llvm-project/llvm/lib/Transforms/Scalar/LoopRerollPass.cpp

1754 lines
61 KiB
C++
Raw Normal View History

Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
//===-- LoopReroll.cpp - Loop rerolling pass ------------------------------===//
//
// The LLVM Compiler Infrastructure
//
// This file is distributed under the University of Illinois Open Source
// License. See LICENSE.TXT for details.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
//
// This pass implements a simple loop reroller.
//
//===----------------------------------------------------------------------===//
#include "llvm/Transforms/Scalar.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/MapVector.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/STLExtras.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/BitVector.h"
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
#include "llvm/ADT/SmallSet.h"
#include "llvm/ADT/Statistic.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/AliasAnalysis.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/AliasSetTracker.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/LoopPass.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolution.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpander.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/ScalarEvolutionExpressions.h"
#include "llvm/Analysis/TargetLibraryInfo.h"
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
#include "llvm/Analysis/ValueTracking.h"
#include "llvm/IR/DataLayout.h"
#include "llvm/IR/Dominators.h"
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
#include "llvm/IR/IntrinsicInst.h"
#include "llvm/Support/CommandLine.h"
#include "llvm/Support/Debug.h"
#include "llvm/Support/raw_ostream.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/BasicBlockUtils.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/Local.h"
#include "llvm/Transforms/Utils/LoopUtils.h"
using namespace llvm;
#define DEBUG_TYPE "loop-reroll"
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
STATISTIC(NumRerolledLoops, "Number of rerolled loops");
static cl::opt<unsigned>
MaxInc("max-reroll-increment", cl::init(2048), cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("The maximum increment for loop rerolling"));
static cl::opt<unsigned>
NumToleratedFailedMatches("reroll-num-tolerated-failed-matches", cl::init(400),
cl::Hidden,
cl::desc("The maximum number of failures to tolerate"
" during fuzzy matching. (default: 400)"));
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// This loop re-rolling transformation aims to transform loops like this:
//
// int foo(int a);
// void bar(int *x) {
// for (int i = 0; i < 500; i += 3) {
// foo(i);
// foo(i+1);
// foo(i+2);
// }
// }
//
// into a loop like this:
//
// void bar(int *x) {
// for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i)
// foo(i);
// }
//
// It does this by looking for loops that, besides the latch code, are composed
// of isomorphic DAGs of instructions, with each DAG rooted at some increment
// to the induction variable, and where each DAG is isomorphic to the DAG
// rooted at the induction variable (excepting the sub-DAGs which root the
// other induction-variable increments). In other words, we're looking for loop
// bodies of the form:
//
// %iv = phi [ (preheader, ...), (body, %iv.next) ]
// f(%iv)
// %iv.1 = add %iv, 1 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.1)
// %iv.2 = add %iv, 2 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.2)
// %iv.scale_m_1 = add %iv, scale-1 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.scale_m_1)
// ...
// %iv.next = add %iv, scale
// %cmp = icmp(%iv, ...)
// br %cmp, header, exit
//
// where each f(i) is a set of instructions that, collectively, are a function
// only of i (and other loop-invariant values).
//
// As a special case, we can also reroll loops like this:
//
// int foo(int);
// void bar(int *x) {
// for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) {
// x[3*i] = foo(0);
// x[3*i+1] = foo(0);
// x[3*i+2] = foo(0);
// }
// }
//
// into this:
//
// void bar(int *x) {
// for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i)
// x[i] = foo(0);
// }
//
// in which case, we're looking for inputs like this:
//
// %iv = phi [ (preheader, ...), (body, %iv.next) ]
// %scaled.iv = mul %iv, scale
// f(%scaled.iv)
// %scaled.iv.1 = add %scaled.iv, 1
// f(%scaled.iv.1)
// %scaled.iv.2 = add %scaled.iv, 2
// f(%scaled.iv.2)
// %scaled.iv.scale_m_1 = add %scaled.iv, scale-1
// f(%scaled.iv.scale_m_1)
// ...
// %iv.next = add %iv, 1
// %cmp = icmp(%iv, ...)
// br %cmp, header, exit
namespace {
enum IterationLimits {
/// The maximum number of iterations that we'll try and reroll.
IL_MaxRerollIterations = 32,
/// The bitvector index used by loop induction variables and other
/// instructions that belong to all iterations.
IL_All,
IL_End
};
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
class LoopReroll : public LoopPass {
public:
static char ID; // Pass ID, replacement for typeid
LoopReroll() : LoopPass(ID) {
initializeLoopRerollPass(*PassRegistry::getPassRegistry());
}
bool runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) override;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
void getAnalysisUsage(AnalysisUsage &AU) const override {
AU.addRequired<TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass>();
[LPM] Factor all of the loop analysis usage updates into a common helper routine. We were getting this wrong in small ways and generally being very inconsistent about it across loop passes. Instead, let's have a common place where we do this. One minor downside is that this will require some analyses like SCEV in more places than they are strictly needed. However, this seems benign as these analyses are complete no-ops, and without this consistency we can in many cases end up with the legacy pass manager scheduling deciding to split up a loop pass pipeline in order to run the function analysis half-way through. It is very, very annoying to fix these without just being very pedantic across the board. The only loop passes I've not updated here are ones that use AU.setPreservesAll() such as IVUsers (an analysis) and the pass printer. They seemed less relevant. With this patch, almost all of the problems in PR24804 around loop pass pipelines are fixed. The one remaining issue is that we run simplify-cfg and instcombine in the middle of the loop pass pipeline. We've recently added some loop variants of these passes that would seem substantially cleaner to use, but this at least gets us much closer to the previous state. Notably, the seven loop pass managers is down to three. I've not updated the loop passes using LoopAccessAnalysis because that analysis hasn't been fully wired into LoopSimplify/LCSSA, and it isn't clear that those transforms want to support those forms anyways. They all run late anyways, so this is harmless. Similarly, LSR is left alone because it already carefully manages its forms and doesn't need to get fused into a single loop pass manager with a bunch of other loop passes. LoopReroll didn't use loop simplified form previously, and I've updated the test case to match the trivially different output. Finally, I've also factored all the pass initialization for the passes that use this technique as well, so that should be done regularly and reliably. Thanks to James for the help reviewing and thinking about this stuff, and Ben for help thinking about it as well! Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17435 llvm-svn: 261316
2016-02-19 18:45:18 +08:00
getLoopAnalysisUsage(AU);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
protected:
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
AliasAnalysis *AA;
LoopInfo *LI;
ScalarEvolution *SE;
TargetLibraryInfo *TLI;
DominatorTree *DT;
bool PreserveLCSSA;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
typedef SmallVector<Instruction *, 16> SmallInstructionVector;
typedef SmallSet<Instruction *, 16> SmallInstructionSet;
// Map between induction variable and its increment
DenseMap<Instruction *, int64_t> IVToIncMap;
// For loop with multiple induction variable, remember the one used only to
// control the loop.
Instruction *LoopControlIV;
// A chain of isomorphic instructions, identified by a single-use PHI
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// representing a reduction. Only the last value may be used outside the
// loop.
struct SimpleLoopReduction {
SimpleLoopReduction(Instruction *P, Loop *L)
: Valid(false), Instructions(1, P) {
assert(isa<PHINode>(P) && "First reduction instruction must be a PHI");
add(L);
}
bool valid() const {
return Valid;
}
Instruction *getPHI() const {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return Instructions.front();
}
Instruction *getReducedValue() const {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return Instructions.back();
}
Instruction *get(size_t i) const {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return Instructions[i+1];
}
Instruction *operator [] (size_t i) const { return get(i); }
// The size, ignoring the initial PHI.
size_t size() const {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return Instructions.size()-1;
}
typedef SmallInstructionVector::iterator iterator;
typedef SmallInstructionVector::const_iterator const_iterator;
iterator begin() {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return std::next(Instructions.begin());
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
const_iterator begin() const {
assert(Valid && "Using invalid reduction");
return std::next(Instructions.begin());
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
iterator end() { return Instructions.end(); }
const_iterator end() const { return Instructions.end(); }
protected:
bool Valid;
SmallInstructionVector Instructions;
void add(Loop *L);
};
// The set of all reductions, and state tracking of possible reductions
// during loop instruction processing.
struct ReductionTracker {
typedef SmallVector<SimpleLoopReduction, 16> SmallReductionVector;
// Add a new possible reduction.
void addSLR(SimpleLoopReduction &SLR) { PossibleReds.push_back(SLR); }
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Setup to track possible reductions corresponding to the provided
// rerolling scale. Only reductions with a number of non-PHI instructions
// that is divisible by the scale are considered. Three instructions sets
// are filled in:
// - A set of all possible instructions in eligible reductions.
// - A set of all PHIs in eligible reductions
// - A set of all reduced values (last instructions) in eligible
// reductions.
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
void restrictToScale(uint64_t Scale,
SmallInstructionSet &PossibleRedSet,
SmallInstructionSet &PossibleRedPHISet,
SmallInstructionSet &PossibleRedLastSet) {
PossibleRedIdx.clear();
PossibleRedIter.clear();
Reds.clear();
for (unsigned i = 0, e = PossibleReds.size(); i != e; ++i)
if (PossibleReds[i].size() % Scale == 0) {
PossibleRedLastSet.insert(PossibleReds[i].getReducedValue());
PossibleRedPHISet.insert(PossibleReds[i].getPHI());
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
PossibleRedSet.insert(PossibleReds[i].getPHI());
PossibleRedIdx[PossibleReds[i].getPHI()] = i;
for (Instruction *J : PossibleReds[i]) {
PossibleRedSet.insert(J);
PossibleRedIdx[J] = i;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
}
// The functions below are used while processing the loop instructions.
// Are the two instructions both from reductions, and furthermore, from
// the same reduction?
bool isPairInSame(Instruction *J1, Instruction *J2) {
DenseMap<Instruction *, int>::iterator J1I = PossibleRedIdx.find(J1);
if (J1I != PossibleRedIdx.end()) {
DenseMap<Instruction *, int>::iterator J2I = PossibleRedIdx.find(J2);
if (J2I != PossibleRedIdx.end() && J1I->second == J2I->second)
return true;
}
return false;
}
// The two provided instructions, the first from the base iteration, and
// the second from iteration i, form a matched pair. If these are part of
// a reduction, record that fact.
void recordPair(Instruction *J1, Instruction *J2, unsigned i) {
if (PossibleRedIdx.count(J1)) {
assert(PossibleRedIdx.count(J2) &&
"Recording reduction vs. non-reduction instruction?");
PossibleRedIter[J1] = 0;
PossibleRedIter[J2] = i;
int Idx = PossibleRedIdx[J1];
assert(Idx == PossibleRedIdx[J2] &&
"Recording pair from different reductions?");
Reds.insert(Idx);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
// The functions below can be called after we've finished processing all
// instructions in the loop, and we know which reductions were selected.
bool validateSelected();
void replaceSelected();
protected:
// The vector of all possible reductions (for any scale).
SmallReductionVector PossibleReds;
DenseMap<Instruction *, int> PossibleRedIdx;
DenseMap<Instruction *, int> PossibleRedIter;
DenseSet<int> Reds;
};
// A DAGRootSet models an induction variable being used in a rerollable
// loop. For example,
//
// x[i*3+0] = y1
// x[i*3+1] = y2
// x[i*3+2] = y3
//
// Base instruction -> i*3
// +---+----+
// / | \
// ST[y1] +1 +2 <-- Roots
// | |
// ST[y2] ST[y3]
//
// There may be multiple DAGRoots, for example:
//
// x[i*2+0] = ... (1)
// x[i*2+1] = ... (1)
// x[i*2+4] = ... (2)
// x[i*2+5] = ... (2)
// x[(i+1234)*2+5678] = ... (3)
// x[(i+1234)*2+5679] = ... (3)
//
// The loop will be rerolled by adding a new loop induction variable,
// one for the Base instruction in each DAGRootSet.
//
struct DAGRootSet {
Instruction *BaseInst;
SmallInstructionVector Roots;
// The instructions between IV and BaseInst (but not including BaseInst).
SmallInstructionSet SubsumedInsts;
};
// The set of all DAG roots, and state tracking of all roots
// for a particular induction variable.
struct DAGRootTracker {
DAGRootTracker(LoopReroll *Parent, Loop *L, Instruction *IV,
ScalarEvolution *SE, AliasAnalysis *AA,
TargetLibraryInfo *TLI, DominatorTree *DT, LoopInfo *LI,
bool PreserveLCSSA,
DenseMap<Instruction *, int64_t> &IncrMap,
Instruction *LoopCtrlIV)
: Parent(Parent), L(L), SE(SE), AA(AA), TLI(TLI), DT(DT), LI(LI),
PreserveLCSSA(PreserveLCSSA), IV(IV), IVToIncMap(IncrMap),
LoopControlIV(LoopCtrlIV) {}
/// Stage 1: Find all the DAG roots for the induction variable.
bool findRoots();
/// Stage 2: Validate if the found roots are valid.
bool validate(ReductionTracker &Reductions);
/// Stage 3: Assuming validate() returned true, perform the
/// replacement.
/// @param IterCount The maximum iteration count of L.
void replace(const SCEV *IterCount);
protected:
typedef MapVector<Instruction*, BitVector> UsesTy;
bool findRootsRecursive(Instruction *IVU,
SmallInstructionSet SubsumedInsts);
bool findRootsBase(Instruction *IVU, SmallInstructionSet SubsumedInsts);
bool collectPossibleRoots(Instruction *Base,
std::map<int64_t,Instruction*> &Roots);
bool collectUsedInstructions(SmallInstructionSet &PossibleRedSet);
void collectInLoopUserSet(const SmallInstructionVector &Roots,
const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
const SmallInstructionSet &Final,
DenseSet<Instruction *> &Users);
void collectInLoopUserSet(Instruction *Root,
const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
const SmallInstructionSet &Final,
DenseSet<Instruction *> &Users);
UsesTy::iterator nextInstr(int Val, UsesTy &In,
const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
UsesTy::iterator *StartI=nullptr);
bool isBaseInst(Instruction *I);
bool isRootInst(Instruction *I);
bool instrDependsOn(Instruction *I,
UsesTy::iterator Start,
UsesTy::iterator End);
void replaceIV(Instruction *Inst, Instruction *IV, const SCEV *IterCount);
void updateNonLoopCtrlIncr();
LoopReroll *Parent;
// Members of Parent, replicated here for brevity.
Loop *L;
ScalarEvolution *SE;
AliasAnalysis *AA;
TargetLibraryInfo *TLI;
DominatorTree *DT;
LoopInfo *LI;
bool PreserveLCSSA;
// The loop induction variable.
Instruction *IV;
// Loop step amount.
int64_t Inc;
// Loop reroll count; if Inc == 1, this records the scaling applied
// to the indvar: a[i*2+0] = ...; a[i*2+1] = ... ;
// If Inc is not 1, Scale = Inc.
uint64_t Scale;
// The roots themselves.
SmallVector<DAGRootSet,16> RootSets;
// All increment instructions for IV.
SmallInstructionVector LoopIncs;
// Map of all instructions in the loop (in order) to the iterations
// they are used in (or specially, IL_All for instructions
// used in the loop increment mechanism).
UsesTy Uses;
// Map between induction variable and its increment
DenseMap<Instruction *, int64_t> &IVToIncMap;
Instruction *LoopControlIV;
};
// Check if it is a compare-like instruction whose user is a branch
bool isCompareUsedByBranch(Instruction *I) {
auto *TI = I->getParent()->getTerminator();
if (!isa<BranchInst>(TI) || !isa<CmpInst>(I))
return false;
return I->hasOneUse() && TI->getOperand(0) == I;
};
bool isLoopControlIV(Loop *L, Instruction *IV);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
void collectPossibleIVs(Loop *L, SmallInstructionVector &PossibleIVs);
void collectPossibleReductions(Loop *L,
ReductionTracker &Reductions);
bool reroll(Instruction *IV, Loop *L, BasicBlock *Header, const SCEV *IterCount,
ReductionTracker &Reductions);
};
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
char LoopReroll::ID = 0;
INITIALIZE_PASS_BEGIN(LoopReroll, "loop-reroll", "Reroll loops", false, false)
[LPM] Factor all of the loop analysis usage updates into a common helper routine. We were getting this wrong in small ways and generally being very inconsistent about it across loop passes. Instead, let's have a common place where we do this. One minor downside is that this will require some analyses like SCEV in more places than they are strictly needed. However, this seems benign as these analyses are complete no-ops, and without this consistency we can in many cases end up with the legacy pass manager scheduling deciding to split up a loop pass pipeline in order to run the function analysis half-way through. It is very, very annoying to fix these without just being very pedantic across the board. The only loop passes I've not updated here are ones that use AU.setPreservesAll() such as IVUsers (an analysis) and the pass printer. They seemed less relevant. With this patch, almost all of the problems in PR24804 around loop pass pipelines are fixed. The one remaining issue is that we run simplify-cfg and instcombine in the middle of the loop pass pipeline. We've recently added some loop variants of these passes that would seem substantially cleaner to use, but this at least gets us much closer to the previous state. Notably, the seven loop pass managers is down to three. I've not updated the loop passes using LoopAccessAnalysis because that analysis hasn't been fully wired into LoopSimplify/LCSSA, and it isn't clear that those transforms want to support those forms anyways. They all run late anyways, so this is harmless. Similarly, LSR is left alone because it already carefully manages its forms and doesn't need to get fused into a single loop pass manager with a bunch of other loop passes. LoopReroll didn't use loop simplified form previously, and I've updated the test case to match the trivially different output. Finally, I've also factored all the pass initialization for the passes that use this technique as well, so that should be done regularly and reliably. Thanks to James for the help reviewing and thinking about this stuff, and Ben for help thinking about it as well! Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D17435 llvm-svn: 261316
2016-02-19 18:45:18 +08:00
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(LoopPass)
INITIALIZE_PASS_DEPENDENCY(TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass)
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
INITIALIZE_PASS_END(LoopReroll, "loop-reroll", "Reroll loops", false, false)
Pass *llvm::createLoopRerollPass() {
return new LoopReroll;
}
// Returns true if the provided instruction is used outside the given loop.
// This operates like Instruction::isUsedOutsideOfBlock, but considers PHIs in
// non-loop blocks to be outside the loop.
static bool hasUsesOutsideLoop(Instruction *I, Loop *L) {
for (User *U : I->users()) {
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (!L->contains(cast<Instruction>(U)))
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return true;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return false;
}
static const SCEVConstant *getIncrmentFactorSCEV(ScalarEvolution *SE,
const SCEV *SCEVExpr,
Instruction &IV) {
const SCEVMulExpr *MulSCEV = dyn_cast<SCEVMulExpr>(SCEVExpr);
// If StepRecurrence of a SCEVExpr is a constant (c1 * c2, c2 = sizeof(ptr)),
// Return c1.
if (!MulSCEV && IV.getType()->isPointerTy())
if (const SCEVConstant *IncSCEV = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SCEVExpr)) {
const PointerType *PTy = cast<PointerType>(IV.getType());
Type *ElTy = PTy->getElementType();
const SCEV *SizeOfExpr =
SE->getSizeOfExpr(SE->getEffectiveSCEVType(IV.getType()), ElTy);
if (IncSCEV->getValue()->getValue().isNegative()) {
const SCEV *NewSCEV =
SE->getUDivExpr(SE->getNegativeSCEV(SCEVExpr), SizeOfExpr);
return dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SE->getNegativeSCEV(NewSCEV));
} else {
return dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SE->getUDivExpr(SCEVExpr, SizeOfExpr));
}
}
if (!MulSCEV)
return nullptr;
// If StepRecurrence of a SCEVExpr is a c * sizeof(x), where c is constant,
// Return c.
const SCEVConstant *CIncSCEV = nullptr;
for (const SCEV *Operand : MulSCEV->operands()) {
if (const SCEVConstant *Constant = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(Operand)) {
CIncSCEV = Constant;
} else if (const SCEVUnknown *Unknown = dyn_cast<SCEVUnknown>(Operand)) {
Type *AllocTy;
if (!Unknown->isSizeOf(AllocTy))
break;
} else {
return nullptr;
}
}
return CIncSCEV;
}
// Check if an IV is only used to control the loop. There are two cases:
// 1. It only has one use which is loop increment, and the increment is only
// used by comparison and the PHI (could has sext with nsw in between), and the
// comparison is only used by branch.
// 2. It is used by loop increment and the comparison, the loop increment is
// only used by the PHI, and the comparison is used only by the branch.
bool LoopReroll::isLoopControlIV(Loop *L, Instruction *IV) {
unsigned IVUses = IV->getNumUses();
if (IVUses != 2 && IVUses != 1)
return false;
for (auto *User : IV->users()) {
int32_t IncOrCmpUses = User->getNumUses();
bool IsCompInst = isCompareUsedByBranch(cast<Instruction>(User));
// User can only have one or two uses.
if (IncOrCmpUses != 2 && IncOrCmpUses != 1)
return false;
// Case 1
if (IVUses == 1) {
// The only user must be the loop increment.
// The loop increment must have two uses.
if (IsCompInst || IncOrCmpUses != 2)
return false;
}
// Case 2
if (IVUses == 2 && IncOrCmpUses != 1)
return false;
// The users of the IV must be a binary operation or a comparison
if (auto *BO = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(User)) {
if (BO->getOpcode() == Instruction::Add) {
// Loop Increment
// User of Loop Increment should be either PHI or CMP
for (auto *UU : User->users()) {
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(UU)) {
if (PN != IV)
return false;
}
// Must be a CMP or an ext (of a value with nsw) then CMP
else {
Instruction *UUser = dyn_cast<Instruction>(UU);
// Skip SExt if we are extending an nsw value
// TODO: Allow ZExt too
if (BO->hasNoSignedWrap() && UUser && UUser->getNumUses() == 1 &&
isa<SExtInst>(UUser))
UUser = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*(UUser->user_begin()));
if (!isCompareUsedByBranch(UUser))
return false;
}
}
} else
return false;
// Compare : can only have one use, and must be branch
} else if (!IsCompInst)
return false;
}
return true;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Collect the list of loop induction variables with respect to which it might
// be possible to reroll the loop.
void LoopReroll::collectPossibleIVs(Loop *L,
SmallInstructionVector &PossibleIVs) {
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
for (BasicBlock::iterator I = Header->begin(),
IE = Header->getFirstInsertionPt(); I != IE; ++I) {
if (!isa<PHINode>(I))
continue;
if (!I->getType()->isIntegerTy() && !I->getType()->isPointerTy())
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
continue;
if (const SCEVAddRecExpr *PHISCEV =
dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE->getSCEV(&*I))) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (PHISCEV->getLoop() != L)
continue;
if (!PHISCEV->isAffine())
continue;
const SCEVConstant *IncSCEV = nullptr;
if (I->getType()->isPointerTy())
IncSCEV =
getIncrmentFactorSCEV(SE, PHISCEV->getStepRecurrence(*SE), *I);
else
IncSCEV = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(PHISCEV->getStepRecurrence(*SE));
if (IncSCEV) {
const APInt &AInt = IncSCEV->getValue()->getValue().abs();
if (IncSCEV->getValue()->isZero() || AInt.uge(MaxInc))
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
continue;
IVToIncMap[&*I] = IncSCEV->getValue()->getSExtValue();
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Possible IV: " << *I << " = " << *PHISCEV
<< "\n");
if (isLoopControlIV(L, &*I)) {
assert(!LoopControlIV && "Found two loop control only IV");
LoopControlIV = &(*I);
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Possible loop control only IV: " << *I << " = "
<< *PHISCEV << "\n");
} else
PossibleIVs.push_back(&*I);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
}
}
// Add the remainder of the reduction-variable chain to the instruction vector
// (the initial PHINode has already been added). If successful, the object is
// marked as valid.
void LoopReroll::SimpleLoopReduction::add(Loop *L) {
assert(!Valid && "Cannot add to an already-valid chain");
// The reduction variable must be a chain of single-use instructions
// (including the PHI), except for the last value (which is used by the PHI
// and also outside the loop).
Instruction *C = Instructions.front();
if (C->user_empty())
return;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
do {
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
C = cast<Instruction>(*C->user_begin());
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (C->hasOneUse()) {
if (!C->isBinaryOp())
return;
if (!(isa<PHINode>(Instructions.back()) ||
C->isSameOperationAs(Instructions.back())))
return;
Instructions.push_back(C);
}
} while (C->hasOneUse());
if (Instructions.size() < 2 ||
!C->isSameOperationAs(Instructions.back()) ||
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
C->use_empty())
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return;
// C is now the (potential) last instruction in the reduction chain.
for (User *U : C->users()) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// The only in-loop user can be the initial PHI.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (L->contains(cast<Instruction>(U)))
if (cast<Instruction>(U) != Instructions.front())
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
Instructions.push_back(C);
Valid = true;
}
// Collect the vector of possible reduction variables.
void LoopReroll::collectPossibleReductions(Loop *L,
ReductionTracker &Reductions) {
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
for (BasicBlock::iterator I = Header->begin(),
IE = Header->getFirstInsertionPt(); I != IE; ++I) {
if (!isa<PHINode>(I))
continue;
if (!I->getType()->isSingleValueType())
continue;
SimpleLoopReduction SLR(&*I, L);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (!SLR.valid())
continue;
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Possible reduction: " << *I << " (with " <<
SLR.size() << " chained instructions)\n");
Reductions.addSLR(SLR);
}
}
// Collect the set of all users of the provided root instruction. This set of
// users contains not only the direct users of the root instruction, but also
// all users of those users, and so on. There are two exceptions:
//
// 1. Instructions in the set of excluded instructions are never added to the
// use set (even if they are users). This is used, for example, to exclude
// including root increments in the use set of the primary IV.
//
// 2. Instructions in the set of final instructions are added to the use set
// if they are users, but their users are not added. This is used, for
// example, to prevent a reduction update from forcing all later reduction
// updates into the use set.
void LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::collectInLoopUserSet(
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
Instruction *Root, const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
const SmallInstructionSet &Final,
DenseSet<Instruction *> &Users) {
SmallInstructionVector Queue(1, Root);
while (!Queue.empty()) {
Instruction *I = Queue.pop_back_val();
if (!Users.insert(I).second)
continue;
if (!Final.count(I))
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
for (Use &U : I->uses()) {
Instruction *User = cast<Instruction>(U.getUser());
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(User)) {
// Ignore "wrap-around" uses to PHIs of this loop's header.
[C++11] Add range based accessors for the Use-Def chain of a Value. This requires a number of steps. 1) Move value_use_iterator into the Value class as an implementation detail 2) Change it to actually be a *Use* iterator rather than a *User* iterator. 3) Add an adaptor which is a User iterator that always looks through the Use to the User. 4) Wrap these in Value::use_iterator and Value::user_iterator typedefs. 5) Add the range adaptors as Value::uses() and Value::users(). 6) Update *all* of the callers to correctly distinguish between whether they wanted a use_iterator (and to explicitly dig out the User when needed), or a user_iterator which makes the Use itself totally opaque. Because #6 requires churning essentially everything that walked the Use-Def chains, I went ahead and added all of the range adaptors and switched them to range-based loops where appropriate. Also because the renaming requires at least churning every line of code, it didn't make any sense to split these up into multiple commits -- all of which would touch all of the same lies of code. The result is still not quite optimal. The Value::use_iterator is a nice regular iterator, but Value::user_iterator is an iterator over User*s rather than over the User objects themselves. As a consequence, it fits a bit awkwardly into the range-based world and it has the weird extra-dereferencing 'operator->' that so many of our iterators have. I think this could be fixed by providing something which transforms a range of T&s into a range of T*s, but that *can* be separated into another patch, and it isn't yet 100% clear whether this is the right move. However, this change gets us most of the benefit and cleans up a substantial amount of code around Use and User. =] llvm-svn: 203364
2014-03-09 11:16:01 +08:00
if (PN->getIncomingBlock(U) == L->getHeader())
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
continue;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (L->contains(User) && !Exclude.count(User)) {
Queue.push_back(User);
}
}
// We also want to collect single-user "feeder" values.
for (User::op_iterator OI = I->op_begin(),
OIE = I->op_end(); OI != OIE; ++OI) {
if (Instruction *Op = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*OI))
if (Op->hasOneUse() && L->contains(Op) && !Exclude.count(Op) &&
!Final.count(Op))
Queue.push_back(Op);
}
}
}
// Collect all of the users of all of the provided root instructions (combined
// into a single set).
void LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::collectInLoopUserSet(
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
const SmallInstructionVector &Roots,
const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
const SmallInstructionSet &Final,
DenseSet<Instruction *> &Users) {
for (Instruction *Root : Roots)
collectInLoopUserSet(Root, Exclude, Final, Users);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
static bool isUnorderedLoadStore(Instruction *I) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (LoadInst *LI = dyn_cast<LoadInst>(I))
return LI->isUnordered();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (StoreInst *SI = dyn_cast<StoreInst>(I))
return SI->isUnordered();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (MemIntrinsic *MI = dyn_cast<MemIntrinsic>(I))
return !MI->isVolatile();
return false;
}
/// Return true if IVU is a "simple" arithmetic operation.
/// This is used for narrowing the search space for DAGRoots; only arithmetic
/// and GEPs can be part of a DAGRoot.
static bool isSimpleArithmeticOp(User *IVU) {
if (Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(IVU)) {
switch (I->getOpcode()) {
default: return false;
case Instruction::Add:
case Instruction::Sub:
case Instruction::Mul:
case Instruction::Shl:
case Instruction::AShr:
case Instruction::LShr:
case Instruction::GetElementPtr:
case Instruction::Trunc:
case Instruction::ZExt:
case Instruction::SExt:
return true;
}
}
return false;
}
static bool isLoopIncrement(User *U, Instruction *IV) {
BinaryOperator *BO = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(U);
if ((BO && BO->getOpcode() != Instruction::Add) ||
(!BO && !isa<GetElementPtrInst>(U)))
return false;
for (auto *UU : U->users()) {
PHINode *PN = dyn_cast<PHINode>(UU);
if (PN && PN == IV)
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::
collectPossibleRoots(Instruction *Base, std::map<int64_t,Instruction*> &Roots) {
SmallInstructionVector BaseUsers;
for (auto *I : Base->users()) {
ConstantInt *CI = nullptr;
if (isLoopIncrement(I, IV)) {
LoopIncs.push_back(cast<Instruction>(I));
continue;
}
// The root nodes must be either GEPs, ORs or ADDs.
if (auto *BO = dyn_cast<BinaryOperator>(I)) {
if (BO->getOpcode() == Instruction::Add ||
BO->getOpcode() == Instruction::Or)
CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(BO->getOperand(1));
} else if (auto *GEP = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(I)) {
Value *LastOperand = GEP->getOperand(GEP->getNumOperands()-1);
CI = dyn_cast<ConstantInt>(LastOperand);
}
if (!CI) {
if (Instruction *II = dyn_cast<Instruction>(I)) {
BaseUsers.push_back(II);
continue;
} else {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting due to non-instruction: " << *I << "\n");
return false;
}
}
int64_t V = std::abs(CI->getValue().getSExtValue());
if (Roots.find(V) != Roots.end())
// No duplicates, please.
return false;
Roots[V] = cast<Instruction>(I);
}
if (Roots.empty())
return false;
// If we found non-loop-inc, non-root users of Base, assume they are
// for the zeroth root index. This is because "add %a, 0" gets optimized
// away.
if (BaseUsers.size()) {
if (Roots.find(0) != Roots.end()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Multiple roots found for base - aborting!\n");
return false;
}
Roots[0] = Base;
}
// Calculate the number of users of the base, or lowest indexed, iteration.
unsigned NumBaseUses = BaseUsers.size();
if (NumBaseUses == 0)
NumBaseUses = Roots.begin()->second->getNumUses();
// Check that every node has the same number of users.
for (auto &KV : Roots) {
if (KV.first == 0)
continue;
if (KV.second->getNumUses() != NumBaseUses) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting - Root and Base #users not the same: "
<< "#Base=" << NumBaseUses << ", #Root=" <<
KV.second->getNumUses() << "\n");
return false;
}
}
return true;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::
findRootsRecursive(Instruction *I, SmallInstructionSet SubsumedInsts) {
// Does the user look like it could be part of a root set?
// All its users must be simple arithmetic ops.
if (I->getNumUses() > IL_MaxRerollIterations)
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return false;
if ((I->getOpcode() == Instruction::Mul ||
I->getOpcode() == Instruction::PHI) &&
I != IV &&
findRootsBase(I, SubsumedInsts))
return true;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
SubsumedInsts.insert(I);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
for (User *V : I->users()) {
Instruction *I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(V);
if (is_contained(LoopIncs, I))
continue;
if (!I || !isSimpleArithmeticOp(I) ||
!findRootsRecursive(I, SubsumedInsts))
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return false;
}
return true;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::
findRootsBase(Instruction *IVU, SmallInstructionSet SubsumedInsts) {
// The base instruction needs to be a multiply so
// that we can erase it.
if (IVU->getOpcode() != Instruction::Mul &&
IVU->getOpcode() != Instruction::PHI)
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return false;
std::map<int64_t, Instruction*> V;
if (!collectPossibleRoots(IVU, V))
return false;
// If we didn't get a root for index zero, then IVU must be
// subsumed.
if (V.find(0) == V.end())
SubsumedInsts.insert(IVU);
// Partition the vector into monotonically increasing indexes.
DAGRootSet DRS;
DRS.BaseInst = nullptr;
for (auto &KV : V) {
if (!DRS.BaseInst) {
DRS.BaseInst = KV.second;
DRS.SubsumedInsts = SubsumedInsts;
} else if (DRS.Roots.empty()) {
DRS.Roots.push_back(KV.second);
} else if (V.find(KV.first - 1) != V.end()) {
DRS.Roots.push_back(KV.second);
} else {
// Linear sequence terminated.
RootSets.push_back(DRS);
DRS.BaseInst = KV.second;
DRS.SubsumedInsts = SubsumedInsts;
DRS.Roots.clear();
}
}
RootSets.push_back(DRS);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return true;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::findRoots() {
Inc = IVToIncMap[IV];
assert(RootSets.empty() && "Unclean state!");
if (std::abs(Inc) == 1) {
for (auto *IVU : IV->users()) {
if (isLoopIncrement(IVU, IV))
LoopIncs.push_back(cast<Instruction>(IVU));
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
if (!findRootsRecursive(IV, SmallInstructionSet()))
return false;
LoopIncs.push_back(IV);
} else {
if (!findRootsBase(IV, SmallInstructionSet()))
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
// Ensure all sets have the same size.
if (RootSets.empty()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting because no root sets found!\n");
return false;
}
for (auto &V : RootSets) {
if (V.Roots.empty() || V.Roots.size() != RootSets[0].Roots.size()) {
DEBUG(dbgs()
<< "LRR: Aborting because not all root sets have the same size\n");
return false;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
// And ensure all loop iterations are consecutive. We rely on std::map
// providing ordered traversal.
for (auto &V : RootSets) {
const auto *ADR = dyn_cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE->getSCEV(V.BaseInst));
if (!ADR)
return false;
// Consider a DAGRootSet with N-1 roots (so N different values including
// BaseInst).
// Define d = Roots[0] - BaseInst, which should be the same as
// Roots[I] - Roots[I-1] for all I in [1..N).
// Define D = BaseInst@J - BaseInst@J-1, where "@J" means the value at the
// loop iteration J.
//
// Now, For the loop iterations to be consecutive:
// D = d * N
unsigned N = V.Roots.size() + 1;
const SCEV *StepSCEV = SE->getMinusSCEV(SE->getSCEV(V.Roots[0]), ADR);
const SCEV *ScaleSCEV = SE->getConstant(StepSCEV->getType(), N);
if (ADR->getStepRecurrence(*SE) != SE->getMulExpr(StepSCEV, ScaleSCEV)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting because iterations are not consecutive\n");
return false;
}
}
Scale = RootSets[0].Roots.size() + 1;
if (Scale > IL_MaxRerollIterations) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting - too many iterations found. "
<< "#Found=" << Scale << ", #Max=" << IL_MaxRerollIterations
<< "\n");
return false;
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Successfully found roots: Scale=" << Scale << "\n");
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return true;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::collectUsedInstructions(SmallInstructionSet &PossibleRedSet) {
// Populate the MapVector with all instructions in the block, in order first,
// so we can iterate over the contents later in perfect order.
for (auto &I : *L->getHeader()) {
Uses[&I].resize(IL_End);
}
SmallInstructionSet Exclude;
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
Exclude.insert(DRS.Roots.begin(), DRS.Roots.end());
Exclude.insert(DRS.SubsumedInsts.begin(), DRS.SubsumedInsts.end());
Exclude.insert(DRS.BaseInst);
}
Exclude.insert(LoopIncs.begin(), LoopIncs.end());
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
DenseSet<Instruction*> VBase;
collectInLoopUserSet(DRS.BaseInst, Exclude, PossibleRedSet, VBase);
for (auto *I : VBase) {
Uses[I].set(0);
}
unsigned Idx = 1;
for (auto *Root : DRS.Roots) {
DenseSet<Instruction*> V;
collectInLoopUserSet(Root, Exclude, PossibleRedSet, V);
// While we're here, check the use sets are the same size.
if (V.size() != VBase.size()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting - use sets are different sizes\n");
return false;
}
for (auto *I : V) {
Uses[I].set(Idx);
}
++Idx;
}
// Make sure our subsumed instructions are remembered too.
for (auto *I : DRS.SubsumedInsts) {
Uses[I].set(IL_All);
}
}
// Make sure the loop increments are also accounted for.
Exclude.clear();
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
Exclude.insert(DRS.Roots.begin(), DRS.Roots.end());
Exclude.insert(DRS.SubsumedInsts.begin(), DRS.SubsumedInsts.end());
Exclude.insert(DRS.BaseInst);
}
DenseSet<Instruction*> V;
collectInLoopUserSet(LoopIncs, Exclude, PossibleRedSet, V);
for (auto *I : V) {
Uses[I].set(IL_All);
}
return true;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
/// Get the next instruction in "In" that is a member of set Val.
/// Start searching from StartI, and do not return anything in Exclude.
/// If StartI is not given, start from In.begin().
LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::UsesTy::iterator
LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::nextInstr(int Val, UsesTy &In,
const SmallInstructionSet &Exclude,
UsesTy::iterator *StartI) {
UsesTy::iterator I = StartI ? *StartI : In.begin();
while (I != In.end() && (I->second.test(Val) == 0 ||
Exclude.count(I->first) != 0))
++I;
return I;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::isBaseInst(Instruction *I) {
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
if (DRS.BaseInst == I)
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::isRootInst(Instruction *I) {
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
if (is_contained(DRS.Roots, I))
return true;
}
return false;
}
/// Return true if instruction I depends on any instruction between
/// Start and End.
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::instrDependsOn(Instruction *I,
UsesTy::iterator Start,
UsesTy::iterator End) {
for (auto *U : I->users()) {
for (auto It = Start; It != End; ++It)
if (U == It->first)
return true;
}
return false;
}
static bool isIgnorableInst(const Instruction *I) {
if (isa<DbgInfoIntrinsic>(I))
return true;
const IntrinsicInst* II = dyn_cast<IntrinsicInst>(I);
if (!II)
return false;
switch (II->getIntrinsicID()) {
default:
return false;
case llvm::Intrinsic::annotation:
case Intrinsic::ptr_annotation:
case Intrinsic::var_annotation:
// TODO: the following intrinsics may also be whitelisted:
// lifetime_start, lifetime_end, invariant_start, invariant_end
return true;
}
return false;
}
bool LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::validate(ReductionTracker &Reductions) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// We now need to check for equivalence of the use graph of each root with
// that of the primary induction variable (excluding the roots). Our goal
// here is not to solve the full graph isomorphism problem, but rather to
// catch common cases without a lot of work. As a result, we will assume
// that the relative order of the instructions in each unrolled iteration
// is the same (although we will not make an assumption about how the
// different iterations are intermixed). Note that while the order must be
// the same, the instructions may not be in the same basic block.
// An array of just the possible reductions for this scale factor. When we
// collect the set of all users of some root instructions, these reduction
// instructions are treated as 'final' (their uses are not considered).
// This is important because we don't want the root use set to search down
// the reduction chain.
SmallInstructionSet PossibleRedSet;
SmallInstructionSet PossibleRedLastSet;
SmallInstructionSet PossibleRedPHISet;
Reductions.restrictToScale(Scale, PossibleRedSet,
PossibleRedPHISet, PossibleRedLastSet);
// Populate "Uses" with where each instruction is used.
if (!collectUsedInstructions(PossibleRedSet))
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Make sure we mark the reduction PHIs as used in all iterations.
for (auto *I : PossibleRedPHISet) {
Uses[I].set(IL_All);
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Make sure we mark loop-control-only PHIs as used in all iterations. See
// comment above LoopReroll::isLoopControlIV for more information.
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
if (LoopControlIV && LoopControlIV != IV) {
for (auto *U : LoopControlIV->users()) {
Instruction *IVUser = dyn_cast<Instruction>(U);
// IVUser could be loop increment or compare
Uses[IVUser].set(IL_All);
for (auto *UU : IVUser->users()) {
Instruction *UUser = dyn_cast<Instruction>(UU);
// UUser could be compare, PHI or branch
Uses[UUser].set(IL_All);
// Skip SExt
if (isa<SExtInst>(UUser)) {
UUser = dyn_cast<Instruction>(*(UUser->user_begin()));
Uses[UUser].set(IL_All);
}
// Is UUser a compare instruction?
if (UU->hasOneUse()) {
Instruction *BI = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(*UUser->user_begin());
if (BI == cast<BranchInst>(Header->getTerminator()))
Uses[BI].set(IL_All);
}
}
}
}
// Make sure all instructions in the loop are in one and only one
// set.
for (auto &KV : Uses) {
if (KV.second.count() != 1 && !isIgnorableInst(KV.first)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Aborting - instruction is not used in 1 iteration: "
<< *KV.first << " (#uses=" << KV.second.count() << ")\n");
return false;
}
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
DEBUG(
for (auto &KV : Uses) {
dbgs() << "LRR: " << KV.second.find_first() << "\t" << *KV.first << "\n";
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
for (unsigned Iter = 1; Iter < Scale; ++Iter) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// In addition to regular aliasing information, we need to look for
// instructions from later (future) iterations that have side effects
// preventing us from reordering them past other instructions with side
// effects.
bool FutureSideEffects = false;
AliasSetTracker AST(*AA);
// The map between instructions in f(%iv.(i+1)) and f(%iv).
DenseMap<Value *, Value *> BaseMap;
// Compare iteration Iter to the base.
SmallInstructionSet Visited;
auto BaseIt = nextInstr(0, Uses, Visited);
auto RootIt = nextInstr(Iter, Uses, Visited);
auto LastRootIt = Uses.begin();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
while (BaseIt != Uses.end() && RootIt != Uses.end()) {
Instruction *BaseInst = BaseIt->first;
Instruction *RootInst = RootIt->first;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Skip over the IV or root instructions; only match their users.
bool Continue = false;
if (isBaseInst(BaseInst)) {
Visited.insert(BaseInst);
BaseIt = nextInstr(0, Uses, Visited);
Continue = true;
}
if (isRootInst(RootInst)) {
LastRootIt = RootIt;
Visited.insert(RootInst);
RootIt = nextInstr(Iter, Uses, Visited);
Continue = true;
}
if (Continue) continue;
if (!BaseInst->isSameOperationAs(RootInst)) {
// Last chance saloon. We don't try and solve the full isomorphism
// problem, but try and at least catch the case where two instructions
// *of different types* are round the wrong way. We won't be able to
// efficiently tell, given two ADD instructions, which way around we
// should match them, but given an ADD and a SUB, we can at least infer
// which one is which.
//
// This should allow us to deal with a greater subset of the isomorphism
// problem. It does however change a linear algorithm into a quadratic
// one, so limit the number of probes we do.
auto TryIt = RootIt;
unsigned N = NumToleratedFailedMatches;
while (TryIt != Uses.end() &&
!BaseInst->isSameOperationAs(TryIt->first) &&
N--) {
++TryIt;
TryIt = nextInstr(Iter, Uses, Visited, &TryIt);
}
if (TryIt == Uses.end() || TryIt == RootIt ||
instrDependsOn(TryIt->first, RootIt, TryIt)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst <<
" vs. " << *RootInst << "\n");
return false;
}
RootIt = TryIt;
RootInst = TryIt->first;
}
// All instructions between the last root and this root
// may belong to some other iteration. If they belong to a
// future iteration, then they're dangerous to alias with.
//
// Note that because we allow a limited amount of flexibility in the order
// that we visit nodes, LastRootIt might be *before* RootIt, in which
// case we've already checked this set of instructions so we shouldn't
// do anything.
for (; LastRootIt < RootIt; ++LastRootIt) {
Instruction *I = LastRootIt->first;
if (LastRootIt->second.find_first() < (int)Iter)
continue;
if (I->mayWriteToMemory())
AST.add(I);
// Note: This is specifically guarded by a check on isa<PHINode>,
// which while a valid (somewhat arbitrary) micro-optimization, is
// needed because otherwise isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute returns
// false on PHI nodes.
if (!isa<PHINode>(I) && !isUnorderedLoadStore(I) &&
!isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(I))
// Intervening instructions cause side effects.
FutureSideEffects = true;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
// Make sure that this instruction, which is in the use set of this
// root instruction, does not also belong to the base set or the set of
// some other root instruction.
if (RootIt->second.count() > 1) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst <<
" vs. " << *RootInst << " (prev. case overlap)\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
// Make sure that we don't alias with any instruction in the alias set
// tracker. If we do, then we depend on a future iteration, and we
// can't reroll.
if (RootInst->mayReadFromMemory())
for (auto &K : AST) {
if (K.aliasesUnknownInst(RootInst, *AA)) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst <<
" vs. " << *RootInst << " (depends on future store)\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
// If we've past an instruction from a future iteration that may have
// side effects, and this instruction might also, then we can't reorder
// them, and this matching fails. As an exception, we allow the alias
// set tracker to handle regular (unordered) load/store dependencies.
if (FutureSideEffects && ((!isUnorderedLoadStore(BaseInst) &&
!isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(BaseInst)) ||
(!isUnorderedLoadStore(RootInst) &&
!isSafeToSpeculativelyExecute(RootInst)))) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst <<
" vs. " << *RootInst <<
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
" (side effects prevent reordering)\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
// For instructions that are part of a reduction, if the operation is
// associative, then don't bother matching the operands (because we
// already know that the instructions are isomorphic, and the order
// within the iteration does not matter). For non-associative reductions,
// we do need to match the operands, because we need to reject
// out-of-order instructions within an iteration!
// For example (assume floating-point addition), we need to reject this:
// x += a[i]; x += b[i];
// x += a[i+1]; x += b[i+1];
// x += b[i+2]; x += a[i+2];
bool InReduction = Reductions.isPairInSame(BaseInst, RootInst);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (!(InReduction && BaseInst->isAssociative())) {
bool Swapped = false, SomeOpMatched = false;
for (unsigned j = 0; j < BaseInst->getNumOperands(); ++j) {
Value *Op2 = RootInst->getOperand(j);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// If this is part of a reduction (and the operation is not
// associatve), then we match all operands, but not those that are
// part of the reduction.
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (InReduction)
if (Instruction *Op2I = dyn_cast<Instruction>(Op2))
if (Reductions.isPairInSame(RootInst, Op2I))
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
continue;
DenseMap<Value *, Value *>::iterator BMI = BaseMap.find(Op2);
if (BMI != BaseMap.end()) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
Op2 = BMI->second;
} else {
for (auto &DRS : RootSets) {
if (DRS.Roots[Iter-1] == (Instruction*) Op2) {
Op2 = DRS.BaseInst;
break;
}
}
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (BaseInst->getOperand(Swapped ? unsigned(!j) : j) != Op2) {
// If we've not already decided to swap the matched operands, and
// we've not already matched our first operand (note that we could
// have skipped matching the first operand because it is part of a
// reduction above), and the instruction is commutative, then try
// the swapped match.
if (!Swapped && BaseInst->isCommutative() && !SomeOpMatched &&
BaseInst->getOperand(!j) == Op2) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
Swapped = true;
} else {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst
<< " vs. " << *RootInst << " (operand " << j << ")\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
SomeOpMatched = true;
}
}
if ((!PossibleRedLastSet.count(BaseInst) &&
hasUsesOutsideLoop(BaseInst, L)) ||
(!PossibleRedLastSet.count(RootInst) &&
hasUsesOutsideLoop(RootInst, L))) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration root match failed at " << *BaseInst <<
" vs. " << *RootInst << " (uses outside loop)\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
Reductions.recordPair(BaseInst, RootInst, Iter);
BaseMap.insert(std::make_pair(RootInst, BaseInst));
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
LastRootIt = RootIt;
Visited.insert(BaseInst);
Visited.insert(RootInst);
BaseIt = nextInstr(0, Uses, Visited);
RootIt = nextInstr(Iter, Uses, Visited);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
assert (BaseIt == Uses.end() && RootIt == Uses.end() &&
"Mismatched set sizes!");
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Matched all iteration increments for " <<
*IV << "\n");
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return true;
}
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
void LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::replace(const SCEV *IterCount) {
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Remove instructions associated with non-base iterations.
ADT: Give ilist<T>::reverse_iterator a handle to the current node Reverse iterators to doubly-linked lists can be simpler (and cheaper) than std::reverse_iterator. Make it so. In particular, change ilist<T>::reverse_iterator so that it is *never* invalidated unless the node it references is deleted. This matches the guarantees of ilist<T>::iterator. (Note: MachineBasicBlock::iterator is *not* an ilist iterator, but a MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>. This commit does not change MachineBasicBlock::reverse_iterator, but it does update MachineBasicBlock::reverse_instr_iterator. See note at end of commit message for details on bundle iterators.) Given the list (with the Sentinel showing twice for simplicity): [Sentinel] <-> A <-> B <-> [Sentinel] the following is now true: 1. begin() represents A. 2. begin() holds the pointer for A. 3. end() represents [Sentinel]. 4. end() holds the poitner for [Sentinel]. 5. rbegin() represents B. 6. rbegin() holds the pointer for B. 7. rend() represents [Sentinel]. 8. rend() holds the pointer for [Sentinel]. The changes are #6 and #8. Here are some properties from the old scheme (which used std::reverse_iterator): - rbegin() held the pointer for [Sentinel] and rend() held the pointer for A; - operator*() cost two dereferences instead of one; - converting from a valid iterator to its valid reverse_iterator involved a confusing increment; and - "RI++->erase()" left RI invalid. The unintuitive replacement was "RI->erase(), RE = end()". With vector-like data structures these properties are hard to avoid (since past-the-beginning is not a valid pointer), and don't impose a real cost (since there's still only one dereference, and all iterators are invalidated on erase). But with lists, this was a poor design. Specifically, the following code (which obviously works with normal iterators) now works with ilist::reverse_iterator as well: for (auto RI = L.rbegin(), RE = L.rend(); RI != RE;) fooThatMightRemoveArgFromList(*RI++); Converting between iterator and reverse_iterator for the same node uses the getReverse() function. reverse_iterator iterator::getReverse(); iterator reverse_iterator::getReverse(); Why doesn't iterator <=> reverse_iterator conversion use constructors? In order to catch and update old code, reverse_iterator does not even have an explicit conversion from iterator. It wouldn't be safe because there would be no reasonable way to catch all the bugs from the changed semantic (see the changes at call sites that are part of this patch). Old code used this API: std::reverse_iterator::reverse_iterator(iterator); iterator std::reverse_iterator::base(); Here's how to update from old code to new (that incorporates the semantic change), assuming I is an ilist<>::iterator and RI is an ilist<>::reverse_iterator: [Old] ==> [New] reverse_iterator(I) (--I).getReverse() reverse_iterator(I) ++I.getReverse() --reverse_iterator(I) I.getReverse() reverse_iterator(++I) I.getReverse() RI.base() (--RI).getReverse() RI.base() ++RI.getReverse() --RI.base() RI.getReverse() (++RI).base() RI.getReverse() delete &*RI, RE = end() delete &*RI++ RI->erase(), RE = end() RI++->erase() ======================================= Note: bundle iterators are out of scope ======================================= MachineBasicBlock::iterator, also known as MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>, is a wrapper to represent MachineInstr bundles. The idea is that each operator++ takes you to the beginning of the next bundle. Implementing a sane reverse iterator for this is harder than ilist. Here are the options: - Use std::reverse_iterator<MBB::i>. Store a handle to the beginning of the next bundle. A call to operator*() runs a loop (usually operator--() will be called 1 time, for unbundled instructions). Increment/decrement just works. This is the status quo. - Store a handle to the final node in the bundle. A call to operator*() still runs a loop, but it iterates one time fewer (usually operator--() will be called 0 times, for unbundled instructions). Increment/decrement just works. - Make the ilist_sentinel<MachineInstr> *always* store that it's the sentinel (instead of just in asserts mode). Then the bundle iterator can sniff the sentinel bit in operator++(). I initially tried implementing the end() option as part of this commit, but updating iterator/reverse_iterator conversion call sites was error-prone. I have a WIP series of patches that implements the final option. llvm-svn: 280032
2016-08-30 08:13:12 +08:00
for (BasicBlock::reverse_iterator J = Header->rbegin(), JE = Header->rend();
J != JE;) {
unsigned I = Uses[&*J].find_first();
if (I > 0 && I < IL_All) {
ADT: Give ilist<T>::reverse_iterator a handle to the current node Reverse iterators to doubly-linked lists can be simpler (and cheaper) than std::reverse_iterator. Make it so. In particular, change ilist<T>::reverse_iterator so that it is *never* invalidated unless the node it references is deleted. This matches the guarantees of ilist<T>::iterator. (Note: MachineBasicBlock::iterator is *not* an ilist iterator, but a MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>. This commit does not change MachineBasicBlock::reverse_iterator, but it does update MachineBasicBlock::reverse_instr_iterator. See note at end of commit message for details on bundle iterators.) Given the list (with the Sentinel showing twice for simplicity): [Sentinel] <-> A <-> B <-> [Sentinel] the following is now true: 1. begin() represents A. 2. begin() holds the pointer for A. 3. end() represents [Sentinel]. 4. end() holds the poitner for [Sentinel]. 5. rbegin() represents B. 6. rbegin() holds the pointer for B. 7. rend() represents [Sentinel]. 8. rend() holds the pointer for [Sentinel]. The changes are #6 and #8. Here are some properties from the old scheme (which used std::reverse_iterator): - rbegin() held the pointer for [Sentinel] and rend() held the pointer for A; - operator*() cost two dereferences instead of one; - converting from a valid iterator to its valid reverse_iterator involved a confusing increment; and - "RI++->erase()" left RI invalid. The unintuitive replacement was "RI->erase(), RE = end()". With vector-like data structures these properties are hard to avoid (since past-the-beginning is not a valid pointer), and don't impose a real cost (since there's still only one dereference, and all iterators are invalidated on erase). But with lists, this was a poor design. Specifically, the following code (which obviously works with normal iterators) now works with ilist::reverse_iterator as well: for (auto RI = L.rbegin(), RE = L.rend(); RI != RE;) fooThatMightRemoveArgFromList(*RI++); Converting between iterator and reverse_iterator for the same node uses the getReverse() function. reverse_iterator iterator::getReverse(); iterator reverse_iterator::getReverse(); Why doesn't iterator <=> reverse_iterator conversion use constructors? In order to catch and update old code, reverse_iterator does not even have an explicit conversion from iterator. It wouldn't be safe because there would be no reasonable way to catch all the bugs from the changed semantic (see the changes at call sites that are part of this patch). Old code used this API: std::reverse_iterator::reverse_iterator(iterator); iterator std::reverse_iterator::base(); Here's how to update from old code to new (that incorporates the semantic change), assuming I is an ilist<>::iterator and RI is an ilist<>::reverse_iterator: [Old] ==> [New] reverse_iterator(I) (--I).getReverse() reverse_iterator(I) ++I.getReverse() --reverse_iterator(I) I.getReverse() reverse_iterator(++I) I.getReverse() RI.base() (--RI).getReverse() RI.base() ++RI.getReverse() --RI.base() RI.getReverse() (++RI).base() RI.getReverse() delete &*RI, RE = end() delete &*RI++ RI->erase(), RE = end() RI++->erase() ======================================= Note: bundle iterators are out of scope ======================================= MachineBasicBlock::iterator, also known as MachineInstrBundleIterator<MachineInstr>, is a wrapper to represent MachineInstr bundles. The idea is that each operator++ takes you to the beginning of the next bundle. Implementing a sane reverse iterator for this is harder than ilist. Here are the options: - Use std::reverse_iterator<MBB::i>. Store a handle to the beginning of the next bundle. A call to operator*() runs a loop (usually operator--() will be called 1 time, for unbundled instructions). Increment/decrement just works. This is the status quo. - Store a handle to the final node in the bundle. A call to operator*() still runs a loop, but it iterates one time fewer (usually operator--() will be called 0 times, for unbundled instructions). Increment/decrement just works. - Make the ilist_sentinel<MachineInstr> *always* store that it's the sentinel (instead of just in asserts mode). Then the bundle iterator can sniff the sentinel bit in operator++(). I initially tried implementing the end() option as part of this commit, but updating iterator/reverse_iterator conversion call sites was error-prone. I have a WIP series of patches that implements the final option. llvm-svn: 280032
2016-08-30 08:13:12 +08:00
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: removing: " << *J << "\n");
J++->eraseFromParent();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
continue;
}
++J;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
bool HasTwoIVs = LoopControlIV && LoopControlIV != IV;
if (HasTwoIVs) {
updateNonLoopCtrlIncr();
replaceIV(LoopControlIV, LoopControlIV, IterCount);
} else
// We need to create a new induction variable for each different BaseInst.
for (auto &DRS : RootSets)
// Insert the new induction variable.
replaceIV(DRS.BaseInst, IV, IterCount);
SimplifyInstructionsInBlock(Header, TLI);
DeleteDeadPHIs(Header, TLI);
}
// For non-loop-control IVs, we only need to update the last increment
// with right amount, then we are done.
void LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::updateNonLoopCtrlIncr() {
const SCEV *NewInc = nullptr;
for (auto *LoopInc : LoopIncs) {
GetElementPtrInst *GEP = dyn_cast<GetElementPtrInst>(LoopInc);
const SCEVConstant *COp = nullptr;
if (GEP && LoopInc->getOperand(0)->getType()->isPointerTy()) {
COp = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SE->getSCEV(LoopInc->getOperand(1)));
} else {
COp = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SE->getSCEV(LoopInc->getOperand(0)));
if (!COp)
COp = dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(SE->getSCEV(LoopInc->getOperand(1)));
}
assert(COp && "Didn't find constant operand of LoopInc!\n");
const APInt &AInt = COp->getValue()->getValue();
const SCEV *ScaleSCEV = SE->getConstant(COp->getType(), Scale);
if (AInt.isNegative()) {
NewInc = SE->getNegativeSCEV(COp);
NewInc = SE->getUDivExpr(NewInc, ScaleSCEV);
NewInc = SE->getNegativeSCEV(NewInc);
} else
NewInc = SE->getUDivExpr(COp, ScaleSCEV);
LoopInc->setOperand(1, dyn_cast<SCEVConstant>(NewInc)->getValue());
}
}
void LoopReroll::DAGRootTracker::replaceIV(Instruction *Inst,
Instruction *InstIV,
const SCEV *IterCount) {
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
int64_t Inc = IVToIncMap[InstIV];
bool NeedNewIV = InstIV == LoopControlIV;
bool Negative = !NeedNewIV && Inc < 0;
const SCEVAddRecExpr *RealIVSCEV = cast<SCEVAddRecExpr>(SE->getSCEV(Inst));
const SCEV *Start = RealIVSCEV->getStart();
if (NeedNewIV)
Start = SE->getConstant(Start->getType(), 0);
const SCEV *SizeOfExpr = nullptr;
const SCEV *IncrExpr =
SE->getConstant(RealIVSCEV->getType(), Negative ? -1 : 1);
if (auto *PTy = dyn_cast<PointerType>(Inst->getType())) {
Type *ElTy = PTy->getElementType();
SizeOfExpr =
SE->getSizeOfExpr(SE->getEffectiveSCEVType(Inst->getType()), ElTy);
IncrExpr = SE->getMulExpr(IncrExpr, SizeOfExpr);
}
const SCEV *NewIVSCEV =
SE->getAddRecExpr(Start, IncrExpr, L, SCEV::FlagAnyWrap);
{ // Limit the lifetime of SCEVExpander.
const DataLayout &DL = Header->getModule()->getDataLayout();
SCEVExpander Expander(*SE, DL, "reroll");
Value *NewIV =
Expander.expandCodeFor(NewIVSCEV, InstIV->getType(), &Header->front());
for (auto &KV : Uses)
if (KV.second.find_first() == 0)
KV.first->replaceUsesOfWith(Inst, NewIV);
if (BranchInst *BI = dyn_cast<BranchInst>(Header->getTerminator())) {
// FIXME: Why do we need this check?
if (Uses[BI].find_first() == IL_All) {
const SCEV *ICSCEV = RealIVSCEV->evaluateAtIteration(IterCount, *SE);
if (NeedNewIV)
ICSCEV = SE->getMulExpr(IterCount,
SE->getConstant(IterCount->getType(), Scale));
// Iteration count SCEV minus or plus 1
const SCEV *MinusPlus1SCEV =
SE->getConstant(ICSCEV->getType(), Negative ? -1 : 1);
if (Inst->getType()->isPointerTy()) {
assert(SizeOfExpr && "SizeOfExpr is not initialized");
MinusPlus1SCEV = SE->getMulExpr(MinusPlus1SCEV, SizeOfExpr);
}
const SCEV *ICMinusPlus1SCEV = SE->getMinusSCEV(ICSCEV, MinusPlus1SCEV);
// Iteration count minus 1
Instruction *InsertPtr = nullptr;
if (isa<SCEVConstant>(ICMinusPlus1SCEV)) {
InsertPtr = BI;
} else {
BasicBlock *Preheader = L->getLoopPreheader();
if (!Preheader)
Preheader = InsertPreheaderForLoop(L, DT, LI, PreserveLCSSA);
InsertPtr = Preheader->getTerminator();
}
if (!isa<PointerType>(NewIV->getType()) && NeedNewIV &&
(SE->getTypeSizeInBits(NewIV->getType()) <
SE->getTypeSizeInBits(ICMinusPlus1SCEV->getType()))) {
IRBuilder<> Builder(BI);
Builder.SetCurrentDebugLocation(BI->getDebugLoc());
NewIV = Builder.CreateSExt(NewIV, ICMinusPlus1SCEV->getType());
}
Value *ICMinusPlus1 = Expander.expandCodeFor(
ICMinusPlus1SCEV, NewIV->getType(), InsertPtr);
Value *Cond =
new ICmpInst(BI, CmpInst::ICMP_EQ, NewIV, ICMinusPlus1, "exitcond");
BI->setCondition(Cond);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (BI->getSuccessor(1) != Header)
BI->swapSuccessors();
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
}
}
}
// Validate the selected reductions. All iterations must have an isomorphic
// part of the reduction chain and, for non-associative reductions, the chain
// entries must appear in order.
bool LoopReroll::ReductionTracker::validateSelected() {
// For a non-associative reduction, the chain entries must appear in order.
for (int i : Reds) {
int PrevIter = 0, BaseCount = 0, Count = 0;
for (Instruction *J : PossibleReds[i]) {
// Note that all instructions in the chain must have been found because
// all instructions in the function must have been assigned to some
// iteration.
int Iter = PossibleRedIter[J];
if (Iter != PrevIter && Iter != PrevIter + 1 &&
!PossibleReds[i].getReducedValue()->isAssociative()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Out-of-order non-associative reduction: " <<
J << "\n");
return false;
}
if (Iter != PrevIter) {
if (Count != BaseCount) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Iteration " << PrevIter <<
" reduction use count " << Count <<
" is not equal to the base use count " <<
BaseCount << "\n");
return false;
}
Count = 0;
}
++Count;
if (Iter == 0)
++BaseCount;
PrevIter = Iter;
}
}
return true;
}
// For all selected reductions, remove all parts except those in the first
// iteration (and the PHI). Replace outside uses of the reduced value with uses
// of the first-iteration reduced value (in other words, reroll the selected
// reductions).
void LoopReroll::ReductionTracker::replaceSelected() {
// Fixup reductions to refer to the last instruction associated with the
// first iteration (not the last).
for (int i : Reds) {
int j = 0;
for (int e = PossibleReds[i].size(); j != e; ++j)
if (PossibleRedIter[PossibleReds[i][j]] != 0) {
--j;
break;
}
// Replace users with the new end-of-chain value.
SmallInstructionVector Users;
for (User *U : PossibleReds[i].getReducedValue()->users()) {
Users.push_back(cast<Instruction>(U));
}
for (Instruction *User : Users)
User->replaceUsesOfWith(PossibleReds[i].getReducedValue(),
PossibleReds[i][j]);
}
}
// Reroll the provided loop with respect to the provided induction variable.
// Generally, we're looking for a loop like this:
//
// %iv = phi [ (preheader, ...), (body, %iv.next) ]
// f(%iv)
// %iv.1 = add %iv, 1 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.1)
// %iv.2 = add %iv, 2 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.2)
// %iv.scale_m_1 = add %iv, scale-1 <-- a root increment
// f(%iv.scale_m_1)
// ...
// %iv.next = add %iv, scale
// %cmp = icmp(%iv, ...)
// br %cmp, header, exit
//
// Notably, we do not require that f(%iv), f(%iv.1), etc. be isolated groups of
// instructions. In other words, the instructions in f(%iv), f(%iv.1), etc. can
// be intermixed with eachother. The restriction imposed by this algorithm is
// that the relative order of the isomorphic instructions in f(%iv), f(%iv.1),
// etc. be the same.
//
// First, we collect the use set of %iv, excluding the other increment roots.
// This gives us f(%iv). Then we iterate over the loop instructions (scale-1)
// times, having collected the use set of f(%iv.(i+1)), during which we:
// - Ensure that the next unmatched instruction in f(%iv) is isomorphic to
// the next unmatched instruction in f(%iv.(i+1)).
// - Ensure that both matched instructions don't have any external users
// (with the exception of last-in-chain reduction instructions).
// - Track the (aliasing) write set, and other side effects, of all
// instructions that belong to future iterations that come before the matched
// instructions. If the matched instructions read from that write set, then
// f(%iv) or f(%iv.(i+1)) has some dependency on instructions in
// f(%iv.(j+1)) for some j > i, and we cannot reroll the loop. Similarly,
// if any of these future instructions had side effects (could not be
// speculatively executed), and so do the matched instructions, when we
// cannot reorder those side-effect-producing instructions, and rerolling
// fails.
//
// Finally, we make sure that all loop instructions are either loop increment
// roots, belong to simple latch code, parts of validated reductions, part of
// f(%iv) or part of some f(%iv.i). If all of that is true (and all reductions
// have been validated), then we reroll the loop.
bool LoopReroll::reroll(Instruction *IV, Loop *L, BasicBlock *Header,
const SCEV *IterCount,
ReductionTracker &Reductions) {
DAGRootTracker DAGRoots(this, L, IV, SE, AA, TLI, DT, LI, PreserveLCSSA,
IVToIncMap, LoopControlIV);
if (!DAGRoots.findRoots())
return false;
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: Found all root induction increments for: " <<
*IV << "\n");
if (!DAGRoots.validate(Reductions))
return false;
if (!Reductions.validateSelected())
return false;
// At this point, we've validated the rerolling, and we're committed to
// making changes!
Reductions.replaceSelected();
DAGRoots.replace(IterCount);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
++NumRerolledLoops;
return true;
}
bool LoopReroll::runOnLoop(Loop *L, LPPassManager &LPM) {
if (skipLoop(L))
return false;
[PM/AA] Rebuild LLVM's alias analysis infrastructure in a way compatible with the new pass manager, and no longer relying on analysis groups. This builds essentially a ground-up new AA infrastructure stack for LLVM. The core ideas are the same that are used throughout the new pass manager: type erased polymorphism and direct composition. The design is as follows: - FunctionAAResults is a type-erasing alias analysis results aggregation interface to walk a single query across a range of results from different alias analyses. Currently this is function-specific as we always assume that aliasing queries are *within* a function. - AAResultBase is a CRTP utility providing stub implementations of various parts of the alias analysis result concept, notably in several cases in terms of other more general parts of the interface. This can be used to implement only a narrow part of the interface rather than the entire interface. This isn't really ideal, this logic should be hoisted into FunctionAAResults as currently it will cause a significant amount of redundant work, but it faithfully models the behavior of the prior infrastructure. - All the alias analysis passes are ported to be wrapper passes for the legacy PM and new-style analysis passes for the new PM with a shared result object. In some cases (most notably CFL), this is an extremely naive approach that we should revisit when we can specialize for the new pass manager. - BasicAA has been restructured to reflect that it is much more fundamentally a function analysis because it uses dominator trees and loop info that need to be constructed for each function. All of the references to getting alias analysis results have been updated to use the new aggregation interface. All the preservation and other pass management code has been updated accordingly. The way the FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass works is to detect the available alias analyses when run, and add them to the results object. This means that we should be able to continue to respect when various passes are added to the pipeline, for example adding CFL or adding TBAA passes should just cause their results to be available and to get folded into this. The exception to this rule is BasicAA which really needs to be a function pass due to using dominator trees and loop info. As a consequence, the FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass directly depends on BasicAA and always includes it in the aggregation. This has significant implications for preserving analyses. Generally, most passes shouldn't bother preserving FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass because rebuilding the results just updates the set of known AA passes. The exception to this rule are LoopPass instances which need to preserve all the function analyses that the loop pass manager will end up needing. This means preserving both BasicAAWrapperPass and the aggregating FunctionAAResultsWrapperPass. Now, when preserving an alias analysis, you do so by directly preserving that analysis. This is only necessary for non-immutable-pass-provided alias analyses though, and there are only three of interest: BasicAA, GlobalsAA (formerly GlobalsModRef), and SCEVAA. Usually BasicAA is preserved when needed because it (like DominatorTree and LoopInfo) is marked as a CFG-only pass. I've expanded GlobalsAA into the preserved set everywhere we previously were preserving all of AliasAnalysis, and I've added SCEVAA in the intersection of that with where we preserve SCEV itself. One significant challenge to all of this is that the CGSCC passes were actually using the alias analysis implementations by taking advantage of a pretty amazing set of loop holes in the old pass manager's analysis management code which allowed analysis groups to slide through in many cases. Moving away from analysis groups makes this problem much more obvious. To fix it, I've leveraged the flexibility the design of the new PM components provides to just directly construct the relevant alias analyses for the relevant functions in the IPO passes that need them. This is a bit hacky, but should go away with the new pass manager, and is already in many ways cleaner than the prior state. Another significant challenge is that various facilities of the old alias analysis infrastructure just don't fit any more. The most significant of these is the alias analysis 'counter' pass. That pass relied on the ability to snoop on AA queries at different points in the analysis group chain. Instead, I'm planning to build printing functionality directly into the aggregation layer. I've not included that in this patch merely to keep it smaller. Note that all of this needs a nearly complete rewrite of the AA documentation. I'm planning to do that, but I'd like to make sure the new design settles, and to flesh out a bit more of what it looks like in the new pass manager first. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12080 llvm-svn: 247167
2015-09-10 01:55:00 +08:00
AA = &getAnalysis<AAResultsWrapperPass>().getAAResults();
LI = &getAnalysis<LoopInfoWrapperPass>().getLoopInfo();
[PM] Port ScalarEvolution to the new pass manager. This change makes ScalarEvolution a stand-alone object and just produces one from a pass as needed. Making this work well requires making the object movable, using references instead of overwritten pointers in a number of places, and other refactorings. I've also wired it up to the new pass manager and added a RUN line to a test to exercise it under the new pass manager. This includes basic printing support much like with other analyses. But there is a big and somewhat scary change here. Prior to this patch ScalarEvolution was never *actually* invalidated!!! Re-running the pass just re-wired up the various other analyses and didn't remove any of the existing entries in the SCEV caches or clear out anything at all. This might seem OK as everything in SCEV that can uses ValueHandles to track updates to the values that serve as SCEV keys. However, this still means that as we ran SCEV over each function in the module, we kept accumulating more and more SCEVs into the cache. At the end, we would have a SCEV cache with every value that we ever needed a SCEV for in the entire module!!! Yowzers. The releaseMemory routine would dump all of this, but that isn't realy called during normal runs of the pipeline as far as I can see. To make matters worse, there *is* actually a key that we don't update with value handles -- there is a map keyed off of Loop*s. Because LoopInfo *does* release its memory from run to run, it is entirely possible to run SCEV over one function, then over another function, and then lookup a Loop* from the second function but find an entry inserted for the first function! Ouch. To make matters still worse, there are plenty of updates that *don't* trip a value handle. It seems incredibly unlikely that today GVN or another pass that invalidates SCEV can update values in *just* such a way that a subsequent run of SCEV will incorrectly find lookups in a cache, but it is theoretically possible and would be a nightmare to debug. With this refactoring, I've fixed all this by actually destroying and recreating the ScalarEvolution object from run to run. Technically, this could increase the amount of malloc traffic we see, but then again it is also technically correct. ;] I don't actually think we're suffering from tons of malloc traffic from SCEV because if we were, the fact that we never clear the memory would seem more likely to have come up as an actual problem before now. So, I've made the simple fix here. If in fact there are serious issues with too much allocation and deallocation, I can work on a clever fix that preserves the allocations (while clearing the data) between each run, but I'd prefer to do that kind of optimization with a test case / benchmark that shows why we need such cleverness (and that can test that we actually make it faster). It's possible that this will make some things faster by making the SCEV caches have higher locality (due to being significantly smaller) so until there is a clear benchmark, I think the simple change is best. Differential Revision: http://reviews.llvm.org/D12063 llvm-svn: 245193
2015-08-17 10:08:17 +08:00
SE = &getAnalysis<ScalarEvolutionWrapperPass>().getSE();
TLI = &getAnalysis<TargetLibraryInfoWrapperPass>().getTLI();
DT = &getAnalysis<DominatorTreeWrapperPass>().getDomTree();
PreserveLCSSA = mustPreserveAnalysisID(LCSSAID);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
BasicBlock *Header = L->getHeader();
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: F[" << Header->getParent()->getName() <<
"] Loop %" << Header->getName() << " (" <<
L->getNumBlocks() << " block(s))\n");
// For now, we'll handle only single BB loops.
if (L->getNumBlocks() > 1)
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
if (!SE->hasLoopInvariantBackedgeTakenCount(L))
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
const SCEV *LIBETC = SE->getBackedgeTakenCount(L);
const SCEV *IterCount = SE->getAddExpr(LIBETC, SE->getOne(LIBETC->getType()));
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n Before Reroll:\n" << *(L->getHeader()) << "\n");
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: iteration count = " << *IterCount << "\n");
// First, we need to find the induction variable with respect to which we can
// reroll (there may be several possible options).
SmallInstructionVector PossibleIVs;
IVToIncMap.clear();
LoopControlIV = nullptr;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
collectPossibleIVs(L, PossibleIVs);
if (PossibleIVs.empty()) {
DEBUG(dbgs() << "LRR: No possible IVs found\n");
return false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
}
ReductionTracker Reductions;
collectPossibleReductions(L, Reductions);
bool Changed = false;
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// For each possible IV, collect the associated possible set of 'root' nodes
// (i+1, i+2, etc.).
for (Instruction *PossibleIV : PossibleIVs)
if (reroll(PossibleIV, L, Header, IterCount, Reductions)) {
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
Changed = true;
break;
}
DEBUG(dbgs() << "\n After Reroll:\n" << *(L->getHeader()) << "\n");
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
// Trip count of L has changed so SE must be re-evaluated.
if (Changed)
SE->forgetLoop(L);
Add a loop rerolling pass This adds a loop rerolling pass: the opposite of (partial) loop unrolling. The transformation aims to take loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; i += 5) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; a[i + 1] += alpha * b[i + 1]; a[i + 2] += alpha * b[i + 2]; a[i + 3] += alpha * b[i + 3]; a[i + 4] += alpha * b[i + 4]; } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 3200; ++i) { a[i] += alpha * b[i]; } and loops like this: for (int i = 0; i < 500; ++i) { x[3*i] = foo(0); x[3*i+1] = foo(0); x[3*i+2] = foo(0); } and turn them into this: for (int i = 0; i < 1500; ++i) { x[i] = foo(0); } There are two motivations for this transformation: 1. Code-size reduction (especially relevant, obviously, when compiling for code size). 2. Providing greater choice to the loop vectorizer (and generic unroller) to choose the unrolling factor (and a better ability to vectorize). The loop vectorizer can take vector lengths and register pressure into account when choosing an unrolling factor, for example, and a pre-unrolled loop limits that choice. This is especially problematic if the manual unrolling was optimized for a machine different from the current target. The current implementation is limited to single basic-block loops only. The rerolling recognition should work regardless of how the loop iterations are intermixed within the loop body (subject to dependency and side-effect constraints), but the significant restriction is that the order of the instructions in each iteration must be identical. This seems sufficient to capture all current use cases. This pass is not currently enabled by default at any optimization level. llvm-svn: 194939
2013-11-17 07:59:05 +08:00
return Changed;
}