
Date: Sun, 23 Apr 2017 13:00:52 +0200 From: Szabolcs Nagy <nsz@...t70.net> To: musl@...ts.openwall.com Subject: Re: [PATCH] math: rewrite fma with mostly int arithmetics * Rich Felker <dalias@...c.org> [20170422 18:24:25 0400]: > A few thoughts, inline below. I'm not entirely opposed to this, if it > turns out to be better than the alternatives, but I would like to > understand whether it really is... > > On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 12:41:40AM +0200, Szabolcs Nagy wrote: > > the freebsd fma code failed to raise underflow exception in some > > cases in nearest rounding mode (affects fmal too) e.g. > > > > fma(0x1p1000, 0x1.000001p74, 0x1p1022) > > > > and the inexact exception may be raised spuriously since the fenv > > is not saved/restored around the exact multiplication algorithm > > (affects x86 fma too). > > Is it difficult to determine when the multiplication part of an fma is > exact? If you can determine this quickly, you can just return x*y+z in > this special case and avoid all the costly operations. For normal > range, I think it's roughly just using ctz to count mantissa bits of x > and y, and checking whether the sum is <= 53. Some additional handling > for denormals is needed of course. > it is a bit more difficult than that: bits(a) + bits(b) < 54  (bits(a) + bits(b) == 54 && a*b < 2) this is probably possible to handle when i do the int mul. however the rounding mode special cases don't get simpler and inexact flag still may be raised incorrectly when tail bits of x*y beyond 53 bits are eliminated when z is added (the result is exact but the dekker algorithm raises inexact). > > another issue is that the underflow behaviour when the rounded result > > is the minimal normal number is target dependent, ieee754 allows two > > ways to raise underflow for inexact results: raise if the result before > > rounding is in the subnormal range (e.g. aarch64, arm, powerpc) or if > > the result after rounding with infinite exponent range is in the > > subnormal range (e.g. x86, mips, sh). > > > > to avoid all these issues the algorithm was rewritten with mostly int > > arithmetics and float arithmetics is only used to get correct rounding > > and raise exceptions according to the behaviour of the target without > > any fenv.h dependency. it also unifies x86 and nonx86 fma. > > > > fmaf is not affected, fmal need to be fixed too. > > > > this algorithm depends on a_clz_64 and it required a nasty volatile > > hack: gcc seems to miscompile the FORCE_EVAL macro of libm.h on i386. > > These are two particular aspects I don't like; (1) I'd rather reduce > the number of a_* primitives we have rather than add new ones, and (2) > I'd like to avoid volatile dances to get the compiler to do what it's > supposed to do. I know the latter might be inevitable in some cases, > though, because compilers are buggy... :( > > >  > > src/math/fma.c  582 ++++++++++++++++ > > 1 file changed, 158 insertions(+), 424 deletions() > > > > attaching the new fma.c instead of a diff, it's more readable. > > Thanks, much preferred! > > > depends on the a_clz_64 patch and previous scalbn fix. > > > > fmal should be possible to do in a similar way. > > > > i expect it to be faster than the previous code on most targets as > > the rounding mode is not changed and has less multiplications > > (it is faster on x86_64 and i386), the code size is a bit bigger > > though. > > Kinda surprising on i386  I'd expect the 64x64 multiplications to be > costly compared to float ones. > i implement 64x64 int mul by four 32x32>64 mul, i386 has 32x32>64 mul op so that works out well. the float code has to do dekker's exact multiplication which uses six(!) fp mul (each of which is probably slower than an int mul) and a lot more fp add. > > #include <stdint.h> > > #include <float.h> > > #include <math.h> > > #include "atomic.h" > > > > static inline uint64_t asuint64(double x) > > { > > union {double f; uint64_t i;} u = {x}; > > return u.i; > > } > > > > static inline double asdouble(uint64_t x) > > { > > union {uint64_t i; double f;} u = {x}; > > return u.f; > > } > > These could just be written with compound literals, making macros an > option, though I don't know if there's any reason one would prefer > macros. > > > struct num { uint64_t m; int e; int sign; }; > > > > static struct num normalize(uint64_t x) > > { > > int e = x>>52; > > int sign = e & 1<<11; > > e &= (1<<11)1; > > x &= (1ull<<52)1; > > if (!e) { > > int k = a_clz_64(x); > > x <<= k11; > > e = k+12; > > } > > x = 1ull<<52; > > x <<= 1; > > e = 0x3ff + 52 + 1; > > return (struct num){x,e,sign}; > > } > > > > static void mul(uint64_t *hi, uint64_t *lo, uint64_t x, uint64_t y) > > { > > uint64_t t1,t2,t3; > > uint64_t xlo = (uint32_t)x, xhi = x>>32; > > uint64_t ylo = (uint32_t)y, yhi = y>>32; > > > > t1 = xlo*ylo; > > t2 = xlo*yhi + xhi*ylo; > > t3 = xhi*yhi; > > *lo = t1 + (t2<<32); > > *hi = t3 + (t2>>32) + (t1 > *lo); > > } > > > > static int zeroinfnan(uint64_t x) > > { > > return 2*x1 >= 2*asuint64(INFINITY)1; > > } > > > > double fma(double x, double y, double z) > > { > > #pragma STDC FENV_ACCESS ON > > uint64_t ix = asuint64(x); > > uint64_t iy = asuint64(y); > > uint64_t iz = asuint64(z); > > > > if (zeroinfnan(ix)  zeroinfnan(iy)) > > return x*y + z; > > if (zeroinfnan(iz)) { > > if (z == 0) > > return x*y + z; > > return z; > > } > > > > /* normalize so top 10bits and last bit are 0 */ > > struct num nx, ny, nz; > > nx = normalize(ix); > > ny = normalize(iy); > > nz = normalize(iz); > > If the only constraint here is that top 10 bits and last bit are 0, I > don't see why clz is even needed. You can meet this constraint for > denormals by always multiplying by 2 and using a fixed exponent value. > yeah that should work, but i also use clz later > > /* mul: r = x*y */ > > uint64_t rhi, rlo, zhi, zlo; > > mul(&rhi, &rlo, nx.m, ny.m); > > /* either top 20 or 21 bits of rhi and last 2 bits of rlo are 0 */ > > > > /* align exponents */ > > int e = nx.e + ny.e; > > int d = nz.e  e; > > /* shift bits z<<=kz, r>>=kr, so kz+kr == d, set e = e+kr (== ezkz) */ > > if (d > 0) { > > if (d < 64) { > > zlo = nz.m<<d; > > zhi = nz.m>>64d; > > } else { > > zlo = 0; > > zhi = nz.m; > > e = nz.e  64; > > d = 64; > > if (d == 0) { > > } else if (d < 64) { > > rlo = rhi<<64d  rlo>>d  !!(rlo<<64d); > > rhi = rhi>>d; > > } else { > > rlo = 1; > > rhi = 0; > > } > > } > > } else { > > zhi = 0; > > d = d; > > if (d == 0) { > > zlo = nz.m; > > } else if (d < 64) { > > zlo = nz.m>>d  !!(nz.m<<64d); > > } else { > > zlo = 1; > > } > > } > > > > /* add */ > > int sign = nx.sign^ny.sign; > > int samesign = !(sign^nz.sign); > > int nonzero = 1; > > if (samesign) { > > /* r += z */ > > rlo += zlo; > > rhi += zhi + (rlo < zlo); > > } else { > > /* r = z */ > > uint64_t t = rlo; > > rlo = zlo; > > rhi = rhi  zhi  (t < rlo); > > if (rhi>>63) { > > rlo = rlo; > > rhi = rhi!!rlo; > > sign = !sign; > > } > > nonzero = !!rhi; > > } > > > > /* set rhi to top 63bit of the result (last bit is sticky) */ i need at least 55 bits of result in a 64bit int here, ideally with known top bit position for the exponent computation and later checks. > > if (nonzero) { > > e += 64; > > d = a_clz_64(rhi)1; > > /* note: d > 0 */ > > rhi = rhi<<d  rlo>>64d  !!(rlo<<d); > > } else if (rlo) { > > d = a_clz_64(rlo)1; > > if (d < 0) > > rhi = rlo>>1  (rlo&1); > > else > > rhi = rlo<<d; > > } else { > > /* exact +0 */ > > return x*y + z; > > } > > e = d; > > > > /* convert to double */ > > int64_t i = rhi; /* in [1<<62,(1<<63)1] */ > > if (sign) > > i = i; > > double r = i; /* in [0x1p62,0x1p63] */ > > > > if (e < 102262) { > > /* result is subnormal before rounding */ > > if (e == 102263) { > > double c = 0x1p63; > > if (sign) > > c = c; > > if (r == c) { > > /* min normal after rounding, underflow depends > > on arch behaviour which can be imitated by > > a double to float conversion */ > > float fltmin = 0x0.ffffff8p63*FLT_MIN * r; > > return DBL_MIN/FLT_MIN * fltmin; > > } > > /* one bit is lost when scaled, add another top bit to > > only round once at conversion if it is inexact */ > > if (rhi << 53) { > > i = rhi>>1  (rhi&1)  1ull<<62; > > if (sign) > > i = i; > > r = i; > > r = 2*r  c; /* remove top bit */ > > volatile double uflow = DBL_MIN/FLT_MIN; > > uflow *= uflow; > > } > > } else { > > /* only round once when scaled */ > > d = 10; > > i = ( rhi>>d  !!(rhi<<64d) ) << d; > > if (sign) > > i = i; > > r = i; > > } > > } > > return scalbn(r, e); > > }
Powered by blists  more mailing lists
Confused about mailing lists and their use? Read about mailing lists on Wikipedia and check out these guidelines on proper formatting of your messages.