.com> wrote:
>> On Tue, Jan 14, 2014 at 1:07 PM, Carter Schonwald <
>> carter.schonwald at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Neat proposal:
>>> 0) seems like you need to add a notion of const expr to the type system
>>> for this proposal, right? I started staring at that and it's pretty subtle
>>> (though I may have been looking at it wrong)
>> I did add the const expr notion a bit, but it's only in anticipation of
>> somebody wanting to specify the mask in such terms. Of course, boarder
>> support for const expr's would be required.
>> 1) do rust tuples actually map to the llvm simd vector types?
>> They do with #[simd]. Though I think it would be worth considering
>> whether all tuples of a single primitive type should be automatically
>> considered #[simd] and be lowered to a LLVM vector type. In fact one way
>> I'm considering impling this is to treat the mask as a tuple and lower it
>> as a vector into a shufflevector mask operand.
>> 2) so this would require some special syntax support right? Could it be
>>> prototyped with a procedural macro plus having the shuffle ast code
>>> generated internally?
>> Yes. Sadly not; I've tried. Moreover procedural macros don't exist at a
>> stage where tuple type info is known, so such a macro would only be able to
>> operate on literals and still wouldn't be able to dictate trans.
>> 3) would the internal rep properly treat the shuffle mask ints as part of
>>> the op itself so that it won't get cse'd or the like?
>> 4) would the syntax do a type / syntax error when you use a tuple
>>> position index that's too large?
>>> 5) the llvm shuffle vector intrinsic takes two vectors of values and
>>> let's you express interleaving them, not just rearranging a single one
>>> (which seems to be a restriction on your example). Both styles matter, and
>>> respectively correspond to different platform specific shuffle instructions
>> Yeah, not even ten minutes after sending the proposal, I realized I had
>> forgotten about that one detail. I'm not terribly fond of any of my
>> envisioned solutions, but the best one uses the recently removed '@':
>> let vec1 = (10, 11, 12, 13);
>> let vec2 = (9, 8, 7, 6);
>> let shuffled = vec1 @ vec2 -> (7, 6, 5, 4, 0, 1, 2, 3); // think
>> concATenate; it'll likely be thought of as such in rustc.
>> As an aside, note the arrows point towards what type of value the
>> expression is supposed to be (lvalue is <-, rvalue is ->).
>> I like the idea of something like this, and it's definitely simpler than
>>> the shuffle proposals I've been trying to draft, though using a word like
>>> "shuffle" may be. Though it doesn't give a way to use the same idea for
>>> someone using the platform specific shuffle intrinsics that hopefully would
>>> be added eventually. (Any such platform specific intrinsics would be for
>>> fixed tuple size and type).
>> Thank you!
>> The intent is to lean on LLVM's platform independenceness; LLVM supports
>> vectors (the SIMD type) of any length, so in an effort to be forward
>> compatible with future SIMD sizes, offer a generic way to 'do the shuffle'.
>> Access to more specialized shuffles could be done via functions with a
>> #[link_name] attribute (because such instructions operate on operands of
>> specific types anyway, they wouldn't be very amenable to a generic
>> solution) in unstable::simd or an external library. But that's another
>> project ;)
>>> *An Alternative approach*? *Int *
>>> One way around the const expr requirement for the type system
>>> that someone suggested was pretty neat: expose the various platform
>>> specific simd shuffle ops, an have their shuffle mask int args actually be
>>> "type args". Apparently there's some protean support for type level numbers
>>> because of sized vectors, and because rust requires all generics to be
>>> monomorphized, this actually would capture the right "constness at compile
>>> an example of this idea would be to take the VSHUFPD intel instruction
>>> (in the intel architecture), and modify the intrinsic from the c code
>>> (nb: __m256d == v4f64 in rust parlance)
>>> __m256d _mm256_shuffle_pd (__m256d a, __m256d b, const int select);
>>> fn _mm256_shuffle_pd<const int select>(__m256d a, __m256d b)-> __m256d
>>> I'm not sure how such a type level int application would work out, but
>>> It may be the nicest way to conservatively add type safe SIMD shuffle
>>> primops to rust, though I could be completely wrong. (I was initially meh
>>> on this type application idea, but its grown on me, it exploits the way
>>> rust generics work very very nicely!)
>>> *note* while exposing the architecture specific intrinsics would be bit
>>> more work, it would also mean that the SIMD support in rust have a more
>>> transparent mapping to various architectures, allow better architecture/cpu
>>> microarchitecture based tuning (writing an version of BLIS
>>> http://code.google.com/p/blis/ in rust might be a good stress test),
>>> and it'd be less coupled to the vagaries of how LLVM lowers the shuffle
>>> instruction to the target architecture. This actually matters in the
>>> context of writing code that uses the "optimal" instruction sequence by
>>> detecting the cpu micro architecture at runtime and branching to the tune
>>> variant internally, something OpenBLAS does very nicely, see here for
>>> examples https://github.com/xianyi/OpenBLAS/tree/develop/kernel/x86_64
>>> That said, having a systematic way to support the llvm shuffle intrinsic
>>> In it's full generality would be lovely, it's a much more friendly
>>> operation that people can use to get started with doing simd in a somewhat
>>> user friendly way.
>>> point being: I support there being better shuffle simd support / simd
>>> support period :), though how to do it best seems unclear to me (and
>>> theres also a few ways that arent good too)
>>> On Tuesday, January 14, 2014, Richard Diamond wrote:
>>>> Basically the idea here is to support shuffling for SIMD types in a way
>>>> that can be easily lowered to IR (LLVM's shufflevector requires the mask be
>>>> a vector of constants, so an intrinsic function is out of the question),
>>>> however I image this sugar could extend to tuples with multiple types.
>>>> Some examples:
>>>> let vec = (1.0f32, 2.0f32, 3.0f32, 4.0f32);
>>>> let all_x = vec -> (0, 0, 0, 0); // perhaps this should be "vec <- (0,
>>>> 0, 0, 0)"?
>>>> assert_eq!(all_x, (1.0f32, 1.0f32, 1.0f32, 1.0f32));
>>>> let single_x = vec -> (0);
>>>> assert_eq!(single_x, (1.0f32));
>>>> let mut vec = vec;
>>>> vec <- (0) = 5.0f32; // set x only
>>>> vec <- (1, 2) = (6.0f32, 7.0f32) // set y & z
>>>> assert_eq!(vec, (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32));
>>>> let vec = vec;
>>>> // the mask may be arbitrarily long:
>>>> assert_eq!(vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 0), (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32,
>>>> // leaves vec unchanged
>>>> let functional_update = vec -> (0, 1, 3) .. (0.5f32, 1.0f32, 10.0f32);
>>>> // functional_update would take it's type from vec
>>>> assert_eq!(vec, (5.0f32, 6.0f32, 7.0f32, 4.0f32));
>>>> assert_eq!(functional_update, (0.5f32, 1.0f32, 7.0f32, 10.0f32));
>>>> A couple of things would need to be disallowed, however:
>>>> let mut vec = vec;
>>>> // no duplicate assignments/functional updates:
>>>> vec <- (0, 0) = (..);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 0) .. (..);
>>>> // no out-of-bounds:
>>>> vec <- (5, 9000) = (..);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (5, 9001);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (5, 9002) .. (..);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (0, 1, 2, 3, 4) .. (..);
>>>> // all mask values must be a const expr:
>>>> let mut non_const_expr = 15;
>>>> vec <- (non_const_expr) = (..);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (non_const_expr) .. (..);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (non_const_expr);
>>>> // mismatched tuple sizes:
>>>> vec <- (0, 1) = (0.0f32, 0.0f32, 0.0f32);
>>>> let _ = vec -> (0) .. (0.0f32, 0.0f32);
>>>> AIUI, the notation would be:
>>>> tuple_mask : '(' integer [ ',' integer ] * ')' ;
>>>> tuple_expr : '(' expr [ ',' expr ] * ')' |
>>>> tuple_expr "->" tuple_mask [ ".." tuple_expr ] ? ;
>>>> I'm willing to write this myself, but I'd like some consensus/feedback
>>>> regarding ze proposed sugar.
>> Rust-dev mailing list
>> Rust-dev at mozilla.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Rust-dev