maxjhandsome
/
llvm-project
forked from OSchip/llvm-project
1
0
Fork 0
Code Issues Pull Requests Packages Releases Wiki Activity
llvm-project/llvm/test/CodeGen/PowerPC/tail-dup-break-cfg.ll

141 lines
3.7 KiB
LLVM
Raw Normal View History

CodeGen: Allow small copyable blocks to "break" the CFG. When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583 llvm-svn: 293716
2017-02-01 07:48:32 +08:00
; RUN: llc -O2 -o - %s | FileCheck %s
target datalayout = "e-m:e-i64:64-n32:64"
target triple = "powerpc64le-grtev4-linux-gnu"
; Intended layout:
; The code for tail-duplication during layout will produce the layout:
; test1
; test2
; body1 (with copy of test2)
; body2
; exit
;CHECK-LABEL: tail_dup_break_cfg:
;CHECK: mr [[TAGREG:[0-9]+]], 3
;CHECK: andi. {{[0-9]+}}, [[TAGREG]], 1
;CHECK-NEXT: bc 12, 1, [[BODY1LABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]
;CHECK-NEXT: # %test2
;CHECK-NEXT: rlwinm. {{[0-9]+}}, [[TAGREG]], 0, 30, 30
Codegen: Make chains from trellis-shaped CFGs Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally. A trellis of the shape below: A B |\ /| | \ / | | X | | / \ | |/ \| C D would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more predecessor blocks that all have the same successors. because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises. As an example consider the following CFG: B D F H / \ / \ / \ / \ A---C---E---G---Ret Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions). The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret. The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) { entry: br label %test1 test1: ; A %tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1 %tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0 br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1 optional1: ; B call void @a() br label %test2 test2: ; C %tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2 %tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0 br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2 optional2: ; D call void @b() br label %test3 test3: ; E %tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4 %tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0 br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3 optional3: ; F call void @c() br label %test4 test4: ; G %tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8 %tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0 br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4 optional4: ; H call void @d() br label %exit exit: ret void } here is the layout after D27742: straight_test: # @straight_test ; ... Prologue elided ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) ; ... More prologue elided mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_3 b .LBB0_4 .LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_4 .LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_5 b .LBB0_6 .LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 b .LBB0_7 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload addi 1, 1, 112 ld 0, 16(1) mtlr 0 blr The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication accordingly. This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks. Here is the resulting concrete layout: straight_test: # @straight_test ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_5 .LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 bne 0, .LBB0_7 b .LBB0_8 .LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_2 .LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_3 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522 llvm-svn: 295223
2017-02-16 03:49:14 +08:00
;CHECK-NEXT: bne 0, [[BODY2LABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]
;CHECK: [[EXITLABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]: # %exit
;CHECK: blr
CodeGen: Allow small copyable blocks to "break" the CFG. When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583 llvm-svn: 293716
2017-02-01 07:48:32 +08:00
;CHECK-NEXT: [[BODY1LABEL]]
;CHECK: rlwinm. {{[0-9]+}}, [[TAGREG]], 0, 30, 30
;CHECK-NEXT: beq 0, [[EXITLABEL]]
Codegen: Make chains from trellis-shaped CFGs Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally. A trellis of the shape below: A B |\ /| | \ / | | X | | / \ | |/ \| C D would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more predecessor blocks that all have the same successors. because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises. As an example consider the following CFG: B D F H / \ / \ / \ / \ A---C---E---G---Ret Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions). The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret. The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) { entry: br label %test1 test1: ; A %tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1 %tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0 br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1 optional1: ; B call void @a() br label %test2 test2: ; C %tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2 %tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0 br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2 optional2: ; D call void @b() br label %test3 test3: ; E %tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4 %tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0 br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3 optional3: ; F call void @c() br label %test4 test4: ; G %tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8 %tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0 br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4 optional4: ; H call void @d() br label %exit exit: ret void } here is the layout after D27742: straight_test: # @straight_test ; ... Prologue elided ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) ; ... More prologue elided mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_3 b .LBB0_4 .LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_4 .LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_5 b .LBB0_6 .LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 b .LBB0_7 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload addi 1, 1, 112 ld 0, 16(1) mtlr 0 blr The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication accordingly. This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks. Here is the resulting concrete layout: straight_test: # @straight_test ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_5 .LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 bne 0, .LBB0_7 b .LBB0_8 .LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_2 .LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_3 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522 llvm-svn: 295223
2017-02-16 03:49:14 +08:00
;CHECK-NEXT: [[BODY2LABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]:
;CHECK: b [[EXITLABEL]]
CodeGen: Allow small copyable blocks to "break" the CFG. When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583 llvm-svn: 293716
2017-02-01 07:48:32 +08:00
define void @tail_dup_break_cfg(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1:
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %body1, !prof !1 ; %test2 more likely
body1:
call void @a()
call void @a()
call void @a()
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2:
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %exit, label %body2, !prof !1 ; %exit more likely
body2:
call void @b()
call void @b()
call void @b()
call void @b()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
; The branch weights here hint that we shouldn't tail duplicate in this case.
;CHECK-LABEL: tail_dup_dont_break_cfg:
;CHECK: mr [[TAGREG:[0-9]+]], 3
;CHECK: andi. {{[0-9]+}}, [[TAGREG]], 1
;CHECK-NEXT: bc 4, 1, [[TEST2LABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]
;CHECK-NEXT: # %body1
;CHECK: [[TEST2LABEL]]: # %test2
;CHECK-NEXT: rlwinm. {{[0-9]+}}, [[TAGREG]], 0, 30, 30
;CHECK-NEXT: beq 0, [[EXITLABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]
;CHECK-NEXT: # %body2
;CHECK: [[EXITLABEL:[._0-9A-Za-z]+]]: # %exit
;CHECK: blr
define void @tail_dup_dont_break_cfg(i32 %tag) {
entry:
br label %test1
test1:
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %body1, !prof !1 ; %test2 more likely
body1:
call void @a()
call void @a()
call void @a()
call void @a()
br label %test2
test2:
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp ne i32 %tagbit2, 0
Codegen: Make chains from trellis-shaped CFGs Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally. A trellis of the shape below: A B |\ /| | \ / | | X | | / \ | |/ \| C D would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more predecessor blocks that all have the same successors. because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises. As an example consider the following CFG: B D F H / \ / \ / \ / \ A---C---E---G---Ret Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions). The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret. The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) { entry: br label %test1 test1: ; A %tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1 %tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0 br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1 optional1: ; B call void @a() br label %test2 test2: ; C %tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2 %tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0 br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2 optional2: ; D call void @b() br label %test3 test3: ; E %tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4 %tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0 br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3 optional3: ; F call void @c() br label %test4 test4: ; G %tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8 %tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0 br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4 optional4: ; H call void @d() br label %exit exit: ret void } here is the layout after D27742: straight_test: # @straight_test ; ... Prologue elided ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) ; ... More prologue elided mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_3 b .LBB0_4 .LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_4 .LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_5 b .LBB0_6 .LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 b .LBB0_7 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload addi 1, 1, 112 ld 0, 16(1) mtlr 0 blr The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication accordingly. This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks. Here is the resulting concrete layout: straight_test: # @straight_test ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_5 .LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 bne 0, .LBB0_7 b .LBB0_8 .LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_2 .LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_3 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522 llvm-svn: 295223
2017-02-16 03:49:14 +08:00
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %body2, label %exit, !prof !3 ; %body2 more likely
CodeGen: Allow small copyable blocks to "break" the CFG. When choosing the best successor for a block, ordinarily we would have preferred a block that preserves the CFG unless there is a strong probability the other direction. For small blocks that can be duplicated we now skip that requirement as well, subject to some simple frequency calculations. Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28583 llvm-svn: 293716
2017-02-01 07:48:32 +08:00
body2:
call void @b()
call void @b()
call void @b()
call void @b()
br label %exit
exit:
ret void
}
declare void @a()
declare void @b()
declare void @c()
declare void @d()
; This function arranges for the successors of %succ to have already been laid
; out. When we consider whether to lay out succ after bb and to tail-duplicate
; it, v and ret have already been placed, so we tail-duplicate as it removes a
; branch and strictly increases fallthrough
; CHECK-LABEL: tail_dup_no_succ
; CHECK: # %entry
; CHECK: # %v
; CHECK: # %ret
; CHECK: # %bb
; CHECK: # %succ
; CHECK: # %c
; CHECK: bl c
; CHECK: rlwinm. {{[0-9]+}}, {{[0-9]+}}, 0, 29, 29
; CHECK: beq
; CHECK: b
define void @tail_dup_no_succ(i32 %tag) {
entry:
%tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1
%tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0
br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %v, label %bb, !prof !2 ; %v very much more likely
bb:
%tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2
%tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0
br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %succ, label %c, !prof !3 ; %succ more likely
c:
call void @c()
call void @c()
br label %succ
succ:
%tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4
%tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0
br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %ret, label %v, !prof !1 ; %u more likely
v:
call void @d()
call void @d()
br label %ret
ret:
ret void
}
!1 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 5, i32 3}
!2 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 95, i32 5}
Codegen: Make chains from trellis-shaped CFGs Lay out trellis-shaped CFGs optimally. A trellis of the shape below: A B |\ /| | \ / | | X | | / \ | |/ \| C D would be laid out A; B->C ; D by the current layout algorithm. Now we identify trellises and lay them out either A->C; B->D or A->D; B->C. This scales with an increasing number of predecessors. A trellis is a a group of 2 or more predecessor blocks that all have the same successors. because of this we can tail duplicate to extend existing trellises. As an example consider the following CFG: B D F H / \ / \ / \ / \ A---C---E---G---Ret Where A,C,E,G are all small (Currently 2 instructions). The CFG preserving layout is then A,B,C,D,E,F,G,H,Ret. The current code will copy C into B, E into D and G into F and yield the layout A,C,B(C),E,D(E),F(G),G,H,ret define void @straight_test(i32 %tag) { entry: br label %test1 test1: ; A %tagbit1 = and i32 %tag, 1 %tagbit1eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit1, 0 br i1 %tagbit1eq0, label %test2, label %optional1 optional1: ; B call void @a() br label %test2 test2: ; C %tagbit2 = and i32 %tag, 2 %tagbit2eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit2, 0 br i1 %tagbit2eq0, label %test3, label %optional2 optional2: ; D call void @b() br label %test3 test3: ; E %tagbit3 = and i32 %tag, 4 %tagbit3eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit3, 0 br i1 %tagbit3eq0, label %test4, label %optional3 optional3: ; F call void @c() br label %test4 test4: ; G %tagbit4 = and i32 %tag, 8 %tagbit4eq0 = icmp eq i32 %tagbit4, 0 br i1 %tagbit4eq0, label %exit, label %optional4 optional4: ; H call void @d() br label %exit exit: ret void } here is the layout after D27742: straight_test: # @straight_test ; ... Prologue elided ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) ; ... More prologue elided mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_2 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_3 b .LBB0_4 .LBB0_2: # %optional1 ; B (copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_4 .LBB0_3: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_5 b .LBB0_6 .LBB0_4: # %optional2 ; D (copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_5: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 b .LBB0_7 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit ; Ret ld 30, 96(1) # 8-byte Folded Reload addi 1, 1, 112 ld 0, 16(1) mtlr 0 blr The tail-duplication has produced some benefit, but it has also produced a trellis which is not laid out optimally. With this patch, we improve the layouts of such trellises, and decrease the cost calculation for tail-duplication accordingly. This patch produces the layout A,C,E,G,B,D,F,H,Ret. This layout does have back edges, which is a negative, but it has a bigger compensating positive, which is that it handles the case where there are long strings of skipped blocks much better than the original layout. Both layouts handle runs of executed blocks equally well. Branch prediction also improves if there is any correlation between subsequent optional blocks. Here is the resulting concrete layout: straight_test: # @straight_test ; BB#0: # %entry ; A (merged with test1) mr 30, 3 andi. 3, 30, 1 bc 12, 1, .LBB0_4 ; BB#1: # %test2 ; C rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 bne 0, .LBB0_5 .LBB0_2: # %test3 ; E rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 bne 0, .LBB0_6 .LBB0_3: # %test4 ; G rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 bne 0, .LBB0_7 b .LBB0_8 .LBB0_4: # %optional1 ; B (Copy of C) bl a nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 30, 30 beq 0, .LBB0_2 .LBB0_5: # %optional2 ; D (Copy of E) bl b nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 29, 29 beq 0, .LBB0_3 .LBB0_6: # %optional3 ; F (Copy of G) bl c nop rlwinm. 3, 30, 0, 28, 28 beq 0, .LBB0_8 .LBB0_7: # %optional4 ; H bl d nop .LBB0_8: # %exit Differential Revision: https://reviews.llvm.org/D28522 llvm-svn: 295223
2017-02-16 03:49:14 +08:00
!3 = !{!"branch_weights", i32 8, i32 3}