Deeper Look Into HSAIL And It's Runtime

HSAIL
Norm Rubin
Fellow

An introduction to the HSA Intermediate language

Disclaimer & Attribution
The information presented in this document is for informational purposes only and may contain technical inaccuracies, omissions
and typographical errors.

The information contained herein is subject to change and may be rendered inaccurate for many reasons, including but not limited
to product and roadmap changes, component and motherboard version changes, new model and/or product releases, product
differences between differing manufacturers, software changes, BIOS flashes, firmware upgrades, or the like. There is no obligation
to update or otherwise correct or revise this information. However, we reserve the right to revise this information and to make
changes from time to time to the content hereof without obligation to notify any person of such revisions or changes.

NO REPRESENTATIONS OR WARRANTIES ARE MADE WITH RESPECT TO THE CONTENTS HEREOF AND NO
RESPONSIBILITY IS ASSUMED FOR ANY INACCURACIES, ERRORS OR OMISSIONS THAT MAY APPEAR IN THIS
INFORMATION.

ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR ANY PARTICULAR PURPOSE ARE EXPRESSLY
DISCLAIMED. IN NO EVENT WILL ANY LIABILITY TO ANY PERSON BE INCURRED FOR ANY DIRECT, INDIRECT, SPECIAL
OR OTHER CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE USE OF ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED HEREIN, EVEN IF
EXPRESSLY ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

AMD, the AMD arrow logo, and combinations thereof are trademarks of Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All other names used in this
presentation are for informational purposes only and may be trademarks of their respective owners.

OpenCL is a trademark of Apple Inc. used with permission by Khronos.

DirectX is a registered trademark of Microsoft Corporation.

© 2012 Advanced Micro Devices, Inc. All rights reserved.

2 | hsail AFDS | June 11, 2012

WHAT IS SPLIT COMPILATION?

App starts a source program
1) A high level compiler (HLC) generates HSAIL
2) The HSAIL is shipped to the target machine
3) A second compiler (a finalizer) turns HSAIL into ISA

Unlike traditional compilers, where optimization is contained in one part or done twice
HSAIL allows optimization to be split into two parts
The heavy lifting goes to the HLC , the quick finish goes to the finalizer

HSAIL provides ways for an HLC and a finalizer to cooperate For instance:
HSAIL provides a fixed number of registers.
HSA implementations might support a different number
When the HLC spills registers, it can use special operations that will let the finalizer know
where to use extra registers.


SPLIT COMPILATION
(MEANS THERE HAS TO BE WAYS TO PASS INFORMATION FROM HLC TO FINALIZER)

HLC – High level compiler
Lots of time
Info from source
Lots of aggressive optimizations
But limited (or no) knowledge of target

Finalizer
Very little time (we estimate that it will take close to linear time)
No info not in HSAIL (no back doors (almost)
Cannot update regularly (close to bug free)
Simple optimizations only
But knows the target

Exactly how to split some optimizations is still an open problem


WHY A VIRTUAL ISA - WHY NOT JUST TARGET THE REAL ISA?

ISA Gains performance Better time to market (because hardware is finished faster)

Loses performance (cannot use every hardware trick)

No legacy boat anchor

Real isa means one vendor/ one chip family

Can fix hardware bugs in software

Old and new code just works on old and new machines

Allows hardware innovation under the table

Features not in HSAIL are not exposed, and are hard to access


Development tools at HSAIL level
Today the need for a complete tool chain for each core, each with its own technology, switches etc., is a
significant maintenance problem.

Debuggability, reproducibility.
Because the same application needs to run on different pieces of hardware, current source code contains
many conditional preprocessing directives
Programmers rely on compiler intrinsic and ad-hoc command line arguments to drive the
optimization. This severely impacts code readability and productivity, and the application
binary tested and debugged on a workstation is different from the one that eventually runs on the system.

Platform openness.
Independent software vendors rarely have access to the tool chains needed to program the
most powerful parts of the system, namely the DSPs and hardware accelerators. Virtualization
can make the whole platform programmable, opening opportunities to third-party high-performance
applications

.Performance through time to market
Because of the finalizer, last minute fixes can happen after the chip is finished. This means that
the time to release a new part goes down. Less time per generation translates to better
performance


GOALS OF HSAIL
1. Can support all of C++ (open up the GPU to mass programming, not only for specialists)
2. Avoid constant change (do not change the spec every chip)
3. Support accurate IEEE floating point math
4. Target lots of different machines
5. Allow for packed operations, SSE and friends, bytes/shorts/ints/doubles etc
6. Allow packed forms to save power
7. Make the model understandable
8. Make the finalizer fast (around linear time)
9. Make the finalizer simple (do not need monthly updates)
10. Less ambiguity in the spec (little undefined behavior)
11. Get good performance (little need to write in ISA)
12. Support all of OpenCL™ and C++Amp™
13. Can ship linkable libraries in HSAIL
14. Clean up all nits in AMDIL
15. Allow the use of chip specific acceleration when it is a good idea


HSAIL – LOTS OF NEW FEATURES
Lots of features not in OpenCL and C++ AMP
Enough to implement C++
Exceptions/ heterogeneous compute
Flat address space (work items on the GPU and agents on the CPU)
Because of hand written HSAIL, these features can be exposed early

Fine-grain barriers that work inside control flow, you can implement producer consumer models

Lots of cross wave operations – so you can quickly move data between lanes without loads and stores

Spec is available on the web site

The memory model shows how the CPU and GPU can cooperate

Support for image operations


PARALLELISM MODEL


WAVEFRONTS

Most developers will not care about wavefronts
Similar to cache line sizes
Experts can get good performance if they code to the cache line size
Compiler has to avoid breaking the developers model

HSAIL formalizes the notion of wavefronts
you can tell which work item goes into which wavefront
you can write producer consumer parallelism between work groups


AN EXAMPLE (IN OPENCL™)

__kernel void vec_add (__global const float *a, __global const float *b, __global float *c,
const unsigned int n)
{
// Get our global thread ID
int id = get_global_id(0);
// Make sure we do not go out of bounds
if (id < n) {
c[id ] = a[id] + b[id];
}


VECTOR ADD A[0:N-1] = B[0:N-1] + C[0:N-1]
cur $c0, @BB0_2;
version 1:0:$small;
brn @BB0_1;
kernel &__OpenCL_vec_add_kernel(
@BB0_1: // %if.end
kernarg_u32 %arg_a
ret;
kernarg_u32 %arg_b,
@BB0_2: // %if.then
kernarg_u32 %arg_c,
shl_u32 $s1, $s1, 2;
kernarg_u32 %arg_n)
add_u32 $s2, $s2, $s1;
{ @__OpenCL_vec_add_kernel_entry:
ld_global_f32 $s2, [$s2];
// BB#0: // %entry
add_u32 $s3, $s3, $s1;
ld_kernarg_u32 $s0, [%arg_n];
ld_global_f32 $s3, [$s3];
workitemaid $s1, 0;
add_f32 $s2, $s3, $s2;
cmp_lt_b1_u32 $c0, $s1, $s0;
add_u32 $s0, $s0, $s1;
ld_kernarg_u32 $s0, [%arg_c];
st_global_f32 $s2, [$s0];
ld_kernarg_u32 $s2, [%arg_b];
brn @BB0_1;
ld_kernarg_u32 $s3, [%arg_a];
};


MEMORY SEGMENTS

 Memory is split into 7 segments
 kernarg, global, arg, readonly, private, group, and spill

 There is a single flat address space with everything but its is often advantageous to tell the finalizer
which segment to use

 Load/store machine with registers

 Some segments are used for intent –
– Spill indicates that the slot was used by the HLC for register spilling


SEGMENTS
NDRange

Work group Work group

Work Items

Group

Private

group

Arg locations are
in private
Private Spill locations are in
private

Agent Flat address space

Group within
Private within
arg memory is within Private flat
flat
spill memory is within Private
privateRW is within Private
kernarg is within Global
ReadOnly is within Global


HSAIL FEATURES REGISTERS AND Types
TYPES
Brigs8, Brigs16, Brigs32, Brigs64,
Four classes of registers Brigu8, Brigu16, Brigu32, Brigu64,
c/s/d/q Brigf16, Brigf32, Brigf64, Brigb1,
1 bit Brigb8, Brigb16, Brigb32, Brigb64,
32 bits Brigb128, Brigu8x16,
64 bits BrigROImg, BrigRWImg, BrigSamp,
128 bits Brigu8x4, Brigs8x4, Brigu8x8, Brigs8x8,
Both Binary (BRIG) and text format Brigs8x16,
The binary format is fully specified Brigu16x2, Brigs16x2, Brigf16x2,
Brigu16x4, Brigs16x4, Brigf16x4, Brigu16x8,
120 opcodes (JavaByte code has 200) Brigs16x8,
Brigf16x8, Brigu32x2, Brigs32x2,
Brigf32x2, Brigu32x4, Brigs32x4, Brigf32x4,
Brigu64x2, Brigs64x2,
Brigf64x2

WHY DOES HSAIL LOOK THIS WAY?

An SIMT model (single instruction, multiple threads) claims that every work-item has a program counter
So branch instructions look pretty natural

A vector machine model looks like sse, one program counter and vector registers, this is like real AMD GPU
hardware

SIMT or Vector?


PROS FOR SIMT
We want HSAIL to outlast one hardware generation (so at the very least the vector length
and real types/number of registers should not get exposed).
Even with a vector model the finalizer will still have to map to the real vector length. We
expected this to mean that a vector finalizer would not have a much simpler time

We want to support lots of machines including ones not built by AMD

We can add cross lane operations (like count) to the SIMTmodel so the line between SIMT
and vector is blurry

We want to open up to 3rd party compiler and tools, all of which can support SIMT but few
of which can support vector

Work groups is a much more developer friendly model than wavefronts

Natural path for OpenCL™/CUDA ™ c++amp™

Graphics is SIMT, so the pressure to make future hardware work well for SIMT
is immense


PROS FOR VECTOR
Might get more performance, we estimated <10% even in good cases

Simpler for expert programmers to reason out what is going on

This was a big one for us, the exact rules on wavefront re-convergence are
hidden in the SIMTmodel but clear in the vector one

In the vector model you can prove some results about code, which cannot be
done when the finalizer reorders things

On the other hand constructs like C++ virtual functions become very confusing on
a vector machine, where the original program was SIMT

We think the performance deficits are a reasonable trade for broader adoption,
and in many cases can be closed by well written libraries for the cases that really
matter.


HSAIL AND FUNCTIONS
{
arg_u32 %input1;
arg_u32 %input2;
// …
call &fnWithTwoArgs ()(%input1, %input2); // call of a function
// all work-items call the same function
}
// ...

HSAIL supports
Virtual functions,
Signatures
Jumps via a register
Load address of code


HSAIL PROVIDES A SERIES OF OPTIMIZATION CONTROLS

Sometimes you know if an operation is uniform over a range

ld_f32_width(8) $s1, address

Work items in groups of 8 will read the same value

call_width(64) $s1

Even through this is a call through register, work items in groups of 64 will call the same function

ld_equiv(3)_u32 $s1, address

A block of memory that cannot alias with other blocks


HSAIL COMPARED TO LLVM-IR

HSAIL is low level
assumes finalizer does not do as much optimization
no phi nodes,
finite register count
No ssa input
Parallelism is built into HSAIL
No need to hack the meaning of a barrier
No structures or other high level features


HSAIL COMPARED TO JAVA BYTE CODE

HSAIL is more focused on performance,
HSAIL has registers not a stack
HSAIL has parallelism built in
HSAIL is not as focused on security (does not require a formal validator)
Not quite write once
HSAIL is less concerned about code compression


HSAIL COMPARED TO AMDIL

HSAIL supports lots of complex control flow
AMDIL provides structured control flow only
irreducible flow needed exponential compile time

No (or limited) graphics features
just enough for C++ AMP™ and OpenCL™

four sizes of registers 1/32/64/128 bit vs. 4x32 vector registers (no more .x, .y, .z, .w) fields

HSAIL is extendable (per vendor/per chip extensions)

Different cost model


HSAIL COMPARED TO PTX

More formal model of execution
possible to write valid programs that pass data between work groups

More formal model of memory - acq/rel semantics

Less semantics defined by the device

Support for libraries and complex calls
Interaction between agents and HSAIL code,
shared memory, support for GPU to call CPU services

Per vendor extension mechanism

Clean separation of core features and per device operations

Support for linking/ libraries/ separate compilation

Removal of hard to finalize features
no predication


MEMORY MODEL

A memory model defines how writes by one work-item or agent become visible toother work-items and agents.

For many implementations, better performance will result if either the hardware or the finalizer is allowed to reorder
code. For example, the finalizer might find it more efficient if a write is moved later in the program; so long as the
program semantics do not change, the finalizer is free to do so. Once a store is deferred, other work-items and
agents will not see it until the store actually happens. Hardware might provide a cache that also defers writes.

The HSAIL memory model is based on acquire release

An ld_acq creates a “downward fence.” This means that normal loads and stores can be moved (by the
implementation) down past the ld_acq but no memory operation (load, store, or atomic) can be moved up above the
ld_acq.

A st_rel creates an “upward fence.” That means that normal loads and stores can be moved (by the
implementation) above the st_rel but no memory operation (load, store, or atomic) can be moved down after the
st_rel.


Original Axiomatic Definition [Lamport 1979]

A single processor (core) sequentially consistent if
“the result of an execution is the same as if the operations had been executed in the order specified
by the program.”

A multiprocessor sequentially consistent if

“the result of any execution is the same as if the operations of all processors (cores) were executed in
some sequential order, and the operations of each individual processor (core) appear in this sequence
in the order specified by its program.”


SEQUENTIAL CONSISTENCY (SC) OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

System
P P P
1 memory
P simple processors MEMORY
Operation: Pick one ready row, do it, & repeat until
done
Processor 0 ready to load/store of memory
…
Processor P-1 ready to load/store of memory


SEQUENTIAL CONSISTENCY

Any SC implementation must only permit executions allowed by SC operational model (SC executions).

The SC operational model is NOT a performance model.
SC implementation performance != Counting operation model steps

The operational model hides most implementation techniques
pipelining, out-of-order, speculation, caches, cache coherence, …
HW must functional behave “as if” is was like operational model

HW designers & verifiers often most comfortable with operational model

Each processor is eventually selected


HSAIL OPERATIONAL DEFINITION

P P P
System
1 (host) memory
P simple processors
Reorder buffer
Writes can get held
Reads can be satisfied
MEMORY
Operation: Pick one ready row, do it, & repeat until done
Processor 0 ready to load/store of memory
…
Processor P-1 ready to load/store of memory
write values may stay in reorder buffer, reads may come out of the reorder buffer,
Rules to move between reorder buffer and memory
rel = release the values from the buffer, acq = acquire new values


WITHIN ONE WORK ITEM
SEQUENCED BEFORE

This is the order operations appear in the source
What you see looking at the code

single work item - “as-if-serial” view
- each operation appears to happen in the order it appears in the source
X sb Y
- X and Y in same work item,
- X sequenced before Y

multiple work items and agents makes this more complex


BETWEEN WORK ITEMS

X >> Y

What the memory system sees

memory system must see X before Y
global visibility order
this is transitive
X >>Y, and Y >> Z, then X >>Z


RULES, SOMETIMES
X SB Y => X >> Y

•X sb Y, same address, then X >>Y
•Different address
–If there is a barrier or sync between X and Y then
X >>Y
•If X is an acquire:
– ld_acq, atomic_acq, atomicNoRet_acq, atomic_ar, atomicNoRet_ar
–Then X >> Y
–This is one sided (Y cannot move before X)

The general rule is use acquire and release when you want to force order
Acquire and Release may take extra time, but they give you sequential constancy

Compilers can trade performance for simple cross work-item communication


•If Y is a release
–st_rel, atomic_ar or atomicNoRet_ar then X >>Y
–st rel is another one way fence

•Consider a critical region (can use acquire and release to form critical sections)

•ld_acq x
•Assorted memory operations
•st_rel y

•No operations can move out, but operations can move in


AN EXAMPLE SB ORDER DOES NOT FORCE MEMORY ORDER
Work-item 0 Work-item 1
------------------- ------------------------------------
@h0: st_u32 1, [&a] @k0: st_u32 1, [&b]
@h1: ld_u32 $s0, [&b] @k1: ld_u32 $s1, [&a]

Initially, &a and &b = 0. $s0 = 0 and $s1 = 0 is allowed. --

constraints added because readers have to follow writers. k1 (the reader)
has to happen before h0 changes the value. There are also constraints caused by synchronization
h1 >> k1 >> h0 >> k0.

Even though h0 appears first (in sequenced-before order) before h1, there is no
requirement that the operations appear in text order (sequenced-before order) to the
memory system.


EXAMPLE 2 REGISTER DEPENDENCE DOES NOT FORCE MEMORY ORDER
----------------------- ---------------------
@h0: ld $s0, [&a] @j0: st 20, [100]
@h1: ld $s1, [$s0] @j1: st_rel 100, [&a]
Initially, &a and contents of location 100 = 0.
$s1 == 0 and $s0 == 100 is allowed

If $s1 == 0 then h1 >> j0. f $s0 == 100 then j1 >> h1.
Because this seems to violate dependence order, it is useful to consider how this can
come about.
Work-item 0 is allowed to prefetch load h1. One reason it might do this is that code before these operations
reads address 96, and the implementation reads in large cache lines.
Later, work-item 1 reads the new value of &a, which is 100. Then it reads the value of
location 100, but because there is no synchronization, it can use the previously prefetched value of 0.


EXAMPLE 3


@h0: ld_acq $s0, [&a] @j0: st 20, [100]
@h1: ld $s1, [$s0] @j1: st_rel 100, [&a]
Initially, &a and 100 = 0.
HSAIL does not allow $s1 == 0 and $s0 == 100.


QUESTIONS?


Deeper Look Into HSAIL And It's Runtime

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Viewers also liked

Viewers also liked (8)

Similar to Deeper Look Into HSAIL And It's Runtime

Similar to Deeper Look Into HSAIL And It's Runtime (20)

More from HSA Foundation

More from HSA Foundation (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Deeper Look Into HSAIL And It's Runtime