llvm-project/mlir/lib/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp

279 lines
10 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
//===- LoopAnalysis.cpp - Misc loop analysis routines //-------------------===//
//
// Copyright 2019 The MLIR Authors.
//
// Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0 (the "License");
// you may not use this file except in compliance with the License.
// You may obtain a copy of the License at
//
// http://www.apache.org/licenses/LICENSE-2.0
//
// Unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing, software
// distributed under the License is distributed on an "AS IS" BASIS,
// WITHOUT WARRANTIES OR CONDITIONS OF ANY KIND, either express or implied.
// See the License for the specific language governing permissions and
// limitations under the License.
// =============================================================================
//
// This file implements miscellaneous loop analysis routines.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.h"
#include "mlir/Analysis/AffineAnalysis.h"
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
#include "mlir/Analysis/AffineStructures.h"
#include "mlir/Analysis/MLFunctionMatcher.h"
#include "mlir/IR/Builders.h"
#include "mlir/IR/BuiltinOps.h"
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
#include "mlir/IR/Statements.h"
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
#include "mlir/StandardOps/StandardOps.h"
#include "mlir/Support/Functional.h"
#include "mlir/Support/MathExtras.h"
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
using namespace mlir;
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
/// Returns the trip count of the loop as an affine expression if the latter is
/// expressible as an affine expression, and nullptr otherwise. The trip count
/// expression is simplified before returning.
AffineExpr mlir::getTripCountExpr(const ForStmt &forStmt) {
// upper_bound - lower_bound
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
int64_t loopSpan;
int64_t step = forStmt.getStep();
auto *context = forStmt.getContext();
if (forStmt.hasConstantBounds()) {
int64_t lb = forStmt.getConstantLowerBound();
int64_t ub = forStmt.getConstantUpperBound();
loopSpan = ub - lb;
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
} else {
auto lbMap = forStmt.getLowerBoundMap();
auto ubMap = forStmt.getUpperBoundMap();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
// TODO(bondhugula): handle max/min of multiple expressions.
if (lbMap.getNumResults() != 1 || ubMap.getNumResults() != 1)
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
return nullptr;
// TODO(bondhugula): handle bounds with different operands.
// Bounds have different operands, unhandled for now.
if (!forStmt.matchingBoundOperandList())
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
return nullptr;
// ub_expr - lb_expr
AffineExpr lbExpr(lbMap.getResult(0));
AffineExpr ubExpr(ubMap.getResult(0));
auto loopSpanExpr = simplifyAffineExpr(
ubExpr - lbExpr, std::max(lbMap.getNumDims(), ubMap.getNumDims()),
std::max(lbMap.getNumSymbols(), ubMap.getNumSymbols()));
auto cExpr = loopSpanExpr.dyn_cast<AffineConstantExpr>();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
if (!cExpr)
return loopSpanExpr.ceilDiv(step);
loopSpan = cExpr.getValue();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
}
// 0 iteration loops.
if (loopSpan < 0)
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
return 0;
return getAffineConstantExpr(static_cast<uint64_t>(ceilDiv(loopSpan, step)),
context);
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
}
/// Returns the trip count of the loop if it's a constant, None otherwise. This
/// method uses affine expression analysis (in turn using getTripCount) and is
/// able to determine constant trip count in non-trivial cases.
llvm::Optional<uint64_t> mlir::getConstantTripCount(const ForStmt &forStmt) {
auto tripCountExpr = getTripCountExpr(forStmt);
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
if (!tripCountExpr)
return None;
if (auto constExpr = tripCountExpr.dyn_cast<AffineConstantExpr>())
return constExpr.getValue();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
return None;
}
/// Returns the greatest known integral divisor of the trip count. Affine
/// expression analysis is used (indirectly through getTripCount), and
/// this method is thus able to determine non-trivial divisors.
uint64_t mlir::getLargestDivisorOfTripCount(const ForStmt &forStmt) {
auto tripCountExpr = getTripCountExpr(forStmt);
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
if (!tripCountExpr)
return 1;
if (auto constExpr = tripCountExpr.dyn_cast<AffineConstantExpr>()) {
uint64_t tripCount = constExpr.getValue();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
// 0 iteration loops (greatest divisor is 2^64 - 1).
if (tripCount == 0)
return ULONG_MAX;
// The greatest divisor is the trip count.
return tripCount;
}
// Trip count is not a known constant; return its largest known divisor.
return tripCountExpr.getLargestKnownDivisor();
Extend getConstantTripCount to deal with a larger subset of loop bounds; make loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more powerful; add additional affine expr builder methods - use previously added analysis/simplification to infer multiple of unroll factor trip counts, making loop unroll/unroll-and-jam more general. - for loop unroll, support bounds that are single result affine map's with the same set of operands. For unknown loop bounds, loop unroll will now work as long as trip count can be determined to be a multiple of unroll factor. - extend getConstantTripCount to deal with single result affine map's with the same operands. move it to mlir/Analysis/LoopAnalysis.cpp - add additional builder utility methods for affine expr arithmetic (difference, mod/floordiv/ceildiv w.r.t postitive constant). simplify code to use the utility methods. - move affine analysis routines to AffineAnalysis.cpp/.h from AffineStructures.cpp/.h. - Rename LoopUnrollJam to LoopUnrollAndJam to match class name. - add an additional simplification for simplifyFloorDiv, simplifyCeilDiv - Rename AffineMap::getNumOperands() getNumInputs: an affine map by itself does not have operands. Operands are passed to it through affine_apply, from loop bounds/if condition's, etc., operands are stored in the latter. This should be sufficiently powerful for now as far as unroll/unroll-and-jam go for TPU code generation, and can move to other analyses/transformations. Loop nests like these are now unrolled without any cleanup loop being generated. for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (5*d0 + 3) (%i) { %x = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { // unroll factor 4: no cleanup loop will be generated. for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 - d mod 4 - 1) (%i) { %y = "foo"(%j) : (affineint) -> i32 } } for %i = 1 to 100 { for %j = (d0) -> (d0) (%i) to (d0) -> (d0 + 128) (%i) { %x = "foo"() : () -> i32 } } TODO(bondhugula): extend this to LoopUnrollAndJam as well in the next CL (with minor changes). PiperOrigin-RevId: 212661212
2018-09-13 01:21:23 +08:00
}
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
bool mlir::isAccessInvariant(const MLValue &input, MemRefType memRefType,
ArrayRef<const MLValue *> indices, unsigned dim) {
assert(indices.size() == memRefType.getRank());
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
assert(dim < indices.size());
auto layoutMap = memRefType.getAffineMaps();
assert(memRefType.getAffineMaps().size() <= 1);
// TODO(ntv): remove dependence on Builder once we support non-identity
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
// layout map.
Builder b(memRefType.getContext());
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
assert(layoutMap.empty() ||
layoutMap[0] == b.getMultiDimIdentityMap(indices.size()));
(void)layoutMap;
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
SmallVector<OperationStmt *, 4> affineApplyOps;
getReachableAffineApplyOps({const_cast<MLValue *>(indices[dim])},
affineApplyOps);
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
if (affineApplyOps.empty()) {
// Pointer equality test because of MLValue pointer semantics.
return indices[dim] != &input;
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
}
assert(affineApplyOps.size() == 1 &&
"CompositionAffineMapsPass must have "
"been run: there should be at most one AffineApplyOp");
auto composeOp = affineApplyOps[0]->cast<AffineApplyOp>();
// We need yet another level of indirection because the `dim` index of the
// access may not correspond to the `dim` index of composeOp.
unsigned idx = std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max();
unsigned numResults = composeOp->getNumResults();
for (unsigned i = 0; i < numResults; ++i) {
if (indices[dim] == composeOp->getResult(i)) {
idx = i;
break;
}
}
assert(idx < std::numeric_limits<unsigned>::max());
return !AffineValueMap(*composeOp)
.isFunctionOf(idx, &const_cast<MLValue &>(input));
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
}
/// Determines whether a load or a store has a contiguous access along the
/// value `input`. Contiguous is defined as either invariant or varying only
/// along the fastest varying memory dimension.
// TODO(ntv): allow more advanced notions of contiguity (non-fastest varying,
// check strides, ...).
template <typename LoadOrStoreOpPointer>
static bool isContiguousAccess(const MLValue &input,
LoadOrStoreOpPointer memoryOp,
unsigned fastestVaryingDim) {
using namespace functional;
auto indices = map([](const SSAValue *val) { return dyn_cast<MLValue>(val); },
memoryOp->getIndices());
auto memRefType = memoryOp->getMemRefType();
for (unsigned d = 0, numIndices = indices.size(); d < numIndices; ++d) {
if (fastestVaryingDim == (numIndices - 1) - d) {
continue;
}
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
if (!isAccessInvariant(input, memRefType, indices, d)) {
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
template <typename LoadOrStoreOpPointer>
static bool isVectorElement(LoadOrStoreOpPointer memoryOp) {
auto memRefType = memoryOp->getMemRefType();
return memRefType.getElementType().template isa<VectorType>();
}
using VectorizableStmtFun =
std::function<bool(const ForStmt &, const OperationStmt &)>;
static bool isVectorizableLoopWithCond(const ForStmt &loop,
VectorizableStmtFun isVectorizableStmt) {
if (!matcher::isParallelLoop(loop) && !matcher::isReductionLoop(loop)) {
return false;
}
// No vectorization across conditionals for now.
auto conditionals = matcher::If();
auto *forStmt = const_cast<ForStmt *>(&loop);
auto conditionalsMatched = conditionals.match(forStmt);
if (!conditionalsMatched.empty()) {
return false;
}
auto loadAndStores = matcher::Op(matcher::isLoadOrStore);
auto loadAndStoresMatched = loadAndStores.match(forStmt);
for (auto ls : loadAndStoresMatched) {
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
auto *op = cast<OperationStmt>(ls.first);
auto load = op->dyn_cast<LoadOp>();
auto store = op->dyn_cast<StoreOp>();
// Only scalar types are considered vectorizable, all load/store must be
// vectorizable for a loop to qualify as vectorizable.
// TODO(ntv): ponder whether we want to be more general here.
bool vector = load ? isVectorElement(load) : isVectorElement(store);
if (vector) {
return false;
}
if (!isVectorizableStmt(loop, *op)) {
[MLIR] Basic infrastructure for vectorization test This CL implements a very simple loop vectorization **test** and the basic infrastructure to support it. The test simply consists in: 1. matching the loops in the MLFunction and all the Load/Store operations nested under the loop; 2. testing whether all the Load/Store are contiguous along the innermost memory dimension along that particular loop. If any reference is non-contiguous (i.e. the ForStmt SSAValue appears in the expression), then the loop is not-vectorizable. The simple test above can gradually be extended with more interesting behaviors to account for the fact that a layout permutation may exist that enables contiguity etc. All these will come in due time but it is worthwhile noting that the test already supports detection of outer-vetorizable loops. In implementing this test, I also added a recursive MLFunctionMatcher and some sugar that can capture patterns such as `auto gemmLike = Doall(Doall(Red(LoadStore())))` and allows iterating on the matched IR structures. For now it just uses in order traversal but post-order DFS will be useful in the future once IR rewrites start occuring. One may note that the memory management design decision follows a different pattern from MLIR. After evaluating different designs and how they quickly increase cognitive overhead, I decided to opt for the simplest solution in my view: a class-wide (threadsafe) RAII context. This way, a pass that needs MLFunctionMatcher can just have its own locally scoped BumpPtrAllocator and everything is cleaned up when the pass is destroyed. If passes are expected to have a longer lifetime, then the contexts can easily be scoped inside the runOnMLFunction call and storage lifetime reduced. Lastly, whatever the scope of threading (module, function, pass), this is expected to also be future-proof wrt concurrency (but this is a detail atm). PiperOrigin-RevId: 217622889
2018-10-18 09:01:44 +08:00
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
bool mlir::isVectorizableLoopAlongFastestVaryingMemRefDim(
const ForStmt &loop, unsigned fastestVaryingDim) {
VectorizableStmtFun fun(
[fastestVaryingDim](const ForStmt &loop, const OperationStmt &op) {
auto load = op.dyn_cast<LoadOp>();
auto store = op.dyn_cast<StoreOp>();
return load ? isContiguousAccess(loop, load, fastestVaryingDim)
: isContiguousAccess(loop, store, fastestVaryingDim);
});
return isVectorizableLoopWithCond(loop, fun);
}
bool mlir::isVectorizableLoop(const ForStmt &loop) {
VectorizableStmtFun fun(
// TODO: implement me
[](const ForStmt &loop, const OperationStmt &op) { return true; });
return isVectorizableLoopWithCond(loop, fun);
}
/// Checks whether SSA dominance would be violated if a for stmt's body
/// statements are shifted by the specified shifts. This method checks if a
/// 'def' and all its uses have the same shift factor.
// TODO(mlir-team): extend this to check for memory-based dependence
// violation when we have the support.
bool mlir::isStmtwiseShiftValid(const ForStmt &forStmt,
ArrayRef<uint64_t> shifts) {
assert(shifts.size() == forStmt.getStatements().size());
unsigned s = 0;
for (const auto &stmt : forStmt) {
// A for or if stmt does not produce any def/results (that are used
// outside).
if (const auto *opStmt = dyn_cast<OperationStmt>(&stmt)) {
for (unsigned i = 0, e = opStmt->getNumResults(); i < e; ++i) {
const MLValue *result = opStmt->getResult(i);
for (const StmtOperand &use : result->getUses()) {
// If an ancestor statement doesn't lie in the block of forStmt, there
// is no shift to check.
// This is a naive way. If performance becomes an issue, a map can
// be used to store 'shifts' - to look up the shift for a statement in
// constant time.
if (auto *ancStmt = forStmt.findAncestorStmtInBlock(*use.getOwner()))
if (shifts[s] != shifts[forStmt.findStmtPosInBlock(*ancStmt)])
return false;
}
}
}
s++;
}
return true;
}