llvm-project/llvm/lib/Target/PowerPC/PPCSubtarget.cpp

248 lines
7.8 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

//===-- PowerPCSubtarget.cpp - PPC Subtarget Information ------------------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This file implements the PPC specific subclass of TargetSubtargetInfo.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "PPCSubtarget.h"
#include "PPC.h"
#include "PPCRegisterInfo.h"
#include "PPCTargetMachine.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineFunction.h"
#include "llvm/CodeGen/MachineScheduler.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Attributes.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Function.h"
#include "llvm/IR/GlobalValue.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include "llvm/Support/TargetRegistry.h"
#include "llvm/Target/TargetMachine.h"
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace llvm;
[Modules] Make Support/Debug.h modular. This requires it to not change behavior based on other files defining DEBUG_TYPE, which means it cannot define DEBUG_TYPE at all. This is actually better IMO as it forces folks to define relevant DEBUG_TYPEs for their files. However, it requires all files that currently use DEBUG(...) to define a DEBUG_TYPE if they don't already. I've updated all such files in LLVM and will do the same for other upstream projects. This still leaves one important change in how LLVM uses the DEBUG_TYPE macro going forward: we need to only define the macro *after* header files have been #include-ed. Previously, this wasn't possible because Debug.h required the macro to be pre-defined. This commit removes that. By defining DEBUG_TYPE after the includes two things are fixed: - Header files that need to provide a DEBUG_TYPE for some inline code can do so by defining the macro before their inline code and undef-ing it afterward so the macro does not escape. - We no longer have rampant ODR violations due to including headers with different DEBUG_TYPE definitions. This may be mostly an academic violation today, but with modules these types of violations are easy to check for and potentially very relevant. Where necessary to suppor headers with DEBUG_TYPE, I have moved the definitions below the includes in this commit. I plan to move the rest of the DEBUG_TYPE macros in LLVM in subsequent commits; this one is big enough. The comments in Debug.h, which were hilariously out of date already, have been updated to reflect the recommended practice going forward. llvm-svn: 206822
2014-04-22 06:55:11 +08:00
#define DEBUG_TYPE "ppc-subtarget"
#define GET_SUBTARGETINFO_TARGET_DESC
#define GET_SUBTARGETINFO_CTOR
#include "PPCGenSubtargetInfo.inc"
static cl::opt<bool> UseSubRegLiveness("ppc-track-subreg-liveness",
cl::desc("Enable subregister liveness tracking for PPC"), cl::Hidden);
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
static cl::opt<bool> QPXStackUnaligned("qpx-stack-unaligned",
cl::desc("Even when QPX is enabled the stack is not 32-byte aligned"),
cl::Hidden);
PPCSubtarget &PPCSubtarget::initializeSubtargetDependencies(StringRef CPU,
StringRef FS) {
initializeEnvironment();
initSubtargetFeatures(CPU, FS);
return *this;
}
PPCSubtarget::PPCSubtarget(const Triple &TT, const std::string &CPU,
const std::string &FS, const PPCTargetMachine &TM)
: PPCGenSubtargetInfo(TT, CPU, FS), TargetTriple(TT),
IsPPC64(TargetTriple.getArch() == Triple::ppc64 ||
TargetTriple.getArch() == Triple::ppc64le),
TM(TM), FrameLowering(initializeSubtargetDependencies(CPU, FS)),
InstrInfo(*this), TLInfo(TM, *this) {}
void PPCSubtarget::initializeEnvironment() {
StackAlignment = 16;
DarwinDirective = PPC::DIR_NONE;
HasMFOCRF = false;
Has64BitSupport = false;
Use64BitRegs = false;
Add CR-bit tracking to the PowerPC backend for i1 values This change enables tracking i1 values in the PowerPC backend using the condition register bits. These bits can be treated on PowerPC as separate registers; individual bit operations (and, or, xor, etc.) are supported. Tracking booleans in CR bits has several advantages: - Reduction in register pressure (because we no longer need GPRs to store boolean values). - Logical operations on booleans can be handled more efficiently; we used to have to move all results from comparisons into GPRs, perform promoted logical operations in GPRs, and then move the result back into condition register bits to be used by conditional branches. This can be very inefficient, because the throughput of these CR <-> GPR moves have high latency and low throughput (especially when other associated instructions are accounted for). - On the POWER7 and similar cores, we can increase total throughput by using the CR bits. CR bit operations have a dedicated functional unit. Most of this is more-or-less mechanical: Adjustments were needed in the calling-convention code, support was added for spilling/restoring individual condition-register bits, and conditional branch instruction definitions taking specific CR bits were added (plus patterns and code for generating bit-level operations). This is enabled by default when running at -O2 and higher. For -O0 and -O1, where the ability to debug is more important, this feature is disabled by default. Individual CR bits do not have assigned DWARF register numbers, and storing values in CR bits makes them invisible to the debugger. It is critical, however, that we don't move i1 values that have been promoted to larger values (such as those passed as function arguments) into bit registers only to quickly turn around and move the values back into GPRs (such as happens when values are returned by functions). A pair of target-specific DAG combines are added to remove the trunc/extends in: trunc(binary-ops(binary-ops(zext(x), zext(y)), ...) and: zext(binary-ops(binary-ops(trunc(x), trunc(y)), ...) In short, we only want to use CR bits where some of the i1 values come from comparisons or are used by conditional branches or selects. To put it another way, if we can do the entire i1 computation in GPRs, then we probably should (on the POWER7, the GPR-operation throughput is higher, and for all cores, the CR <-> GPR moves are expensive). POWER7 test-suite performance results (from 10 runs in each configuration): SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/mandel-2: 35% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/Prolangs-C++/city/city: 21% speedup MultiSource/Benchmarks/MiBench/automotive-susan: 23% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/huffbench: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/Large/sphereflake: 13% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++/mandel-text: 10% speedup SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc-C++-EH/spirit: 10% slowdown MultiSource/Applications/lemon/lemon: 8% slowdown llvm-svn: 202451
2014-02-28 08:27:01 +08:00
UseCRBits = false;
UseSoftFloat = false;
HasAltivec = false;
HasSPE = false;
HasQPX = false;
[PowerPC] Initial support for the VSX instruction set VSX is an ISA extension supported on the POWER7 and later cores that enhances floating-point vector and scalar capabilities. Among other things, this adds <2 x double> support and generally helps to reduce register pressure. The interesting part of this ISA feature is the register configuration: there are 64 new 128-bit vector registers, the 32 of which are super-registers of the existing 32 scalar floating-point registers, and the second 32 of which overlap with the 32 Altivec vector registers. This makes things like vector insertion and extraction tricky: this can be free but only if we force a restriction to the right register subclass when needed. A new "minipass" PPCVSXCopy takes care of this (although it could do a more-optimal job of it; see the comment about unnecessary copies below). Please note that, currently, VSX is not enabled by default when targeting anything because it is not yet ready for that. The assembler and disassembler are fully implemented and tested. However: - CodeGen support causes miscompiles; test-suite runtime failures: MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/distray/distray MultiSource/Benchmarks/McCat/08-main/main MultiSource/Benchmarks/Olden/voronoi/voronoi MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign MultiSource/Benchmarks/tramp3d-v4/tramp3d-v4 SingleSource/Benchmarks/CoyoteBench/almabench SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/matmul_f64_4x4 - The lowering currently falls back to using Altivec instructions far more than it should. Worse, there are some things that are scalarized through the stack that shouldn't be. - A lot of unnecessary copies make it past the optimizers, and this needs to be fixed. - Many more regression tests are needed. Normally, I'd fix these things prior to committing, but there are some students and other contributors who would like to work this, and so it makes sense to move this development process upstream where it can be subject to the regular code-review procedures. llvm-svn: 203768
2014-03-13 15:58:58 +08:00
HasVSX = false;
HasP8Vector = false;
HasP8Altivec = false;
HasP8Crypto = false;
HasP9Vector = false;
HasP9Altivec = false;
HasFCPSGN = false;
HasFSQRT = false;
HasFRE = false;
HasFRES = false;
HasFRSQRTE = false;
HasFRSQRTES = false;
HasRecipPrec = false;
HasSTFIWX = false;
HasLFIWAX = false;
HasFPRND = false;
HasFPCVT = false;
HasISEL = false;
HasPOPCNTD = false;
HasBPERMD = false;
HasExtDiv = false;
HasCMPB = false;
HasLDBRX = false;
IsBookE = false;
HasOnlyMSYNC = false;
IsPPC4xx = false;
IsPPC6xx = false;
IsE500 = false;
FeatureMFTB = false;
DeprecatedDST = false;
HasLazyResolverStubs = false;
HasICBT = false;
[PowerPC] Loosen ELFv1 PPC64 func descriptor loads for indirect calls Function pointers under PPC64 ELFv1 (which is used on PPC64/Linux on the POWER7, A2 and earlier cores) are really pointers to a function descriptor, a structure with three pointers: the actual pointer to the code to which to jump, the pointer to the TOC needed by the callee, and an environment pointer. We used to chain these loads, and make them opaque to the rest of the optimizer, so that they'd always occur directly before the call. This is not necessary, and in fact, highly suboptimal on embedded cores. Once the function pointer is known, the loads can be performed ahead of time; in fact, they can be hoisted out of loops. Now these function descriptors are almost always generated by the linker, and thus the contents of the descriptors are invariant. As a result, by default, we'll mark the associated loads as invariant (allowing them to be hoisted out of loops). I've added a target feature to turn this off, however, just in case someone needs that option (constructing an on-stack descriptor, casting it to a function pointer, and then calling it cannot be well-defined C/C++ code, but I can imagine some JIT-compilation system doing so). Consider this simple test: $ cat call.c typedef void (*fp)(); void bar(fp x) { for (int i = 0; i < 1600000000; ++i) x(); } $ cat main.c typedef void (*fp)(); void bar(fp x); void foo() {} int main() { bar(foo); } On the PPC A2 (the BG/Q supercomputer), marking the function-descriptor loads as invariant brings the execution time down to ~8 seconds from ~32 seconds with the loads in the loop. The difference on the POWER7 is smaller. Compiling with: gcc -std=c99 -O3 -mcpu=native call.c main.c : ~6 seconds [this is 4.8.2] clang -O3 -mcpu=native call.c main.c : ~5.3 seconds clang -O3 -mcpu=native call.c main.c -mno-invariant-function-descriptors : ~4 seconds (looks like we'd benefit from additional loop unrolling here, as a first guess, because this is faster with the extra loads) The -mno-invariant-function-descriptors will be added to Clang shortly. llvm-svn: 226207
2015-01-16 05:17:34 +08:00
HasInvariantFunctionDescriptors = false;
HasPartwordAtomics = false;
HasDirectMove = false;
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
IsQPXStackUnaligned = false;
HasHTM = false;
HasFusion = false;
HasFloat128 = false;
}
void PPCSubtarget::initSubtargetFeatures(StringRef CPU, StringRef FS) {
// Determine default and user specified characteristics
std::string CPUName = CPU;
if (CPUName.empty()) {
// If cross-compiling with -march=ppc64le without -mcpu
if (TargetTriple.getArch() == Triple::ppc64le)
CPUName = "ppc64le";
else
CPUName = "generic";
}
// Initialize scheduling itinerary for the specified CPU.
InstrItins = getInstrItineraryForCPU(CPUName);
// Parse features string.
ParseSubtargetFeatures(CPUName, FS);
// If the user requested use of 64-bit regs, but the cpu selected doesn't
2008-02-16 02:40:53 +08:00
// support it, ignore.
if (IsPPC64 && has64BitSupport())
Use64BitRegs = true;
// Set up darwin-specific properties.
if (isDarwin())
HasLazyResolverStubs = true;
// QPX requires a 32-byte aligned stack. Note that we need to do this if
// we're compiling for a BG/Q system regardless of whether or not QPX
// is enabled because external functions will assume this alignment.
2015-02-25 09:06:45 +08:00
IsQPXStackUnaligned = QPXStackUnaligned;
StackAlignment = getPlatformStackAlignment();
// Determine endianness.
// FIXME: Part of the TargetMachine.
IsLittleEndian = (TargetTriple.getArch() == Triple::ppc64le);
}
/// hasLazyResolverStub - Return true if accesses to the specified global have
/// to go through a dyld lazy resolution stub. This means that an extra load
/// is required to get the address of the global.
bool PPCSubtarget::hasLazyResolverStub(const GlobalValue *GV) const {
// We never have stubs if HasLazyResolverStubs=false or if in static mode.
if (!HasLazyResolverStubs || TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::Static)
return false;
bool isDecl = GV->isDeclaration();
if (GV->hasHiddenVisibility() && !isDecl && !GV->hasCommonLinkage())
return false;
return GV->hasWeakLinkage() || GV->hasLinkOnceLinkage() ||
GV->hasCommonLinkage() || isDecl;
}
Add a scheduling model (with itinerary) for the PPC POWER7 This adds a scheduling model for the POWER7 (P7) core, and enables the machine-instruction scheduler when targeting the P7. Scheduling for the P7, like earlier ooo PPC cores, requires considering both dispatch group hazards, and functional unit resources and latencies. These are both modeled in a combined itinerary. Dispatch group formation is still handled by the post-RA scheduler (which still needs to be updated for the P7, but nevertheless does a pretty good job). One interesting aspect of this change is that I've also enabled to use of AA duing CodeGen for the P7 (just as it is for the embedded cores). The benchmark results seem to support this decision (see below), and while this is normally useful for in-order cores, and not for ooo cores like the P7, I think that the dispatch slot hazards are enough like in-order resources to make the AA useful. Test suite significant performance differences (where negative is a speedup, and positive is a regression) vs. the current situation: MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/drop3/drop3 with AA: N/A without AA: -28.7614% +/- 19.8356% (significantly against AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural with AA: -17.7406% +/- 11.2712% without AA: N/A (significantly in favor of AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/SciMark2-C/scimark2 with AA: -11.2079% +/- 1.80543% without AA: -11.3263% +/- 2.79651% MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt with AA: -41.8649% +/- 17.0053% without AA: -34.5256% +/- 23.7072% MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign with AA: 25.3016% +/- 17.8614% without AA: 38.6629% +/- 14.9391% (significantly in favor of AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/sim/sim with AA: N/A without AA: 13.4844% +/- 7.18195% (significantly in favor of AA) SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/Large/fasta with AA: 15.0664% +/- 6.70216% without AA: 12.7747% +/- 8.43043% SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/puzzle with AA: 82.2713% +/- 26.3567% without AA: 75.7525% +/- 41.1842% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-2 with AA: -37.1621% +/- 20.7964% without AA: -35.2342% +/- 20.2999% (significantly in favor of AA) These are 99.5% confidence intervals from 5 runs per configuration. Regarding the choice to turn on AA during CodeGen, of these results, four seem significantly in favor of using AA, and one seems significantly against. I'm not making this decision based on these numbers alone, but these results seem consistent with results I have from other tests, and so I think that, on balance, using AA is a win. llvm-svn: 195981
2013-12-01 04:55:12 +08:00
// Embedded cores need aggressive scheduling (and some others also benefit).
static bool needsAggressiveScheduling(unsigned Directive) {
switch (Directive) {
default: return false;
case PPC::DIR_440:
case PPC::DIR_A2:
case PPC::DIR_E500mc:
case PPC::DIR_E5500:
Add a scheduling model (with itinerary) for the PPC POWER7 This adds a scheduling model for the POWER7 (P7) core, and enables the machine-instruction scheduler when targeting the P7. Scheduling for the P7, like earlier ooo PPC cores, requires considering both dispatch group hazards, and functional unit resources and latencies. These are both modeled in a combined itinerary. Dispatch group formation is still handled by the post-RA scheduler (which still needs to be updated for the P7, but nevertheless does a pretty good job). One interesting aspect of this change is that I've also enabled to use of AA duing CodeGen for the P7 (just as it is for the embedded cores). The benchmark results seem to support this decision (see below), and while this is normally useful for in-order cores, and not for ooo cores like the P7, I think that the dispatch slot hazards are enough like in-order resources to make the AA useful. Test suite significant performance differences (where negative is a speedup, and positive is a regression) vs. the current situation: MultiSource/Benchmarks/BitBench/drop3/drop3 with AA: N/A without AA: -28.7614% +/- 19.8356% (significantly against AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/FreeBench/neural/neural with AA: -17.7406% +/- 11.2712% without AA: N/A (significantly in favor of AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/SciMark2-C/scimark2 with AA: -11.2079% +/- 1.80543% without AA: -11.3263% +/- 2.79651% MultiSource/Benchmarks/TSVC/Symbolics-flt/Symbolics-flt with AA: -41.8649% +/- 17.0053% without AA: -34.5256% +/- 23.7072% MultiSource/Benchmarks/mafft/pairlocalalign with AA: 25.3016% +/- 17.8614% without AA: 38.6629% +/- 14.9391% (significantly in favor of AA) MultiSource/Benchmarks/sim/sim with AA: N/A without AA: 13.4844% +/- 7.18195% (significantly in favor of AA) SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/Large/fasta with AA: 15.0664% +/- 6.70216% without AA: 12.7747% +/- 8.43043% SingleSource/Benchmarks/BenchmarkGame/puzzle with AA: 82.2713% +/- 26.3567% without AA: 75.7525% +/- 41.1842% SingleSource/Benchmarks/Misc/flops-2 with AA: -37.1621% +/- 20.7964% without AA: -35.2342% +/- 20.2999% (significantly in favor of AA) These are 99.5% confidence intervals from 5 runs per configuration. Regarding the choice to turn on AA during CodeGen, of these results, four seem significantly in favor of using AA, and one seems significantly against. I'm not making this decision based on these numbers alone, but these results seem consistent with results I have from other tests, and so I think that, on balance, using AA is a win. llvm-svn: 195981
2013-12-01 04:55:12 +08:00
case PPC::DIR_PWR7:
case PPC::DIR_PWR8:
return true;
}
}
bool PPCSubtarget::enableMachineScheduler() const {
// Enable MI scheduling for the embedded cores.
// FIXME: Enable this for all cores (some additional modeling
// may be necessary).
return needsAggressiveScheduling(DarwinDirective);
}
// This overrides the PostRAScheduler bit in the SchedModel for each CPU.
bool PPCSubtarget::enablePostRAScheduler() const { return true; }
PPCGenSubtargetInfo::AntiDepBreakMode PPCSubtarget::getAntiDepBreakMode() const {
return TargetSubtargetInfo::ANTIDEP_ALL;
}
void PPCSubtarget::getCriticalPathRCs(RegClassVector &CriticalPathRCs) const {
CriticalPathRCs.clear();
CriticalPathRCs.push_back(isPPC64() ?
&PPC::G8RCRegClass : &PPC::GPRCRegClass);
}
void PPCSubtarget::overrideSchedPolicy(MachineSchedPolicy &Policy,
MachineInstr *begin,
MachineInstr *end,
unsigned NumRegionInstrs) const {
if (needsAggressiveScheduling(DarwinDirective)) {
Policy.OnlyTopDown = false;
Policy.OnlyBottomUp = false;
}
// Spilling is generally expensive on all PPC cores, so always enable
// register-pressure tracking.
Policy.ShouldTrackPressure = true;
}
bool PPCSubtarget::useAA() const {
// Use AA during code generation for the embedded cores.
return needsAggressiveScheduling(DarwinDirective);
}
bool PPCSubtarget::enableSubRegLiveness() const {
return UseSubRegLiveness;
}
unsigned char PPCSubtarget::classifyGlobalReference(
const GlobalValue *GV) const {
// Note that currently we don't generate non-pic references.
// If a caller wants that, this will have to be updated.
// Large code model always uses the TOC even for local symbols.
if (TM.getCodeModel() == CodeModel::Large)
return PPCII::MO_PIC_FLAG | PPCII::MO_NLP_FLAG;
unsigned char flags = PPCII::MO_PIC_FLAG;
// Only if the relocation mode is PIC do we have to worry about
// interposition. In all other cases we can use a slightly looser standard to
// decide how to access the symbol.
if (TM.getRelocationModel() == Reloc::PIC_) {
// If it's local, or it's non-default, it can't be interposed.
if (!GV->hasLocalLinkage() &&
GV->hasDefaultVisibility()) {
flags |= PPCII::MO_NLP_FLAG;
}
return flags;
}
if (GV->isStrongDefinitionForLinker())
return flags;
return flags | PPCII::MO_NLP_FLAG;
}
bool PPCSubtarget::isELFv2ABI() const { return TM.isELFv2ABI(); }
bool PPCSubtarget::isPPC64() const { return TM.isPPC64(); }